Obama killing hundreds of civilians...
 

http://tinyurl.com/m9te2r
--
John H

"Vote for a Democrat, it's easier than working!"

Obama killing hundreds of civilians...
 

JohnH wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/m9te2r

But, but, but its the good war.

Obama killing hundreds of civilians...
 

Gene wrote:
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 08:36:59 -0400, BAR wrote:

JohnH wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/m9te2r
But, but, but its the good war.

Wow..... you really told him off.....

Sarcasm just passed you by.

Obama killing hundreds of civilians...
 

JohnH wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/m9te2r

I know what you are doing. You are throwing every incident into Bama's
lap just as the liberals did to Bush during his term in office and even
to this day. It's not fair, I say.
Let's not be to hasty to convict bama of wrongdoing. The matter is still
under investigation.

Obama killing hundreds of civilians...
 

"Jim" wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/m9te2r

I know what you are doing. You are throwing every incident into Bama's lap
just as the liberals did to Bush during his term in office and even to
this day. It's not fair, I say.
Let's not be to hasty to convict bama of wrongdoing. The matter is still
under investigation.

Yeah. And it's moving along just about as fast as the one into his
citizenship.

Obama killing hundreds of civilians...
 

In article ,
says...

"Jim" wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/m9te2r

I know what you are doing. You are throwing every incident into Bama's lap
just as the liberals did to Bush during his term in office and even to
this day. It's not fair, I say.
Let's not be to hasty to convict bama of wrongdoing. The matter is still
under investigation.

Yeah. And it's moving along just about as fast as the one into his
citizenship.

Or Nancy Pelosi lying to congress, or Rangle hiding money, or Jefferson
the traitor, or Murtha, or......

--
Wafa free since 2009

Obama killing hundreds of civilians...
 

Jim wrote:
JohnH wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/m9te2r

I know what you are doing. You are throwing every incident into Bama's
lap just as the liberals did to Bush during his term in office and even
to this day. It's not fair, I say.
Let's not be to hasty to convict bama of wrongdoing. The matter is still
under investigation.

As soon as Obama took the oath of office for the 1st, 2nd or 3rd time he
became responsible for everything within the USA and without the USA,
that includes Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama owns whatever happens in
Afghanistan. Something about the buck stops here. You don't get the
glory without the ****.

Obama killing hundreds of civilians...
 

BAR wrote:
Jim wrote:
JohnH wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/m9te2r

I know what you are doing. You are throwing every incident into Bama's
lap just as the liberals did to Bush during his term in office and
even to this day. It's not fair, I say.
Let's not be to hasty to convict bama of wrongdoing. The matter is
still under investigation.

As soon as Obama took the oath of office for the 1st, 2nd or 3rd time he
became responsible for everything within the USA and without the USA,
that includes Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama owns whatever happens in
Afghanistan. Something about the buck stops here. You don't get the
glory without the ****.

Are you saying that when Krausie soils his pants, it's bama's fault?
Don't you think we should cut the lad a little slack?

Obama killing hundreds of civilians...
 

"BAR" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:
JohnH wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/m9te2r

I know what you are doing. You are throwing every incident into Bama's
lap just as the liberals did to Bush during his term in office and even
to this day. It's not fair, I say.
Let's not be to hasty to convict bama of wrongdoing. The matter is still
under investigation.

As soon as Obama took the oath of office for the 1st, 2nd or 3rd time he
became responsible for everything within the USA and without the USA, that
includes Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama owns whatever happens in Afghanistan.
Something about the buck stops here. You don't get the glory without the
****.

To be fair though, and I don't defend Obama much, this isnt an Obama issue.
It is an issue with crappy journalism.

The headlines should read "Darwin idiots try to steal fuel in war zone get
killed".

Or perhaps "Taliban relatives try to steal fuel get themselves killed."

Obama killing hundreds of civilians...
 

Jim wrote:
BAR wrote:
Jim wrote:
JohnH wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/m9te2r

I know what you are doing. You are throwing every incident into
Bama's lap just as the liberals did to Bush during his term in office
and even to this day. It's not fair, I say.
Let's not be to hasty to convict bama of wrongdoing. The matter is
still under investigation.

As soon as Obama took the oath of office for the 1st, 2nd or 3rd time
he became responsible for everything within the USA and without the
USA, that includes Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama owns whatever happens
in Afghanistan. Something about the buck stops here. You don't get the
glory without the ****.

Are you saying that when Krausie soils his pants, it's bama's fault?
Don't you think we should cut the lad a little slack?

Obama wanted the job and now he has the job.

Obama killing hundreds of civilians...
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 08:56:33 -0400, Jim wrote:

JohnH wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/m9te2r

I know what you are doing. You are throwing every incident into Bama's
lap just as the liberals did to Bush during his term in office and even
to this day. It's not fair, I say.
Let's not be to hasty to convict bama of wrongdoing. The matter is still
under investigation.

It is reasonable to question a war he said he would stop on January
20.
What are our objectives in Afghanistan? Why are we there?
There is about as much linkage to 911 as there was with Iraq, another
stupid war Obama said he would stop.
Obama just seems to be Bush with a better tan.


Huh? He never said he would end the war in Afghanistan on 1/20. There's
straight-line linkage to 9/11, as you know. Should we let the Taliban regain
control, then invite bin laden back in, just when Pakistan is finally
getting down to business with him?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Obama killing hundreds of civilians...
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 16:14:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

It is reasonable to question a war he said he would stop on January
20.
What are our objectives in Afghanistan? Why are we there?
There is about as much linkage to 911 as there was with Iraq, another
stupid war Obama said he would stop.
Obama just seems to be Bush with a better tan.


Huh? He never said he would end the war in Afghanistan on 1/20. There's
straight-line linkage to 9/11, as you know. Should we let the Taliban
regain
control, then invite bin laden back in, just when Pakistan is finally
getting down to business with him?

The 911 crew was virtually all Saudi, as is OBL. The Taliban has never
been linked to 911. Just exactly where is the link?

Besides that they were harboring Al Qaeda none at all. Besides that the crew
was trained and directed by bin Ladin none at all.

We are making more potential terrorists every day than we have
actually killed in the whole sordid invasion/occupation. The Afghanis
are saying we are worse than the Soviets.

Some are, some aren't. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we need to continue
it any longer than absolutely necessary, and I'm very concerned about the
apparent fraudulent election that just happened. But, we need to be very
cautious about leaving without getting the current gov't more able to deal
with the Taliban. This is what's going on right now in Iraq. The jury is
still out, but it's at least possible that the Maliki gov't can deal with
the insurgents.

Our incursion is actually destabilizing Pakistan, the real fear we
should have.

We don't do it very much, and Pakistan seems to be doing a good job
themselves.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Obama killing hundreds of civilians...
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 21:50:23 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


The 911 crew was virtually all Saudi, as is OBL. The Taliban has never
been linked to 911. Just exactly where is the link?

Besides that they were harboring Al Qaeda none at all. Besides that the
crew
was trained and directed by bin Ladin none at all.

We are making more potential terrorists every day than we have
actually killed in the whole sordid invasion/occupation. The Afghanis
are saying we are worse than the Soviets.

Some are, some aren't. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we need to
continue
it any longer than absolutely necessary, and I'm very concerned about the
apparent fraudulent election that just happened. But, we need to be very
cautious about leaving without getting the current gov't more able to deal
with the Taliban. This is what's going on right now in Iraq. The jury is
still out, but it's at least possible that the Maliki gov't can deal with
the insurgents.

Our incursion is actually destabilizing Pakistan, the real fear we
should have.

We don't do it very much, and Pakistan seems to be doing a good job
themselves.

We have no reason to believe the Taliban had anything to do with Al
Qaeda until we drove them together. As far as we know the 911 attack
was actually planned in Europe. There were plenty of sightings of the
hijackers around western Europe. They seemed to come in via Canada.
I am still not sure where the Afghanistan connection was and our
wholesale killing of civilians sure isn't helping us fight terrorism.
It just creates more terrorists.


It seems pretty clear to me there was a strong connection:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban...sama_bin_Laden

I'm not sure where they entered from or where the specific attack was
planned... Germany I recall...

We're not killing civilians wholesale, and in fact we're trying to avoid
killing them at all. Gosh that doesn't sound particuarly great does it?
Anyway, it certainly been a change of policy to minimize the deaths. More
than one is unacceptable, but I'm not sure how we can avoid it completely.
I'm not a military expert.


--
Nom=de=Plume

Obama killing hundreds of civilians...
 

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:20:09 -0700, nom=de=plume wrote:


It seems pretty clear to me there was a strong connection:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban...sama_bin_Laden

What seems to be forgotten over the years, the Taliban offered up bin
Laden several times. There were strings attached, and I can't blame Bush
for not accepting the offers, but, with hindsight, perhaps, there was
enough of an opening that with diplomacy, we could have avoided this
war. The Taliban, at the time, wasn't the enemy. Bin Laden was, and
still is.

Obama killing hundreds of civilians...
 

"thunder" wrote in message
t...
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:20:09 -0700, nom=de=plume wrote:


It seems pretty clear to me there was a strong connection:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban...sama_bin_Laden

What seems to be forgotten over the years, the Taliban offered up bin
Laden several times. There were strings attached, and I can't blame Bush
for not accepting the offers, but, with hindsight, perhaps, there was
enough of an opening that with diplomacy, we could have avoided this
war. The Taliban, at the time, wasn't the enemy. Bin Laden was, and
still is.


That's right. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. I've heard that there is
still a possibility of dealing with the less radical elements of the
Taliban, and there's a general movement toward a "diplomatic" solution
involving the US, the Taliban, Pakistan, and India. The latter is Pakistan's
real focus, which is why I've heard they would like Afganistan to remain
unstable... so it doesn't become an Indian ally.

--
Nom=de=Plume