Reply With Quote
I didn't think Germany was ever in. Didn't they abstain on the NFZ vote?
I didn't think Germany was ever in. Didn't they abstain on the NFZ vote?
They had two ships and some AWAC's participating.
The President has already been criticised for continuing with a tour of Latin America as the military operation over Libya began. And yesterday he insisted again that while Gaddafi must go, the U.S. is not prepared to remove him by force, but merely to enforce the no-fly zone. Even that hesitant stance, which has already earned him the le of the Great Vacillator, left him criticised for not seeking proper approval from Congress before sending the American military in.
Germany was never in it
what's next? Russia and China pull out?
another dumbass thread by CC
Why coulnt' Obama do like Bush and keep his coalition intact, I never heard of Palau or El Salvador bailing out when we attacked Iraq.
So we have hte people who were critcizing him for not getting in sooner..to now slam him for not having a plan once he got us into the situation.
We have people who criticize him for not showing leadership to get kaddafi out.. yet also proclaim that we don't need another war to fight..
So he then gathers a coalition to assist with the matter, gets the UN to buy in ..all the while keeping US involvement to a minimum..and he is called out for taking a pre planned trip even though his staying or going wouldn't affect the action in the least..
Now he is being criticized for vascilliating..
guy can't win.. so he must be something right...
taxpayer dollars and the new imperialism my brother . . .
Wow George, did you come up with this amazing observation that not all people think the same way all by yourself, or did you have help?
I just like to point out the hypocrisy of those criticizing him.. did you catch that? Obviously not..
You stupid s.
I didn't say anything about Obama.
I posted a ing article from a credible news source.
heads
And of course in your quest to point out hypocracy you took the time to confirm that the people who are criticizing Obama for not doing enough to take out Gaddafi are the same ones who are also criticizing Obama for getting us involved in another conflict we don't need to fight. There's no chance whatsoever that those dual criticisms might be originating from separate groups of people. Right?
Of course, do you think there's a chance that they could be originating from the same group of people?
Just for grins, I'll say "no" and wait for you to prove me wrong, what with you having done the research and all.
Seems to me a good one. This coalition will not last as well as our efforts in Iraq. The motives were all wrong and worse on the information.
Still, Hannity argued that waiting for international law caused the deaths of many. “People got slaughtered while [President Obama] dithered with his brackets,”
HANNITY: He said the following, he said, "Qaddafi must go." That him remaining in power is unacceptable. So, here's my question, what if they are not successful? What does that mean in terms of emboldening enemies, two-bit dictators with third-rate militaries, if Qaddafi can seemingly beat down France, Great Britain and the United States of America because they -- they haven't defined what success is, he hasn't gone full bore into this, he's telegraphing no boots on the ground. Go ahead.
Took me about 2 minutes..
need more?
Yes, Bush kept the coalition intact.
Brave and proud countries like:
Honduras
El Salvador
Poland
Moldova
Singapore
Domincan Republic
Nicaragua
Mongolia
that's a dream team of a coalition tbh
without even checking that Germany was not part of it to start with
didn't we bear 90+ % of the costs in money and lives? That coalition..the one where only 2 or 3 countries provided boots on the ground?
Why wasn't Bush able to get our allies to put more boots on the ground?
Great. Hannity thinks we should have done something sooner. Now find a Hannity quote saying we shouldn't have gone in at all and you'll have successfully found one person to support your claim.
So we have hte people who were critcizing him for not getting in sooner..to now slam him for not having a plan once he got us into the situation.
you are wrong..
need more?
He manages to bash for not getting in sooner, to then criticize the post action plan, to then question his criteria for going in...Colonel, I frankly don't care what Putin thinks or China thinks or anybody else thinks. But I am concerned that a president and an administration, if you really look at this here, you know, what is now the new criteria for intervention? The president said this weekend that, well, in Rio, you know, people's lives are in jeopardy. How do we define success here?
Yes. You've found one person. A braindead idealogue at that. People = >1 person.
Also, if you want to go ahead and explain how criticizing Obama for not having a plan is directly in conflict with criticizing Obama for not doing something sooner, that would be nice too.
You don't think we are bearing most the cost of this one? Probably 90%+ also.
How many other nations sent cruise missiles at $1,066,465 each?
Who pays the majority funding of the UN?
Why are we backing the same people that Al-Qada is backing?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
