Reply With Quote
Say El...
Is your new motto:
Thanks God for UNITED ABOMINATION
If you want to stick with the UN resolution thing, remember, we gave Saddam repeated chances to comply. What was it, two days after resolution 1973 that we attacked?
Did the scope of resolution 1970 or 1973 have anything to do with US security like the resolutions Saddam violated did?
Say El...
Is your new motto:
Thanks God for UNITED ABOMINATION
Why are these peaceful protesters armed, and firing weapons?
I don't get your point. We didn't have any more 'interests' in Panama than we did in Iraq or Lybia. That's why when the dictator was overthrown, we moved on.
Did Panama or Iraq attacked the US? Yes or no question. Should be simple to answer.
Was any attacked? Did Panama start hostilities with the US? Again, yes or no. Fairly simple questions.
Irrelevant. Who is the legally elected head of state in China? Is Gaddafi a legally elected head of state?
Did Panama at any point attack forces controlling the Panama canal?
Yes or No. Should be very easy to answer.
Actually, the US invaded Iraq mere days after failing to secure a UN resolution to approve the invasion. I see your selective memory is acting up again.
What in Iraq had to do with US security?
The mobile anthrax trucks that were never found?
I thought we were there to 'liberate' them... that was after God talked to the prez and told him he had to do it... /facepalm
I'm sure an authoritarian, stalker and racist like you know a thing or two about abominations...
You're losing it El.
No black surgeons: check
Stalking on MySpace: check
Shooting brown people at the border: check
I'm losing it?
If you believe those as portrayed.No black surgeons: check
Stalking on MySpace: check
Shooting brown people at the border: check
I'm losing it?
Yes.
You didn't leave any room for doubt... that's why I'm hardly the only one pointing it out...
BTW, you were wrong again... I don't expect you to own up to it though...
Since you are a fan of misrepresenting the truth, I will no longer waste my time with you.
Bye loser.
Turns out Saddam had also made some serious changes and was not a threat to us or other nations.
Bush invaded because he committed to invasion long before any congressional resolution.
Thanks for proving there was no authorization in Panama.
Hindsight is 20-20. He didn't allow us to verify.
We've been through all these arguments before. Have anything new?
Here's a little interview from the past:
Here's one of the comments on that YouTube page which I believed from the start:
Libyan Rebels ARE NOT freedom fighters. Rebels ARE NOT fighting for Democracy, equal rights or a secular state. These Extremists are fighting to remove Gaddafi who Fought Radical Wahabbi Islam & Islamists for last 30 years. These "Rebels" want a Wahabbi Theocracy, why is USA helping them? There are over 6 Million people in Libya, only 1000 (Benghazi Wahabbi Extremists connected to Al-Qaeda & Hezbollah) are fighting Gaddafi. If 1000 KKK wanted to Kill Obama, should UN & World bomb Obama & USA ??
lol YouTube comments
Nothing new to add. Bush was wrong to invade Iraq. It was a horrible, foolish decision that needlessly killed thousands of Americans.
And WC, tell me which president thought he was truly bound by the provisions of the War Powers Act.
Give me some names.
we verified....and blix was right.
I will not disagree that you have a widely shared opinion on that. I disagree with that opinion however. I am trying to make the point that we had far more reasons to go into Iraq than we did to do anything against Libya.
Do you agree or disagree that there were several more stated reasons with Iraq?
As for this Panama example, how many military bases do we have in Libya? How many more did we have in Panama? How long had Qafhafi been the leader? Do you know who the elected leader was in Panama went we went in? It wasn't Noriega.
How many US citizens were in Panama when this all started? How about Libya. How many US citizens were there?
Which is part of the Americas?
Which had other direct impacts like drug trade, the Panama canal, etc. etc.
Are there significant differences in US interests of these three nations or not?
Even if you want to say Iraq had little interest for us, congress did vote to let president Bush take action.
Sorry, I'm not doing your homework. You tell us if you wish to go that route. I will agree it is an act that has been abused.
you still haven't given any legitimate reasons for iraq.
Yes I have, in the past anyway. Not my problem that people have differing views on what is legitimate and what isn't. I'm not going to change your mind, so why should I waste my time more than I already do?
that water must be heavy.
There was no direct threat to any US interest in Panama. There was trouble when the US military deliberately harassed the PDF and vice-versa, and that was used as a pretext for war.
It all boils down to thinking a guy is a bad guy and he should be taken out before he does something else bad. In that respect, there is no difference in any of these situations.
The answer is none. I was just seeing if you were ignorant of that fact. You are.
And US oil companies have been working in Libya for years now -- and you say that isn't a US interest
Oil is a global commodity. One country doesn't matter. If we were concerned about their oil, we wouldn't have helped start this civil war.And US oil companies have been working in Libya for years now -- and you say that isn't a US interest
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
