Box has clearly lost it. He thinks Israel lost the 1973 war when they mopped the floor with the Arabs and had an entire Egyptian army surrounded. Now he thinks Obama is some great military leader. Obama is a total failure. No one cares about Bin Laden-a blind pig finding an acorn. Obama is finished next year. A smart DEM should primary him. Even Al Gore and President Clinton are now attacking him. Obama should keep working on his golf game-that's the only thing possibly improving under his incompetent "leadership".
Benny seems to have a problem with FACTS!
If you want to keep making up your own facts, go ahead...but the FACT remains that Israel ALMOST lost the 1973 war in the first few days of the invasion. Check my post Benny... (As I posted at "Obama's Israel/Palestinian Proposal- Pre 6 Day War " post #82.)
The end result was a huge victory for Israel, mainly due to the help from the USA with their SR71 Blackbird surveillance flights which told Israel the EXACTLY enemy locations.
Find a HISTORY book (not a conservative blog) and read about the initial days of that war. It was probably the worst position Israel has been in in modern times. There were huge political and military changes once the war was over regarding Israels security because of it.
As far as your post: ~ "No one cares about Bin Laden" ~ It was George Worst Bush that said he didn't care about BinLaden... Americans cared a great deal, and appreciate that Obama succeeded killing Bin Laden, somethign Bush failed to do.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Obama did not need to escalate this...that was his choice and the deaths are on his hands...in your words, it was optional.
I agree... Increasing the troop level in Bush's war in Afghanistan was "optional" and probably counter productive. Casualties from not pulling troops out of Bush's war sooner is Obama's responsibility.
Just as George Worst Bush is responsible for the 4400+ us troops killed in his optional unnecessary Oil war in Iraq.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
There is no way to fire up Obama's kook base by winning a war. Obama needs to lose a war or better yet fire a general then he will have people to bundle donations. As far as 1973 Israel was never in danger of losing. They were attacked on 2 fronts then Israel surrounded and totally destroyed Egypt and Syrian armies. They were prevented from total victory by the UN. Just curious what's your view on Iran? Has Obama's do nothing approach worked? When pro-Democracy Iranians were being murdered in the streets he supported the regime.
Just curious what's your view on Iran? Has Obama's do nothing approach worked? When pro-Democracy Iranians were being murdered in the streets he supported the regime.
Iran was contained and very busy defending itself from it's decades long enemy IRAQ... that is until George Worst Bush eliminated the largest threat to Iran's security... Freeing Iran to be a much bigger player on the world scene.
Who won GWB's Oil war in Iraq??? Certainly not the USA. Not Iraq, or the people of Iraq. Not the region or democracy or freedom...
The only real winner of GWB's Oil War in Iraq was Iran. With out spending a dime or firing a shot GWB killed their biggest threat and Iran never lost one of their soldiers or dropped one bomb. (Way to go Georgie!)
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Really Cicero??? That was a BUSH POLICY??? " Continuing Bush's foreign policy of pre-emptive military strikes" Really??? This is BUSH'S POLICY? NO other US President ever did this??? HUH. What about:
Can't argue you stated fact. America's been a warfare state for quite some time now. What I can argue is, Obama campaigned on "change" from the American policies of the warfare state, and have less of a military presence around the world. Remember you guys on the left were screaming - "Dick Cheany and Haliburton was profiting on the wars"! We were told Bush was creating MORE terrorists with our military presence in the Middle East. We were told Bush's wars were for oil. We were told Gitmo was creating more terrorists and Obama was closing it down. We were told the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretaps were unconstitutional, and he re-signed that into law. Guess what happened with all these promises of change? THEY DID'T HAPPEN!!! He is the same, controlled by the same interests. If you listened to his speech last night, he justifies American oh yeah, NATO military operations in Libya because we are freeing the Libyan people from a brutal dictator. I think that was part of Bush's justification for Iraq after no WMD's, all of a sudden, we were freeing the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator.
C'mon Box, you really don't believe Obama's rhetoric do you? Stop listening to his double speak and begin looking at his policy and actions.
Can't argue you stated fact. America's been a warfare state for quite some time now. What I can argue is, Obama campaigned on "change" from the American policies of the warfare state, and have less of a military presence around the world. Remember you guys on the left were screaming - "Dick Cheany and Haliburton was profiting on the wars"! We were told Bush was creating MORE terrorists with our military presence in the Middle East. We were told Bush's wars were for oil. We were told Gitmo was creating more terrorists and Obama was closing it down. We were told the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretaps were unconstitutional, and he re-signed that into law. Guess what happened with all these promises of change? THEY DID'T HAPPEN!!! He is the same, controlled by the same interests. If you listened to his speech last night, he justifies American oh yeah, NATO military operations in Libya because we are freeing the Libyan people from a brutal dictator. I think that was part of Bush's justification for Iraq after no WMD's, all of a sudden, we were freeing the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator. C'mon Box, you really don't believe Obama's rhetoric do you? Stop listening to his double speak and begin looking at his policy and actions.
Another Cicero Rant...
~How many countries did Bushy Invade? 2 ~How many of these invasions led to successful outcomes? 0 ~How many of these wars had primarily a US "boots on the ground" invasion? 2 ~How many had US paying the bill? 2 ~In how many countries did Bush promote or practice torture? Probably 7 but maybe many more including Gitmo.
Change! Obama is elected.
~Combat troops out of Iraq... All troops out by years end. A change from the previous administration who wanted to keep troops in Iraq until the country is totally pacified (and the US Oil rigs arrived)
~Obama increased troops in Afghanistan... similar to Bushy's surge. Those Troops will be out by next summer and total troops out by 2014 (way too long and that may change)
~Gitmo is still open but the torture there and around the world as a US (Bush) policy has ended. Change.
~How many countries has Obama invaded... Boots on the ground? 0
~How many US only or supposed 'coalition' invasions from Obama? 0
How many NATO incursions has Obama been involved in? 1 Libya. (A Large $$$ cost but no military casualties... Americans are NOT dying in Libya.)
Cicero will only see his view. When I offer differences he blows them away and starts his next rant. Kind of an endless cycle.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The anti war crowd left wingers are now the "anti-boots on the ground crowd". The liberal anti war crowd is the 'without the recognized left wing coalition anti-war crowd. They could give two $hits about killing innocent Libyans. As long as you can get other nations to agree to kill Libyans by air strikes- it's ok. Killilng is different when you are dropping bombs from 20,000 feet.
Like the people of Libya care how they are being killed. Or why America NATO is getting involved in determining the outcome of their civil war. Because as we allllllll know, it's not for the oil fields, it's because we want to free those poor poor people of Libya from a brutal dictator.
You don't offer differences - you play word games. Boots on the ground. lol
The anti war crowd left wingers are now the "anti-boots on the ground crowd". The liberal anti war crowd is the 'without the recognized left wing coalition anti-war crowd. They could give two $hits about killing innocent Libyans.
Like the people of Libya care how they are being killed. Or why America NATO is getting involved in determining the outcome of their civil war. Because as we allllllll know, it's not for the oil fields, it's because we want to free those poor poor people of Libya from a brutal dictator.
I'll post it again: Cicero will only see his view. When I offer differences he blows them away and starts his next rant. Kind of an endless cycle.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
YUP! A change from Bush's US Boots on the ground which led to 4400+ US Bodies in the cemetery ( and 100,000 Iraqis)
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
YUP! A change from Bush's US Boots on the ground which led to 4400+ US Bodies in the cemetery ( and 100,000 Iraqis)
Well, those 100K dead Iraqi's were just collateral damage during the freeing of the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator. You can understand that. How many Libyans were killed by U.S. cruise missiles in the name of freeing their people from a brutal dictator? Sometimes people have to die when advancing freedom around the world. Tic
I love how you are massaging Obama's military operations while he has been Commander and Chief, as if it is something other than war and killing. Obama escalated troop levels in Afghanistan, he has been bombing areas of Yemen and Pakistan with drones, troops remain in Iraq, and he's authorized the bombing of Libya at the command of NATO.
But hey,,,I hear ya...No boot on the ground...All of a sudden, when waging war, that's all that matters. With that logic, Al Qaeda didn't attack us on 9-11, since they didn't deploy boots on the ground.
Well, those 100K dead Iraqi's were just collateral damage during the freeing of the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator. You can understand that. How many Libyans were killed by U.S. cruise missiles in the name of freeing their people from a brutal dictator? Sometimes people have to die when advancing freedom around the world.
Cicero is having a Rant Fest today! I think this is his 3rd or 4th rant in a row. He uses the shotgun effect... Throw out enough rants and confuse the issue so that there is no response possible. But: Lets start here.
The Iraqi population... most Iraqi's had no problem with Saddam Hussein. Those in high offices and upper levels of government or business may have had a problem, but unless you were a Kurd or a politician... Saddam wasn't a problem. Before the 1st Gulf War, Iraq was a modern country for the middle east. Women could be educated, drive cars, hold public office etc. The water was clean, the electricity was reliable, the sewage systems worked. After the Daddy Bush's war, Iraq was much less modern, but it was struggling to recover to it's former place... The Iraq military at this stage was a shambles.
SO: Iraqi's were not protesting in the streets against their govt as they are in Libya(See the Difference?) Most Iraqi's were satisfied to be left alone with Saddam as their leader. The USA under GWBushy invaded their country... Other than the political dissidents and the Kurds, Iraqis were not looking to be (how did Bushy put it) "LIBERATED". One point you need to remember... On the main issue of the Invasion of Iraq...WMD's... Saddam was telling the truth... George Worst Bush was lying... and many of the Iraqi people knew it.
Not the same situation as in present day Libya. The present government of Libya has deserted or gone underground. Libya had a REBELLION among it's own people. A civil war... Get the difference???
I know, I know... all I did is set you up for your next rant... but this time try to absorb some of what you read BEFORE you start the rant. OK?
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Yes, I see the brilliance of your post...We are liberators in Libya's civil war. We are fighting on the side of the peaceful...Hmmmm...Help me out Box...Whose side are we on? Hmmm...Let me think, who did we say we were supporting again??? Ohhhh...Yeah...That's right - NOBODY. Yes, I understand now, innocent civilian deaths at the hands of Americans bombs at the direction of NATO commanders is "good" death since it was approved by our Nobel Peace Prize winning president. No blood on Obama's hands. When are we going into Syria to protect their civilians from their government? I'm glad there is Obama has the full support of Congress...Oh wait...Did I hear that Congress was never consulted? Ohhhh...Gee,,,didn't Democrats have a fit for Bush's abuse of executive powers for waging an illegal war? Oh yeah, they did. But this is different the is a 'kinetic military action' not a war.
The more things "change" the more they stay the same.
Who won GWB's Oil war in Iraq??? Certainly not the USA. Not Iraq, or the people of Iraq. Not the region or democracy or freedom... The only real winner of GWB's Oil War in Iraq was Iran.
China was the real winner. They have picked up the most oil contacts in the "war for oil". Every war to the left is a war for big business/big oil. This included WWII. We demanded nothing and received nothing from Iraq. We should have pumped oil to repay our war debt. Both Bush and Obama were too weak.
No answer on Obama's dithering on Iran? Not only did he dither but he refused to encourage the people on the streets. Iran's biggest enemy is the Israeli air force. Only hope they are unleashed.
Box has clearly lost it. He thinks Israel lost the 1973 war when they mopped the floor with the Arabs and had an entire Egyptian army surrounded. Now he thinks Obama is some great military leader. Obama is a total failure. No one cares about Bin Laden-a blind pig finding an acorn. Obama is finished next year. A smart DEM should primary him. Even Al Gore and President Clinton are now attacking him. Obama should keep working on his golf game-that's the only thing possibly improving under his incompetent "leadership".
Logged
There is no way to fire up Obama's kook base by winning a war. Obama needs to lose a war or better yet fire a general then he will have people to bundle donations. As far as 1973 Israel was never in danger of losing. They were attacked on 2 fronts then Israel surrounded and totally destroyed Egypt and Syrian armies. They were prevented from total victory by the UN. Just curious what's your view on Iran? Has Obama's do nothing approach worked? When pro-Democracy Iranians were being murdered in the streets he supported the regime.
