The Obama thread

As a US citizen I have to agree. The national interests thing is a scam though, it is rarely national interests and often special interests. In a global world heading toward a New World Order it is impossible to stay out of everyones way but we should at least try to take care of our own problems at home before we going to clean up the whole neighborhood.

 

Yes, it is.

 

our war on terror' almost all countries are guilty of supporting a terrorist or terrorist group, hell even the good old USA is.

This is classic.

 

i hate war and hate pro-war presidents, why couldnt they leave the world live in peace?

 

i hate all religious states those are fundamentally worse...they by default want war with every nation not the same religion as them..for eg, pakistan, bangladesh, saudi arabia

 

Pakistani PM meets Bush, warns US against 'unilateral' action

Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani held talks with US officials and warned Bush not to cross the border.

Pakistan considered "focus more on terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan" as a threat of invasion.

 

This has what to do with anything?

Pakistan warning the current president equates to nothing, it does not prove your Obama wants to invade point one bit. You truly read more into things than logic dictates, or simple facts for that matter.

Love how you left out a source as well.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iNKaAH3N4_rlN0o_52XZ0mU_73qA

Where is the following quote might I ask, or did you make this up?

 

It's not. It's a matter of personal opinion conflicting with the facts.

The way Obama stated it, it is:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101233.html

That means invade. Not that I disagree, however, I do not believe Obama would do any such thing. It's just rhetoric on his part.

Splitting hairs. The definition of his statement is invading, whether he says the actual word or not. Most people would know this.

Iraq had everything to do with the central war on terror. This was proved by the fact that terrorists from all over the region came in to fight the US because they were convinced they would get virgins for their deeds.

Americans supported the war in Iraq, as did the democrats. Democrats had been calling for war with Iraq throughout the 90s. Bush simply gave them what they wanted.

Who is "our?" What terrorist or terrorist group(s) have the US supported?

Terrorists are terrorists. This notion is proved wrong in that "al qaida in Iraq" has been defeated.

This is an old liberal myth that has no foundation in truth. Saddam could control anything he wanted to, as evidenced by his using WMD against the Kurds. Terrorists do not care about "no fly" zones. This was evidenced by the fact that there was a terrorist training camp in Iraq headed by zarqawi. Yes, al qaida was in Iraq prior to the invasion.

Maybe you should try reading. Splitting hairs over the meaning of a word vs it's actual use, as noted, isn't a very productive argument.

That you note you've had this debate several times and that I have personally corrected you on it many times, illustrates a substantial level of dishonesty. No one (that I'm aware of) argues Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Iraq was a separate issue, still related to the war on terror. Not everyone has the ability to see that.

Democrats claimed WMD long before Bush was ever in office. And the democrats were right. *Some* WMD were found. To suggest "none" were found is dishonest. I've also corrected you regarding al qaida. zarqawi WAS in Iraq prior to the invasion, running a terrorist training camp.

There were also substantial ties between al qaida and Iraq, as I've previously documented.

Having corrected you at least a dozen times on these things, I'm wondering if you will ever shed light on why you continue to say these dishonest things. I am to conclude that you place no value on your honor and/or integrity?

I've corrected you no less that two dozen times on this one. Most recently here, for which (as usual), you had no counter.

 

is about all I have to add to Gtechs famous disinformation campaign.

I would think eventually he would wake up to reality.............

'The way he 'stated it' well if that's invasion I guess we have been 'invading' Pakistan for years with bombings that were not authorized by them. Such crap, such utterly false statements, I would expect nothing less.

 

Thanks, but I prefer to stick with sourced facts. Those don't seem to work well for those who base their opinions on popularity contests and perceived unsourced realities.

But, since facts trump "liberal feelings," here are some more facts:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=12328

When facts cannot be countered, the simplest thing to do is proclaim "disinformation campaign."

 

Oops, had to get in a little edit while I was responding.

His statement makes very clear he will take care of them, with, or without their approval. I do concede that just because someone has a large cranium, doesn't mean they can understand the meaning of something.

 

Yeah that surely proves Saddam was in on it and supporting them now doesn't it?


What country doesn't have some form of terrorist group in it? That's about all your article states, much of the Baghdad issue I have seen refuted, the Kurdish area was under control of the Kurds NOT Saddam making your point that much weaker.


As far as your 'no fly zone' argument above countering that Saddam was able to gas the Kurds, well the gassing of the Kurds happened BEFORE the no fly zone.



Gtech you are a joke using the same old destroyed drivel over and over, it's old, you've been proven wrong time and time again and I for one am in no mood to play your little patty cake games like a mindless drone having nothing better to do than to destroy your twisted sense of reality yet again.

You had your shot, you were wrong 99.9% of the time, deal with it.

 

It's the same as Bush taking things into his own hands and bombing without permission. Or are you saying bombing 'without permission' is 'invading'.

If it is, we have been invading Pakistan for years!

 

Yep, sure does. Didn't take the time to read? You can't keep defending saddam forever. It clearly states that al qaida members were arrested, let go, then given information that Jordan was after them.

Nope, it doesn't state that at all. What you claim to have seen doesn't matter either.

So? Terrorists do not care about no fly zones, as evidenced by the fact that al qaida was in Iraq for over a year before the invasion, training terrorists. The fact that some of those al qaida terrorists were caught, let go and given information that Jordan knew they were in Iraq makes your argument weak.

You would hurt my feelings more if you countered facts with something other than "from what I've seen." Really, I know your tactics well. I don't mind that you have no other choice than this. As long as you posts are calling others names and devoid of any references to counter those that have proven you wrong, I "feel" I have the advantage. Of course, you might change tactics and actually start sourcing material for those "feelings," but that would probably take too much effort.

Projectionism! This is a classic too

Hey, have you considered sourcing something to counter the sources I've provided? Probably not, huh?

 

You presume bombing is the only option. Where did Obama say anything about bombing? He didn't. Therefore you are wrong, as usual.

It's amazing that so many others see what he said, but somehow you can't:

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=obama+invade+pakistan&btnG=Google+Search

As I said before, a large cranium isn't necessarily reflective of intelligence.

 

Oh he didn't say bombing, he also didn't say 'invade' but it must be invade.



It's obvious age does not make one more intelligent, you are living proof.

 

Come on, GRIM, be a man for once! I've countered your claims with sourced material that proves you are wrong. I know that hurts, especially someone like you

Won't you be a man and attempt to counter with the same reasonableness? Or is this all you are capable of?

 

Heh, are you debunking yourself now?

You may not have the capacity to understand what invade means. Some do, others do not.

Still nothing of substance to counter the sources I provided?

 

Not backing Saddam up one bit, we arrest people and release them all the time, guess we must be on the terrorists side.

It doesn't say much at all, one terrorist who's interrogation's have been subject to not being 100% accurate states 'he heard something' does not make it a fact. But I know you don't care about facts, if it's on your side of things, no matter how unlikely you'll grab onto it and hold on for dear life.

Are you serious? Yes terrorists don't care about them, especially when they are able to go into the areas that SADDAM DOES NOT CONTROL what you do not get about that is simply amazing. Head stuck up ass syndrome is rampant with you Gtech.

Gtech we have done this dance time and time again, you have been proven wrong time and time again. I am not going to do this dumb idiot dance with you any more, you have been proven wrong over and over again. You love being proven wrong I get that, I however am not going to lower myself to do this dance yet again with the likes of you. You will be going on ignore after this post.

I have over and over in the past Gtech, you know it, I know it, everyone else knows it. I do not see the need to prove you and source you wrong yet again. You get off on it, I find it old and tiring to do the same old dance over and over again. It's funny the rest of America has woken up for the most part, isnt' it about time you do?

Welcome to where you belong, IGNORE.