First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Nobel Peace Prize Winner Drops 26,171 Bombs in 2016
48423 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 1/6/17 , edited 1/6/17

Xxanthar wrote:


HuastecoOtaku wrote:

But I thought he loved them Arabs seeing he is a gay Muslim!?!


There are 2 main sects of muslim Arabs and that's why they have been fighting each other for thousands of years. I didn't know Obama was a muslim, but if he is, I'm sure he is only bombing the other sect that he does not belong to.


That's also a silly statement, you already knew Obama wasn't Muslim. Everything you say is dishonest in so many ways, just blindly attempting to be witty or play coy so you can make more ridiculous statements.
Posted 1/6/17 , edited 1/6/17

rawratl wrote:

NIce, what a pointless thread. I highly doubt you give any fucks about bombs being dropped on Muslim countries, furthermore you even go out of your way to attempt to blame the Iraq war on the Clintons. Awesome work.


Funny how threads that highlight democrat hypocrisy tend to be deemed pointless, fake news, click bait, etc. I didn't attempt to blame the war on Clinton, I was just mentioning the fact that most of the American intel, that was used to justify the war came from Clinton's administration, since Bush was not it office for very long when this all went down.

48423 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 1/6/17 , edited 1/6/17

Xxanthar wrote:


rawratl wrote:

NIce, what a pointless thread. I highly doubt you give any fucks about bombs being dropped on Muslim countries, furthermore you even go out of your way to attempt to blame the Iraq war on the Clintons. Awesome work.


Funny how threads that highlight democrat hypocrisy tend to be deemed pointless, fake news, click bait, etc. I didn't attempt to blame the war on Clinton, I was just mentioning the fact that most of the American intel that was used to justify the war came from Clinton's administration, since Bush was not it office for very long when this all went down.



Yeah Bush wanted to finish "his fathers war" he said so himself. A wonder that warmongers like the Clintons didn't invade Iraq if they supposedly had all this damning intel. I don't even see how this thread has anything to do with Democrat hypocrisy, is the Nobel organization registered as a democratic org? What concerns you so much about Obama have a peace prize? He was the first black man elected president in a country known for racial prejudice, it was seen a big step all over the world. I don't think anyone doubted it was more symbolic than about the man, and I doubt too many people really care about Nobel Peace Prizes either.

Oh yeah, and far as threads being considered fake news, click bait, etc...You did post a few joey salads threads, and likely several more with blatantly fake news (I confuse your threads with rujikun, and DeadlyOats sometimes so not sure)
Posted 1/6/17

rawratl wrote:


Xxanthar wrote:


HuastecoOtaku wrote:

But I thought he loved them Arabs seeing he is a gay Muslim!?!


There are 2 main sects of muslim Arabs and that's why they have been fighting each other for thousands of years. I didn't know Obama was a muslim, but if he is, I'm sure he is only bombing the other sect that he does not belong to.


That's also a silly statement, you already knew Obama wasn't Muslim. Everything you say is dishonest in so many ways, just blindly attempting to be witty or play coy so you can make more ridiculous statements.


I don't know what religion he is I assumed he was Christian but HuastecoOtaku said that he was muslim. Since I'm not sure what his religion is, and I stated as much. The rest of your post is basically just your flawed opinion that I don't agree with.
Ejanss 
16849 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/6/17

Xxanthar wrote:
Will President Trump be able to compete with such a record?


You mean, regular, or nuclear?
Posted 1/6/17 , edited 1/6/17

Ejanss wrote:


Xxanthar wrote:
Will President Trump be able to compete with such a record?


You mean, regular, or nuclear?


Regular, of course. A Democrat president was the only person to use nuclear weapons on a civilian population.
22009 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 1/6/17

ninjitsuko wrote:


Xxanthar wrote:

Obama dropped 26,171 bombs on Arabs in 2016, an increase of 3,000 over 2015. It looks like our Nobel Peace Prize winning commander in chief sent 2016 out with a bang! I'm not sure what percentage of bombs hit hospitals, schools and friendly convoys.


To be fair, he won the Nobel Peace prize just eight and a half months after being inaugurated. Why? Because he had condemned Bush Jr's presidency entirely. Seeing as Bush focused so much on wars that it blinded him and his administration as to what would be right and what would be considered "wrong" most countries felt that he was such a warmonger that he had to go. Ergo, Obama's relentlessness against that presidency.

I wonder if Trump will win one too; despite his focus on building our arms and military when we already spend too much on these things as a country as it is.


Obama said some words and got a nobel peace prize for what he will do in the future.

In other parts of the world people are leading organizations to try to bring peace to warring nations and improve the quality of life of people across the world. Gets nothing.

I hope Trump doesn't win one until he DOES something. There are many other people deserving of such recognition.
1541 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 1/6/17

Xxanthar wrote:


ran76 wrote:


based on information Bush provided that turned out to be lies. Did you forget that part?


Actually it was based on years of intel from the Clinton years and intel from our allies. Everyone said Iraq Has WMD's Iraq even bragged about their WMD's. Iraq also violated the ceasefire agreement of the first war by shooting missiles at Allied planes patrolling the agreed upon No-fly zones. Iraq also launched missiles into Israel. Iraq used chemical weapons to kill tens of thousand of Kurds. Now while France was stabbing us in the back in the UN in the lead up to the war, many Russian convoys were spotted driving from Iraq to Syria Did they deliver Saddam's WMD's to Assad? could be, since chemical weapons were also used in Syria multiple times while Assad wiped his backside with Obama's red line.

It's hard to rewrite history when there are still people around who remember what happened. Try again in 30 or 40 years.


And what WMDs were found in Iraq again? oh right, none. What evidence was there Iraq was involved in 9/11? Right again, none. I'm not saying Iraq never had any, they just didn't have any when there was a search made.

1541 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 1/6/17

octorockandroll wrote:


ran76 wrote:


Xxanthar wrote:
But you see bush didn't win the Nobel Peace Prize. He was an evil republican (even though democrats voted for the war twice.) fighting a war for Oil and other vast treasures that have been hidden away in a secret Republican base somewhere (moon base maybe?). Obama was a man of peace that spent his 8 years bombing innocents and supplying arms to ISIS, but that's just fine because, well, Bush.




based on information Bush provided that turned out to be lies. Did you forget that part?


Probably not forgetting as much as not caring, knowing him.


I wouldn't doubt it.
Posted 1/6/17

ran76 wrote:


Xxanthar wrote:


ran76 wrote:


based on information Bush provided that turned out to be lies. Did you forget that part?


Actually it was based on years of intel from the Clinton years and intel from our allies. Everyone said Iraq Has WMD's Iraq even bragged about their WMD's. Iraq also violated the ceasefire agreement of the first war by shooting missiles at Allied planes patrolling the agreed upon No-fly zones. Iraq also launched missiles into Israel. Iraq used chemical weapons to kill tens of thousand of Kurds. Now while France was stabbing us in the back in the UN in the lead up to the war, many Russian convoys were spotted driving from Iraq to Syria Did they deliver Saddam's WMD's to Assad? could be, since chemical weapons were also used in Syria multiple times while Assad wiped his backside with Obama's red line.

It's hard to rewrite history when there are still people around who remember what happened. Try again in 30 or 40 years.


And what WMDs were found in Iraq again? oh right, none. What evidence was there Iraq was involved in 9/11? Right again, none. I'm not saying Iraq never had any, they just didn't have any when there was a search made.



I explained all of in the post that you quoted. Nobody said that we invaded Iraq for 9/11. Only people trying to twist the truth say that.
2418 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / The margins
Offline
Posted 1/6/17
Is no one on here a realist? Sometimes you gotta drop bombs. This is a reason to respect Obama, because overseeing war and death is a hard thing - and not something he was enthusiastic about.
1541 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 1/6/17

Xxanthar wrote:

Nobody said that we invaded Iraq for 9/11. Only people trying to twist the truth say that.


Like the Bush Administration. They were saying Iraq was involved, that was one of the main reason the US went there. Anyone with a modicum of know how in research will tell you the same. Either you're purposely ignoring this fact for some reason(shame on you!) or you're truly ignorant of this fact(what's wrong with you?).
24142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Online
Posted 1/7/17
You're just making a thread on it now? I thought this was like....
37130 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 1/7/17 , edited 1/7/17

auroraloose wrote:

Is no one on here a realist? Sometimes you gotta drop bombs. This is a reason to respect Obama, because overseeing war and death is a hard thing - and not something he was enthusiastic about.


Even from a Realist perspective US foreign policy decisions made in the last couple of decades at least have been of questionable merit. Realism essentially argues at its core that nations are entities that naturally pursue their own interests in the international sphere, and that for one reason or another (human nature, limited resources, whatever) conflict between nations will inevitably arise as a consequence of these pursuits. The most diehard Realists in the world ought to be able to recognise that it is in a nation's best interests to ensure that global military conflict is kept to a minimum since such conflict is incredibly costly in terms of currency, resources, political capital, and (of course) human life. This means it is particularly important from a Realist point of view that when war is taken on, be it directly or indirectly, the selected approach absolutely must effectively and measurably promote specifically stated objectives that themselves serve specific national interests. It is equally vital that the approach be able to accomplish these objectives within a reasonable amount of time.

The "War on Terrorism" has proven to be a series of progressively widening military conflicts that are to be carried out over an indeterminate amount of time in order to accomplish vaguely stated objectives, and the results have been pretty underwhelming. It's poison from a Realist perspective, because it essentially entails pouring unlimited time, manpower, resources, and political capital into an apparently endless, ever-expanding campaign that just makes the US and Europe look worse and worse the longer it goes on. Even the Realists among the US and European populations might be given pause by the fact that despite 1 in 3 Saudi air strikes in Yemen hitting civilian targets the US continued to funnel money and arms into the Saudi government. Even the Realists among the US population might begin to question the value of torture programmes when it's determined that innocent people have been killed by them, no actionable intelligence has been obtained through them, and the people who have been subjected to them were sometimes taken in at little more than a war lord's word that they knew something. Even Realists might begin to question the merit of arming and training militants in Syria when they discover that the arms being supplied are being sold to the very enemy that these groups were supposed to destroy (ISIL), the groups being supplied and trained have fallen into infighting with one another, or have turned out to be affiliates of other terrorist groups. Even Realists might wonder if the political capital spent on granting waivers to South Sudan in order to keep arming them exceed the benefits gained from that particular approach, and whether a better alternative ought to be sought.

See what I mean?
2418 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / The margins
Offline
Posted 1/7/17

BlueOni wrote:


auroraloose wrote:

Is no one on here a realist? Sometimes you gotta drop bombs. This is a reason to respect Obama, because overseeing war and death is a hard thing - and not something he was enthusiastic about.


Even from a Realist perspective US foreign policy decisions made in the last couple of decades at least have been of questionable merit. Realism essentially argues at its core that nations are entities that naturally pursue their own interests in the international sphere, and that for one reason or another (human nature, limited resources, whatever) conflict between nations will inevitably arise as a consequence of these pursuits. The most diehard Realists in the world ought to be able to recognise that it is in a nation's best interests to ensure that global military conflict is kept to a minimum since such conflict is incredibly costly in terms of currency, resources, political capital, and (of course) human life. This means it is particularly important from a Realist point of view that when war is taken on, be it directly or indirectly, the selected approach absolutely must effectively and measurably promote specifically stated objectives that themselves serve specific national interests. It is equally vital that the approach be able to accomplish these objectives within a reasonable amount of time.

The "War on Terrorism" has proven to be a series of progressively widening military conflicts that are to be carried out over an indeterminate amount of time in order to accomplish vaguely stated objectives, and the results have been pretty underwhelming. It's poison from a Realist perspective, because it essentially entails pouring unlimited time, manpower, resources, and political capital into an apparently endless, ever-expanding campaign that just makes the US and Europe look worse and worse the longer it goes on. Even the Realists among the US and European populations might be given pause by the fact that despite 1 in 3 Saudi air strikes in Yemen hitting civilian targets the US continued to funnel money and arms into the Saudi government. Even the Realists among the US population might begin to question the value of torture programmes when it's determined that innocent people have been killed by them, no actionable intelligence has been obtained through them, and the people who have been subjected to them were sometimes taken in at little more than a war lord's word that they knew something. Even Realists might begin to question the merit of arming and training militants in Syria when they discover that the arms being supplied are being sold to the very enemy that these groups were supposed to destroy (ISIL), the groups being supplied and trained have fallen into infighting with one another, or have turned out to be affiliates of other terrorist groups. Even Realists might wonder if the political capital spent on granting waivers to South Sudan in order to keep arming them exceed the benefits gained from that particular approach, and whether a better alternative ought to be sought.

See what I mean?


Oh dang! I missed you.

At the risk of sounding like a cop-out, yes, you're absolutely right. And, to be honest, I don't know all that much about the occasions for the bomb-dropping being discussed here. I do think, though, that the purpose of this thread was not to highlight the issues you mentioned; it was, rather, to perform a simplistic Republican "gotcha" upon a relatively less-warmongering President dealing with a complicated Middle East situation in a way that contrasts greatly with the previous Republican President. I find it fascinating that conservatives attack Obama with this hypocritical line of reasoning. Or perhaps I am thinking of traditionalists, those people who ought to understand that real leadership is complicated and difficult. Oh, duh: of course the average Republican forumgoer is ignorant of the intellectual system upon which their views are built.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.