@H2O MAN,
Quote:Nope, we are a constitutional republic governed by the rule of law.
Now that's hilarious, h2oboy. Care to make a guess at how many laws were broken by just the Reagan band of criminals?
@JTT,
jtt, you couldn't come up with a logical response... that's typical.
Reply to H2O
No, and if you take the time to re-read the last half dozen posts above my last one, you will see that you were mildly slapped down by hawkeye regarding your request for Nato forces to remove Obama. His reasoning was that your country was a democracy.
You then corrected him and blathered on about being a Republic and then wrote ......"if that fails, the law compels us to bear arms and".. blah blah blah.
As you are strongly requesting that arms be used against Obama, even a simpleton like me can be forgiven for assuming that the "if that fails" box has been ticked.
I was simply asking HOW it had failed.
Finding it hard to answer, are you?
So, H2O, rather than getting into a ping pong of point scoring off one another (fun though it is), how's about giving a straight forward answer to a straight forward question. Then we can all get back to reading and learning about the Libya thing without you constantly whining about Obama, in this and other threads. You can have an opportunity to attempt his removal at the next election.
Q. Is he your rightful democratic leader, and thereby fully entitled to be the present President of the USA?
@Old Goat,
blah blah blah, you should try and form a logical response next time.
Can you do that?
@H2O MAN,
Now you're showing yourself up.
Answer the question.....I'll even say pretty please. Anything to stop you whining!
Pretty please?
@H2O MAN,
Did not.
Did so.
And your answer to the question is?
@H2O MAN,
And your answer to,
Care to make a guess at how many laws were broken by just the Reagan band of criminals?
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:
Nope, we are a constitutional republic governed by the rule of law.
The law says we use the ballot box and vote... if that fails, the law compels us to bear arms and remove the cancer.
I may have tried to tell you this before, but republics and even Feudal and slave societies have their democratic elements... Just becaause I would never call it a democracy does not mean others might not see it as a democracy... We do not have the rights and protections a democracy would give us.. We elect personalities rather than voting on issues... The power we have given to the government is equalled by the power the parties have taken for themselves... They have divided the people down to their districts which are neatly divided to make victory for one side certain, but which make support uncertain... If it is a constitutional republic, many of the changes were made to it were made outside of the constitution, but it would take a change of the constitution as unlikely as that is to change things back... The bottom line is: The thing does not work, and if it did, no president would dare to take the country to war on a whim without a debate, and honest vote, and a declaration of war...
SO...I see that NATO has decided to come clean about how we are trying to assassinate that bad boy Gadhaffi...sure took long enough.
Quote:The fundamental error by the White House and NATO was to imagine that the Libyan people were united in opposition to Gadhafi," he said.
"In reality, Libya is divided along lines of clan and tribe, some of whom benefit greatly from Gadhafi, and therefore defend him fiercely," he said. "Any expert on ethnic conflict and intervention could have told the White House that ahead of time."
In that respect, said Thomas Donnelly, director of the Center for Defense Studies, the Libyan war has the potential for fallout that is worse than what happened after President George W. Bush declared "mission accomplished" weeks after Saddam Hussein's 2003 ouster in the Iraq war.
"To imagine that Libyans are going to come together -- is a hope, but not a plan," Donnelly said. "It was a mistake to get involved in such a feckless way."
Behind the rhetorical rallying cry of protecting civilians, Donnelly said, has always been the real aim of NATO -- to kill Gadhafi.
http://us.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/06/29/analysis.libya.war/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
We will probably get him, and we will be diminished in the process....military planning bungling and fundamental dishonesty have a way of causing that..
Quote:Behind the rhetorical rallying cry of protecting civilians, Donnelly said, has always been the real aim of NATO -- to kill Gadhafi.
He's like a cat with nine lives!!!
@Irishk,
Irishk wrote:
Quote:Behind the rhetorical rallying cry of protecting civilians, Donnelly said, has always been the real aim of NATO -- to kill Gadhafi.
He's like a cat with nine lives!!!
Nothing new there...that the West went onto this war so ignorant of Gadhafi's skills and of the extent of his backing with-in Libya is telling, as there was no excuse for this level of poor understanding of reality.
And now we're bombing Somalia. War #6!!!
@cicerone imposter,
Bill Clinton was on CNN today saying that when ever the world community thinks that a lead of a country is prepared and willing to kill "a lot" of countrymen that the global community has the right to remove that power by force. Wow...
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Bill Clinton was on CNN today saying that when ever the world community thinks that a lead of a country is prepared and willing to kill "a lot" of countrymen that the global community has the right to remove that power by force. Wow...
And I thought he was unfaithful to his wife.... So he is not unfaithful to his wife, but to all we should stand for as well as common sense... He is an ass wipe..
Commander-in-Chief Obama:
During the 2008 election, Afghanistan was the Good War. As a punk US Senator from Illinois he did all he could with his "absences" to scuttle the effort in Iraq, but running for POTUS he told the country that Bush neglected Afghanistan, but he would put things right.
When the time came to make good on his campaign promises, he dithered for months on whether or not to approve a "surge" in troops in Afghanistan.
He listened to his generals for a few hours and then consulted with his political advisors for weeks.
In the end, he went with a surge, although not the size his generals recommended.
OK...it did appear that he might be able to put politics aside.
Wrong.
For the sake of politics he's decided to pull out faster than his generals recommend. In essence, he's accepted the possibility, if not certainty, that the US will not be victorious after 10 years and numerous American casualties.
Better to not have approved the surge in the first place.
Somehow though, despite his intense opposition to the Iraqi War and fickle support of the Afghani Good War, he's decided that we should be intervening in Libya. Albeit leading from behind.
We're paying about 70% of the cost of NATO intervention, and he's bitching about tax breaks for private jets.
What should have been a quick resolution has, not unexpectedly, turned into a slog with the only plus being that none of our folks have been killed yet.
Thank you Hague for indicting Khadaffi...now there is no chance that he will voluntarily leave the country.
So let's say NATO kills him (not a bad outcome)...what happens next?
The rebels emulate our Founding Fathers and establish a true and vital democracy; allowing us to take our war machine and go home?
Or
Libya falls into a state of violent chaos as factions fight among themselves and as many people die as when the Dictator was in power?
Will CIC Obama pull out and allow the slaughter of innocent Libyans, or will he explain to us that we must not only stay engaged, but put boots on the ground?
@Finn dAbuzz,
Why does the dumber set of Yanks seem to relish bragging about the war crimes committed by their governments?
