Obama has the lowest approval ever

[deathroh]

Don't you think there should have been risk of an imminent threat, more than "we think they might have WMD's" to bypass every option besides invading the country?

I never thought we should have gone. I'm just frustrated by the "Bush lied" crowd acting like they had some excuse to be for the war back then.

The excuse was the unknown. I was pretty strongly against it, but the thing I always kept in the back of my mind was that maybe the government had more info that they weren't sharing, something they had to keep under wraps for whatever reason that provided a legitimate reason to invade. Because the WMD stuff was just stupid. Maybe it wasn't technically a "lie" but using the weak African cake intel, or whatever it was, as the basis of your argument and acting as if it was rock solid when they HAD to know it wasn't, sure reeks of something. As dumb as I think Bush is, I refuse to believe he's that dumb.

 

[martmay]

I take it your against the actions of the president in Lybia?

I looked up Lybia but couldn't find it on a map.

ah...hiding behind the spelling police

 

[redandguilty]

MC, you must be confusing something I wrote with someone else or just skimming and assuming or something...or maybe you're hitting the bottle a <s>little</s> lot early.

 

[lions2011]

not 1 american boot on the ground to oust Ghaddafi

 

[deathroh]

That Snopes link cites a 1998 poll saying 68% supported and 24% were against airstrikes deigned to remove Saddam from power rather than go the UN route. But where's that 68% now?

C'mon Red, we're not talking about airstrikes.

Edit: but to answer you're question, that 68% is probably busy supporting what happened in Libya.

 

[martmay]

not 1 american boot on the ground to oust Ghaddafi

oh, thats the criteria......lets just send nukes then....oh wait..Obama is getting rid of them..now what?

 

[lions2011]

not 1 american boot on the ground to oust Ghaddafi

oh, thats the criteria......lets just send nukes then....oh wait..Obama is getting rid of them..now what?

what Nuke hit Libya ?

 

[redandguilty]

That Snopes link cites a 1998 poll saying 68% supported and 24% were against airstrikes deigned to remove Saddam from power rather than go the UN route. But where's that 68% now?

C'mon Red, we're not talking about airstrikes.

If so many people are for airstrikes, aimed at toppling a regime, without UN approval...the question is why then? Why did people support such a thing? And the question has to be answered without using any Bush lies, because obviously he hadn't made them yet.

 

[martmay]

oh, thats the criteria......lets just send nukes then....oh wait..Obama is getting rid of them..now what?

what Nuke hit Libya ?

why waste the time and effort and cost of planes for 6 months...send a nuke, much cleaner

 

[redandguilty]

what Nuke hit Libya ?

why waste the time and effort and cost of planes for 6 months...send a nuke, much cleaner

Is this a joke?

 

[lions2011]

why waste the time and effort and cost of planes for 6 months...send a nuke, much cleaner

Is this a joke?

nope she's 100% serious.

 

[cheeno]

I looked up Lybia but couldn't find it on a map.

ah...hiding behind the spelling police

Well in the future if you are trying to make a point at least make an attempt to appear like you are coming from an informed place. It really does aid me in formulating my response. Honestly, I might have though you were asking if I approve of president Clinton in Labia.

More to your point. Comparing Iraq to Libya is like comparing Vietnam to France's aid during the Revolutionary War.

 

[deathroh]

C'mon Red, we're not talking about airstrikes.

If so many people are for airstrikes, aimed at toppling a regime, without UN approval...the question is why then? Why did people support such a thing? And the question has to be answered without using any Bush lies, because obviously he hadn't made them yet.

Pretty easy, more people would support an airstrike over a land invasion. The ethics of whether or not we should interfere with another country are one thing, and there are some that would disapprove of any action based on that alone, but there's also the potential risk of US troops and capital vs the risk of inaction that had to be weighed. What the President told us skewed that.

 

[martmay]

ah...hiding behind the spelling police

Well in the future if you are trying to make a point at least make an attempt to appear like you are coming from an informed place. It really does aid me in formulating my response. Honestly, I might have though you were asking if I approve of president Clinton in Labia.

More to your point. Comparing Iraq to Libya is like comparing Vietnam to France's aid during the Revolutionary War.

I see, did Libya's internal affairs have a reason for the USA to be concerned of its national security?

 

[Thumb]

You don't know how many votes he would "siphon", you only hope.

Obama's approval rating right now means dick, watch it skyrocket one the Retubs nominate someone and people get to see the alternative.

"watch it skyrocket """one""" the Retub"
when might be a better word to use.

It was a typo your Highness, I left out a "c", should have been "once".

But thanks, now I know what kind of a douche you are, I'm going to jump over all the typo's and grammatical errors in your posts, because you do when you can't make a better argument.

BTW, use the SHIFT key to capitalize the first letter of a sentence, or did you skip 3rd grade?

 

[martmay]

"watch it skyrocket """one""" the Retub"
when might be a better word to use.

It was a typo your Highness, I left out a "c", should have been "once".

But thanks, now I know what kind of a douche you are, I'm going to jump over all the typo's and grammatical errors in your posts, because you do when you can't make a better argument.

BTW, use the SHIFT key to capitalize the first letter of a sentence, or did you skip 3rd grade?

that stuff happens....so you don't have to comment on others when it happens

 

[redandguilty]

If so many people are for airstrikes, aimed at toppling a regime, without UN approval...the question is why then? Why did people support such a thing? And the question has to be answered without using any Bush lies, because obviously he hadn't made them yet.

Pretty easy, more people would support an airstrike over a land invasion. The ethics of whether or not we should interfere with another country are one thing, and there are some that would disapprove of any action based on that alone, but there's also the potential risk of US troops and capital vs the risk of inaction that had to be weighed. What the President told us skewed that.

Not why an airstrike vs a land invasion. Why did we want to topple that regime? There are lots of regimes doing terrible things. What I'm asking is if people think Bush made up the case to topple the regime with lies, then why did 68% want to topple it before he got there?

 

[Mitchrapp]

the whole WMD thing - even if it was true, and it WAS NOT - is no reason to invade another country.

Hell yeah it is. And Hussein was a monster. Regardless why he went I'm glad they did. So easy to argue after the fact.

 

[Thumb]

Mitch[/color]]More than half the country wanted us to go to war. And now, those same people are bashing that decision. And the Intel I assume, was Iraq had WMD. Bush was just in a bad spot being President for a few months when 9-11 happened. He was going to get reamed regardless the decision he made. It was a lose-lose for him.

It wasn't just WMD's though that had the country supporting him, it was his insistence that he had evidence that Iraq and Saddam were in cahoots with Al-Qaeda.

And despite all the Bush supporters claims there is no evidence that there was a single insurgent or Al-Qaeda operative in Iraq before the Invasion.

 

[Thumb]

Wow 5 star general there. To win a war you need people to like you.

Want us to bomb Iran? Like us on Facebook!

when there shooting us in secured buildings execution style , Houston, you have a problem. Newsflash, Afghan's and Paki's don't care for us

LOL