On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:43:56 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 07:50:55 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:32:52 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:01:19 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:56:01 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:56:05 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:39:06 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

Is Obama about to attack Libya simply to steal their oil for George
Soros? It makes sense considering that Obama gave US taxpayer money
to Soros for drilling offshore Brazil. Remember, this is an admin
that thinks the Egyptian dictator Mubarek was a good guy (Remember
what Biden said about Mubarek not being a dictator). France is just
doing what they always do, backing whoever will supply them with oil
as most of Libya’s oil goes thru France.

Let's take the first question. Is Obama attacking Libya?

Yes. Maybe you've been out fishing for the last couple days.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s...fense-targets/

Of course, if you define 'attack' in certain ways, you could say that Bush
didn't attack Iraq either.

Did Bush put troops on the ground? How is this the same?

Bush didn't put troops on the ground for over 2 years, lets see how it
goes in Libya before we start patting ourselves on the back.

What? Which 2 years?

The 2 years he simply maintained the no fly zones. (that were already
9 years old).

We will be left with the same question here. What do we do if Qdaffy
is still there in 11 years, simply oppressing his people up close and
personal, not by air power?

We were told the Iraq no fly zones were to save the Kurds with the
implication that the Northern Alliance could topple Saddam on the
ground. We all seem to forget that part.

My bet, we dig up the terror link again and invade to "get the
terrorists" like we did in Afghanistan. We know there is one there.
The Brits sent al-Megrahi back for oil leases.

You're talking about GWB???? While he lied to the world about Saddam?
That's your argument? Good grief.

On 21/03/2011 4:06 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:28:52 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:43:56 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 07:50:55 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:32:52 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:01:19 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:56:01 -0400, John
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:56:05 -0400,
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:39:06 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

Is Obama about to attack Libya simply to steal their oil for George
Soros? It makes sense considering that Obama gave US taxpayer money
to Soros for drilling offshore Brazil. Remember, this is an admin
that thinks the Egyptian dictator Mubarek was a good guy (Remember
what Biden said about Mubarek not being a dictator). France is just
doing what they always do, backing whoever will supply them with oil
as most of Libya’s oil goes thru France.

Let's take the first question. Is Obama attacking Libya?

Yes. Maybe you've been out fishing for the last couple days.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s...fense-targets/

Of course, if you define 'attack' in certain ways, you could say that Bush
didn't attack Iraq either.

Did Bush put troops on the ground? How is this the same?

Bush didn't put troops on the ground for over 2 years, lets see how it
goes in Libya before we start patting ourselves on the back.

What? Which 2 years?

The 2 years he simply maintained the no fly zones. (that were already
9 years old).

We will be left with the same question here. What do we do if Qdaffy
is still there in 11 years, simply oppressing his people up close and
personal, not by air power?

We were told the Iraq no fly zones were to save the Kurds with the
implication that the Northern Alliance could topple Saddam on the
ground. We all seem to forget that part.

My bet, we dig up the terror link again and invade to "get the
terrorists" like we did in Afghanistan. We know there is one there.
The Brits sent al-Megrahi back for oil leases.

You're talking about GWB???? While he lied to the world about Saddam?
That's your argument? Good grief.

Try to stay on subject, I know it is hard for you.


We are still in Afghanistan "just to get the terrorists" and Bush has
been gone over 2 years.
Clinton kept is in Iraq for 8 years looking for the same WMD you say
Bush lied about.

The point is, when we go in, we won't leave.

The only real war US has won by itself is WW II Japan. That being said,
ego presidents always have excuses to flex the militay mussle, but few
have the courage to follow it to a conclusion.

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:06:43 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:28:52 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:43:56 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 07:50:55 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:32:52 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:01:19 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:56:01 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:56:05 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:39:06 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

Is Obama about to attack Libya simply to steal their oil for George
Soros? It makes sense considering that Obama gave US taxpayer money
to Soros for drilling offshore Brazil. Remember, this is an admin
that thinks the Egyptian dictator Mubarek was a good guy (Remember
what Biden said about Mubarek not being a dictator). France is just
doing what they always do, backing whoever will supply them with oil
as most of Libya’s oil goes thru France.

Let's take the first question. Is Obama attacking Libya?

Yes. Maybe you've been out fishing for the last couple days.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s...fense-targets/

Of course, if you define 'attack' in certain ways, you could say that Bush
didn't attack Iraq either.

Did Bush put troops on the ground? How is this the same?

Bush didn't put troops on the ground for over 2 years, lets see how it
goes in Libya before we start patting ourselves on the back.

What? Which 2 years?

The 2 years he simply maintained the no fly zones. (that were already
9 years old).

We will be left with the same question here. What do we do if Qdaffy
is still there in 11 years, simply oppressing his people up close and
personal, not by air power?

We were told the Iraq no fly zones were to save the Kurds with the
implication that the Northern Alliance could topple Saddam on the
ground. We all seem to forget that part.

My bet, we dig up the terror link again and invade to "get the
terrorists" like we did in Afghanistan. We know there is one there.
The Brits sent al-Megrahi back for oil leases.

You're talking about GWB???? While he lied to the world about Saddam?
That's your argument? Good grief.

Try to stay on subject, I know it is hard for you.

Try and get back to actual facts. Bush lied, practically destroyed
this country, and caused the deaths of 1000s of our brave troops for
no reason.


We are still in Afghanistan "just to get the terrorists" and Bush has
been gone over 2 years.

It's a stabilization effort despite your claims.

Clinton kept is in Iraq for 8 years looking for the same WMD you say
Bush lied about.

Yet, nobody died, and he was successful in getting Saddam to quit
their production.

The point is, when we go in, we won't leave.

The point is that you have no basis for that statement.

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:35:03 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:05:39 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:06:43 -0400, wrote:


Clinton kept is in Iraq for 8 years looking for the same WMD you say
Bush lied about.

Yet, nobody died, and he was successful in getting Saddam to quit
their production.


As long as you don't count Iraqis. Sounds pretty racist to me.

Sounds like you're very interested in grasping at straws. We're
talking about US troops. Try and not change the subject.


The point is, when we go in, we won't leave.

The point is that you have no basis for that statement.

Where have we left?

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 23:49:45 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:45:35 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:35:03 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:05:39 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:06:43 -0400, wrote:


Clinton kept is in Iraq for 8 years looking for the same WMD you say
Bush lied about.

Yet, nobody died, and he was successful in getting Saddam to quit
their production.


As long as you don't count Iraqis. Sounds pretty racist to me.

Sounds like you're very interested in grasping at straws. We're
talking about US troops. Try and not change the subject.


You said "nobody died"

Evidently brown people are not people to you.
No wonder they hate us.

Evidently, you're unwilling to stay on topic.