Okay that's 1 country.

Are they going to withdraw our troops from the other 140 countries we have bases in?

No?

Rest of the world still gonna hate us then. (and we're still going to go bankrupt)

For a war with Iran they need something which can sound pretty scary, a psychological attack on our minds. Planes are good, but risky to pull off. Bio-attack's fit the bill, as do attacks on Western soil. That is unless they can start up stories that Iran is attacking it's own people, but that would be more difficult with Iran as China and Russia will veto any propsed UN resolutions.

By following the scent of recent propaganda it's clear that attacks on Syria and Iran are not far off.

Tell me just one good thing republicans have done for this country in the past 20 years.

:::facepalm:::

:::stepDadsSpermBreath:::

Too bad there's not a Nobel Prize for escalating Predator Drone attacks on villages in Pakistan! Very peaceful. He's only killed 1500 people that way. Kinda peaceful when you think about it.

I'm sure in Khadaffi's last moments he was thinking "Obama is a peaceful guy"

Many Guantanamo prisoners right now praising his peace, for sure.

Cost to remove Gadhafi.....1 billion dollars 0 American casualties.

Cost to remove Saddam.... 800 billion dollars 4,300 American casualties, 30,000 wounded.

The powers that be seem to believe that they can tell us whatever they like, no matter how far from reality, and we will believe what we are told. There are a lot of do put their trust in authority rather than evidence, so it does work to an extent. :2 cents:

As a moron, it's no wonder you didn't include data on Obama's war in the Middle East, just a 1 time command drone that was lucky enough to hit a target where Gaddafi happened to be. Oh wait, that was the French and the British. Owned again, jackass.:1orglaugh

Again with this "I'm enlightened and unique and everyone else is a sheep" hilarity. You claim the other side puts their full faith in what is being reported while idiotic mentalities such as this are on the other side of the spectrum in extremities.

What? No one can understand what you're saying with your step daddys sperm gurgling from your mouth. Please try again once you are composed.

Not at all, I don't believe many would vote for Obama to win the Nobel Peace Prize, just a few non-thinkers :2 cents:

I don't know what that means.

But... to your point earlier with the image...

Either he is:
1) A peaceful guy trying to heal the world
or
2) The guy who

a. Overthrows a sovereign ruler
b. Approved the attack and killing of over 1500 people with predator drones in a sovereign nation
c. The guy that launches military operations in sovereign nations to murder someone without trial
d. The guy who approves the murder of a US born national
e. The guy who practiced constitutional law, ran on the promise to shut down Guantanamo Bay, yet refuses to shut down Guantanamo Bay

etc etc etc....

Personally, I approve of the attacks and extrajudicial killings. I just don't agree with him winning a Nobel Peace Prize for doing absolutely nothing to deserve it.

:2 cents:

So I make you look stupid and you respond with something as incoherent and insanely idiotic as "step daddy's sperm"? Your stupidity is well documented, please continue embarrassing yourself.:winkwink::winkwink::winkwink:

Since I'm on the right, I have no problems with Obama doing any of this and actually giving him credit for having the balls to do what his idiotic democratic party would not, nor would support. He did what had to be done knowing there was going to be collateral damage and I give credit where credit is due. About the only thing he's done right thus far.

let's just all agree, that whether it should have come earlier, or whether we should have never gone there in the first place... at least it seems to be coming to an end (for now).

was it worth it? that doesnt matter, it happened, it's done... lets just be happy things "appear" to be getting better

I have yet to see you make anyone look stupid, yourself excluded of course. :1orglaugh

I was saying that Obama being given the Nobel Peace Prize will make some believe he is peaceful, as they trust the authority that's telling them this.

With the war on Libya, I would agree with you if I trusted what the mainstream media have told us, but IMHO we've been had with Propaganda, I believe Gaddafi was good to his people and wouldn't follow the orders of the west. :2 cents:

Only 150 to remain back there to sell weapons :1orglaugh:1orglaugh
Yes, whoever think it got something to do with oil is retarded :error

Who cares about that?

It's not like it was a good idea in the first place.

Don't worry. Bush still gets all the credit for that wild goose chase for weapons of mass destruction that got us in there in the first place :thumbsup

The percent of right that America had to do either 0%

The percent of both conflicts being unconstitutional, war crimes and wars of aggression 100%

good news... but I think USA missed about 2,500 soldiers there :( RIP

Good little read here

http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/201...roop-presence/

Perfect. Obama gets all the credit for our economy being a total shitfest and on the erge of collapse. :thumbsup

Nice try.

The economy was circling the toilet bowl before Obama even won the election.

Nice try, the economy is much worse off with Obama as president. In case you haven't noticed (not surprisingly), I'm goading you into a position of double standards. You'll give Obama credit on any situation imaginable, but the blame goes on Bush.. Thanks for playing.

Yup it was and the troops were already scheduled to be withdrawn.

I disagree with this. We need to send a strong message that if you mess with the US, we will occupy your country forever and ever. We are still in Germany and still in Japan. We need to remain in Iraq and Afghanistan until the end of time.

This is gonna sound horrible, but what we need is total destruction. I'm currently reading a book about the last few days in Berlin at the close of WW2. The destruction was vast - very little was left standing. Entire cities were destroyed in a single day by carpet bombing. Warfare has changed so much in the past sixty years - Now it's all about precision. We look at Japan now and see them as our friends and see them as a peaceful nation, but few remember how violent and brutal they were in the 1940s.

We can take out entire military and government in a month. But that doesn't subdue the general population.

If you think about it, Iran is surrounded by US forces. But how has that helped us? Iran doesn't even seem threatened...

The US has military bases in 63 countries, and has a total of about 250k deployed at these bases. While that sounds like a vast number, keep in mind that some of these bases are in places like Japan, Italy, and Spain.

But you do raise a good point. Why are we STILL in Korea? If we pull out, would NK really be foolish enough to start shit?

He was probably including embassy troops.

That is misinformation...the 150 number are troops being left to protect our embassy.

China... The hawks that surrounded Bush were looking for a reason, any reason, to get rid of Saddam in Iraq, get more of a foothold in that area of the world and then they could start to shift their battle groups etc towards China.
Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century

Isn't that kinda like putting all the blame on the fire department because they could have done a better job of extinguishing a fire someone else started?


I noticed. But (not surprisingly as well) you're using your usual flawed examples to make your point.

There's plenty of things Obama can and should be criticized for such as wasting his first two years on a flawed health care plan, appointing Wall Street stooges as economic advisers, caving in to the opposition too easily and so on.

But the economy was already deep-sixed before he took office and he inherited Bush's wars.


Not at all. I see him as barely adequate, at best, but certainly far better than McCain or any of the current Republican alternatives.


For Iraq it sure as hell does as well as for squandering Clinton's budget surplus. Conversely he did the right thing by attacking Afghanistan and the blame for the housing bubble goes to him only in part.


Hey. It made for a nice break from my video editing :thumbsup

Actually, I wouldn't put it past the headcase in charge up there to do just that.

No, it's kinda putting the blame on the fire department for trying to put out a fire, but instead creating a bigger fire. The fact that you got the simple analogy completely wrong speaks wonders about your intelligence.


For my examples to be flawed, you'd have to prove they were flawed. Simply stating it doesn't make it so.:winkwink:

So you ignore the fact that he continued the wars with exponentially more money as well as bring the economy to its knees? Or are we conveniently ignoring facts here because it's obama?




Far better, maybe not.. But better than the alternatives.



Monetary and fiscal mismanagement, continuing Bush's stimulus and bring them to a whole new level? No, let's ignore that. Again, thanks for playing.

Fires usually get bigger before they're finally extinguished. More so when the arsonists are still on the scene and tugging on the firemen's arms.


Instead of repeating myself re your examples, I'll just point out that commonsense argues the same.


Staying in Afghanistan made, and continues to make, sense. Like I said, Bush did the right thing going in there.

As for Iraq, you can't just stop a war - any war - on a dime.


You're close enough on that one ;)


Obama never claimed to be a disciple of the Austrian school of economics, McCain either.

Problem is, Obama ain't doing the Keynesian thing right and that's primarily because he's getting bad advice from "Little Timmy" Geithner and the other Wall Street stooges he saw fit to appoint as advisers.

And on that score I do fault him.

Of course, having to contend with all those baggers and blue dogs in congress ain't helping him any either.

Both touching and irrelevant. Unfortunately, my analogy hit close to him while yours was way out there.




Why don't you just say "I'm full of shit". It'll be a lot easier than me telling you to prove it, and you posting this nonsense as a rebuttal.




No arguments there.

Which is why they're both economically deficient. Moreso Bernanke than either of them.

I disagree. The problem is, Bernanke and Obama ARE doing the keynesian thing right and it proves time and time again that Keynesian theories are a load of bullshit and are only marginally effective or rather less ineffective when an economy is running both a budget and trade surpluses.

No different than when Bush was president going against the left. Just a switch of the status quo.

You are correct the time limits on withdrawal was established by President Bush's administration and the Iraq's. President Obama is simply following that policy.

HA HA! Thanks :thumbsup

LOL @ that

The "war" was won in the first 24 days...then the occupation began.

I wasn't talking about embassies, but military bases. When they announced that US troops would be withdrawing from city x and y, they simply redrew the city limits and kept all troops in place.

fixed that for ya :)

For some reason we tend to fear large countries with large military forces. China's military is feared because they are huge. However, they lack a blue water navy - meaning they don't have bases around the world to support naval operations outside of their sphere of influence.

China is also less interested in helping North Korea. NK has become a huge pain in the ass, one that they cannot control, and if I recall correctly China has problems with North Koreans entering China illegally - North Korean illegal immigrants.

Our moves in the Middle East has nothing to do with China. We already have enough bases in the Pacific.

What happens when people realize Iraq was used as training grounds for a home grown military force.

These troops will be used to control the population of the USA and keep everyone in line on the home front.

attention to all republicans: after the last 3 years of "bring the troops home", you now have to be against this - according to your presidential candidats. i am now looking forward to read how you blame Obama for actually doing what you wanted and instead insisting that he leaves the troops in iraq

Seeing as how you give credit to Obama for all the good, and blame Bush for all the bad, I'd call you a hypocrite if you weren't so damn stupid.:1orglaugh

Also, it's a great idea to bring all the troops home so they can be among the unemployed.. Good move.. Instead of sending them to Mexico or something where they could be useful. As usual, stupid democrats.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh