TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Libya Situation
Pages (30): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 »

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby You hate democrats, plain and simple, thats fine, I hate republicans, but god damn you guys take the cake on fucking just twisting around EVERYTHING to suit your end goal, even fucking over your own principals. That is why you are such a useless lot, you don't even know what you fucking want because you are too busy responding to what democrats do.

This coming from the guy who tried to argue last week that bringing back electric trains from 100 years ago as an alternative to people driving their own cars would be well received across the Pacific Northwest.

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 I suppose "an unnamed rebel source" is more reliable than 2 cabinet members.

2 cabinet members who used vague terms like "probably won't" and "isn't likely"?

quote:

ad homen eh? At least you didn't challenge me to a duel though. Bravo

It's easy to respond with pictures when you're out of words

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss This coming from the guy who tried to argue last week that bringing back electric trains from 100 years ago as an alternative to people driving their own cars would be well received across the Pacific Northwest.

How the fuck does that relate to anything in my quoted post?

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby How the fuck does that relate to anything in my quoted post?

Don't worry, he's just falling back on "ad-homen" attacks because he's realized he has nothing but made up "facts" and hearsay to support his retarded blathering.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I can't wait till karma decides that it's time to settle up.

Something tells me you don't really believe in karma.

quote:

Originally posted by WittyHandle Something tells me you don't really believe in karma.

I'm pretty sure he believes in a karma which is conceptually consistent with his world view, so figuratively - yes - the notion of karma is present, replete with all of the consequential implications inherent to one's own actions. If we're discussing the literal karma and its notion of exponential dividends related to ones actions taken against or to the benefit of others in this life and disbursed in the next, let alone what constitutes either detriment or benevolence - that is very much up for grabs, I'm afraid.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Actually, I was waiting for you to take the bait on that comment, knowing how you would react, so I could show you how misinformed you are, eager to snap up the headlines without reading the fine print. .

Oh, so I get it, what you're saying is that you gave a false defence for being Iraq, just to bait me in to posting the truth about the non existant WDMs so you could post an explanation for the only thing they found in Iraq which was already known and tracked.

Got it makes total sense

So let's get back on point and away from your distraction: Why did we go in to Iraq?

For WMD that didn't exist, because Halliburton wanted the oil. No more no less,

Why did we go in to Libya? To stop a humanitarian disaster, as provided for by the congressional act of 1973 which allows military forcefor 60 days without congressional approval for such instances as libya.

And guess what, the USA went in did its thing and got out. There are currently no US flights, military or personell in military action in Libya,

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Oh, so I get it, what you're saying is that you gave a false defence for being Iraq, just to bait me in to posting the truth about the non existant WDMs so you could post an explanation for the only thing they found in Iraq which was already known and tracked. Got it makes total sense

The yellow cake comment was a small part of the overall discussion. You are the one who tried to refute its legitimacy by quoting the Discovery channel.

quote:

So let's get back on point and away from your distraction: Why did we go in to Iraq? For WMD that didn't exist, because Halliburton wanted the oil. No more no less, Why did we go in to Libya? To stop a humanitarian disaster, as provided for by the congressional act of 1973 which allows military forcefor 60 days without congressional approval for such instances as libya. And guess what, the USA went in did its thing and got out. There are currently no US flights, military or personell in military action in Libya,

That's right! We went in to Iraq to hook up Halliburton. Boy we're sure reaping the rewards on that oil too- er, I mean we haven't seen a drop of it. And suuuuure. We went into Libya for the noble cause of "humanitarianism"... while we sit back and watch millions get slaughtered in the Congo, Darfur; hundreds gunned down in Yemen, Bahrain, and Syria in recent weeks; thousands of Christians massacred in the Ivory Coast last week by Muslim extremists. You must be so proud to be an Obama supporter and lap up the moral high ground of his selective humanitarianism.

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 It's easy to respond with pictures when you're out of words

Pretty sure you were the one who decided to take his ball and go home.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss The yellow cake comment was a small part of the overall discussion. You are the one who tried to refute its legitimacy by quoting the Discovery channel.

Well don't blame me, you brought it up when you were trying to refute why we got in to Iraq.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss That's right! We went in to Iraq to hook up Halliburton. Boy we're sure reaping the rewards on that oil too- er, I mean we haven't seen a drop of it. And suuuuure.

True, but I hate to break it to you, that just means that Cheyney is shit on capitalizing

....but having said that, he did just fine on the defense contracts that buddy boy bush handed to him "equipping" the troops (and we know how that turned out). On the food alone halliburton has made $5bn to date. I could go on but let's leave the profiteering there.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss We went into Libya for the noble cause of "humanitarianism"... while we sit back and watch millions get slaughtered in the Congo, Darfur; hundreds gunned down in Yemen, Bahrain, and Syria in recent weeks; thousands of Christians massacred in the Ivory Coast last week by Muslim extremists. You must be so proud to be an Obama supporter and lap up the moral high ground of his selective humanitarianism.

Oh I agree about the double standard (see my previous post about Mugabe), but the fact that the US went in, and got out (unlike both of Bush's wars) shows this was humanitarian.

You;re just angry because unlike bush, he didn't fuck it up (twice)

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Boy we're sure reaping the rewards on that oil too- er, I mean we haven't seen a drop of it.

just a clarification kevin. I don't want anyone to be mislead so i have to post some facts.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/...ent/import.html

look who made #6 on the top 15 US imports.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN True, but I hate to break it to you, that just means that Cheyney is shit on capitalizing ....but having said that, he did just fine on the defense contracts that buddy boy bush handed to him "equipping" the troops (and we know how that turned out). On the food alone halliburton has made $5bn to date. I could go on but let's leave the profiteering there.

If you want to have a crony capitalism debate on which administration was worse, this one or the last, I'll be happy to go there. *Ahem... General Electric*

quote:

Oh I agree about the double standard (see my previous post about Mugabe), but the fact that the US went in, and got out (unlike both of Bush's wars) shows this was humanitarian. You're just angry because unlike bush, he didn't fuck it up (twice)

You can say we're out, but everyone knows US money finances NATO and US leadership runs it. The "Arab League" and France/Britain have virtually zero military assets involved in any way. But it's still too early to tell if he fucked it up... how would we know? First Ghaddafi had to go, then he didn't... and different parts of his administration from him, to Clinton, to Holder, to Gates, were saying different things at the same time. If the administration believed "he had lost the legitimacy to lead", it should have acted when the rebels had the momentum and not wait 3+ weeks as they were systematically gunned down; instead they just issued threats and demands for Ghaddafi to go without commensurate efforts to follow up the saber rattling. It looks like we're making shit up as we go along, always reacting to the populism of the moment (see Egypt).

I just can't fucking stand the balls they have regarding what they are doing, considering Joe Biden said in 2002 that any president should be impeached who committed to any type of military action without Congressional approval, and Obama said "we should never attack an oil producing muslim country that doesn't pose an imminent threat to the U.S." Peoples' memory is short lived, and the same ones that cheered on those past statements are gleefully supporting his hypocrisy as "the right thing to do" now. It's sickening.

and to give a little leg room for you kevin (to be honest i've only been scanning very breifly through the posts) but revenues for that oil are primarily seen by the iraqi government. foreign workers however are those producing the oil and will take from some of those revenues for labour etc.

Of course we all know that paying market price for the crude, the aggregates of it through refining are what really rack in the big money.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss If you want to have a crony capitalism debate on which administration was worse, this one or the last, I'll be happy to go there. *Ahem... General Electric*

I agree, but don't change subject. Giving GE tax breaks so they pay nothing is not the same as invading another country, killing civilians and executing their leader (regardless of how much I think he deserved it),

We're still in Iraq because bush started a war just for oil, and you can't defend it, and you know it, which is why you keep trying to change the subject.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss You can say we're out, but everyone knows US money finances NATO and US leadership runs it. The "Arab League" and France/Britain have virtually zero military assets involved in any way. But it's still too early to tell if he fucked it up... how would we know? First Ghaddafi had to go, then he didn't... and different parts of his administration from him, to Clinton, to Holder, to Gates, were saying different things at the same time. If the administration believed "he had lost the legitimacy to lead", it should have acted when the rebels had the momentum and not wait 3+ weeks as they were systematically gunned down; instead they just issued threats and demands for Ghaddafi to go without commensurate efforts to follow up the saber rattling. It looks like we're making shit up as we go along, always reacting to the populism of the moment (see Egypt). I just can't fucking stand the balls they have regarding what they are doing, considering Joe Biden said in 2002 that any president should be impeached who committed to any type of military action without Congressional approval, and Obama said "we should never attack an oil producing muslim country that doesn't pose an imminent threat to the U.S." Peoples' memory is short lived, and the same ones that cheered on those past statements are gleefully supporting his hypocrisy as "the right thing to do" now. It's sickening.

You can suppose whatever you want about the future but the USA as of right now has zero assetts active in Libya. They were in and out, something that Bush could not achieve in 8 years.

you can be sick all you want, but cancer is the republican and and their wars, not this.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN I agree, but don't change subject. Giving GE tax breaks so they pay nothing is not the same as invading another country, killing civilians and executing their leader (regardless of how much I think he deserved it), We're still in Iraq because bush started a war just for oil, and you can't defend it, and you know it, which is why you keep trying to change the subject.

I'm not changing the subject. I do not believe we started a war for oil, and reject your premise that we committed hundreds of thousands of servicemen to Iraq so Cheney could get sweetheart deals for Halliburton. That is bordering on 9/11 trutherism territory. BTW- the Iraqi govt. held Saddam on trial an executed him... we did not.

quote:

You can suppose whatever you want about the future but the USA as of right now has zero assetts active in Libya. They were in and out, something that Bush could not achieve in 8 years. you can be sick all you want, but cancer is the republican and and their wars, not this.

Yes or no: does the United States finance the majority of NATO? Yes or no: is NATO comprised of more U.S. military assets than any other entity? (hint: rhetorical).

It's sad that you fully grasp the reality of Obama and Biden's statements I mentioned in my last post, yet you completely support what they are doing in Libya. It's like you're fine with whatever, as long as Obama comes out looking good. Hey, we've had 858 soldiers die in Afghanistan under Obama's tenure, and his promise to bring all troops home from Iraq in 16 months is 11 months overdue. Doesn't matter either though, does it? Whatever he does is ok because he holds some moral high ground in your mind I guess?

Good news today out of Libya! Just kidding. French journalist Julien Fouchet describes seeing imams driving in a pick up truck and reciting prayers over a loudspeaker to the rebels. And Iman Bugaighis, the spokesman for the National Transition Council, admitted, "We have twenty-five fighters on the front that were linked to al-Qaeda." And this:

quote:

Libyan Rebel Leader: We want to cut Gadaffi's throat and establish an Islamic State" Whereas American officials have been straining to make out �flickers� of intelligence suggesting a jihadist influence in the eastern Libyan rebellion against the rule of Muammar al-Gaddafi, Fouchet encountered a flagrant jihadist presence and met with participants who talked openly about their dedication to jihad and/or their desire to establish an Islamic state. On the front near the oil-producing town of Brega, for instance, Fouchet spotted a bearded commander on a sand dune giving orders by satellite phone. The man wore the traditional robe favored by the Salafist current of Islamic fundamentalism and had a Kalashnikov slung over his shoulder. �You can�t speak to him,� rebel fighters told Fouchet. �He is not fighting for Libya. If he is fighting today, it�s for Allah.� Fouchet describes seeing imams driving among the ranks of the rebel fighters in a pick-up truck and reciting prayers over a loudspeaker� �In Darnah, Fouchet also spoke to a rebel commander whom he identifies as �Hakim al-Sadi.� The commander in question is presumably in fact Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi, who, as reported on PJM, has admitted to fighting on the side of al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, as well as to recruiting Libyans to fight with al-Qaeda in Iraq. The biographical details attributed by Fouchet to �al-Sadi� correspond to the known details of the biography of al-Hasadi. These include his settling in Afghanistan prior to the 9/11 terror attacks and the subsequent American-led invasion, his detention by American forces in Pakistan in 2002, and his transfer to and imprisonment in his home country Libya. Interestingly, Fouchet says that he spoke to �al-Sadi� as the latter was �leaving for the front to coordinate operations.� �In the past,� the rebel commander told Fouchet, �I didn�t like NATO. They fired missiles on Afghanistan. Now that they are helping us in Libya, it�s different. But if there are problems with them, if they begin to occupy our country, we can turn on them in the click of your fingers.� As to his goals, �al-Sadi� explained to Fouchet that he had rejoined the jihad in order to �cut Gaddafi�s throat and establish an Islamic state.�

http://www.lejdd.fr/International/A...?from=headlines


And to make matters worse, a senior security official in Algeria claims that Al Qaeda is taking advantage of the turmoil in Libya to purchase weapons. From Reuters----> http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/1303...ia-al-qaeda.htm

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Good news today out of Libya! Just kidding. French journalist Julien Fouchet describes seeing imams driving in a pick up truck and reciting prayers over a loudspeaker to the rebels. And Iman Bugaighis, the spokesman for the National Transition Council, admitted, "We have twenty-five fighters on the front that were linked to al-Qaeda." And this: http://www.lejdd.fr/International/A...?from=headlines And to make matters worse, a senior security official in Algeria claims that Al Qaeda is taking advantage of the turmoil in Libya to purchase weapons. From Reuters----> http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/1303...ia-al-qaeda.htm

Where is that good old Mission Accomplished sign when you need it?

if terrorists had no one to hate, they would cease to exist. Just sayin.

so, Libya, eh?

We should start dropping pamphlets in Arabic that say that al-Qaeda is actually a Christian organization so that they all kill each other. Problem solved.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I'm not changing the subject. I do not believe we started a war for oil, and reject your premise that we committed hundreds of thousands of servicemen to Iraq so Cheney could get sweetheart deals for Halliburton. That is bordering on 9/11 trutherism territory. BTW- the Iraqi govt. held Saddam on trial an executed him... we did not.

You you are, and yes we did. I know it must be difficult for a died in the wool republican to believe about their own party, but there simply was no other reason.

All the "evidence" for WDM has now been proven to have been fabricated, at the request of Bush and Blair.

There are too many to specific examples as to why this was about oil and not about terrorism or WMD's, like the 45 minute warning intelligence which was shown to be lifted verbatim from a college students thesis and presented in Parliment and congress of immediate threat and the primary reason for intervention, or the "nuclear evidence" that Valerie Plame was outed for questioning (which was later proved, along with Bush's Iraqi nuclear program source to be a total fabrication created prior to the invasion to sub).

Do the research - the Bush family fortune (and it's a serious fortune) IS oil. The Bush family are estimated to have made $4-7bn as a direct result of the Iraq war.

Halliburton (CEO Cheney) has made in excess of $15bn from contracts handed to them on a platter (no bidding process).

Blair's reputation is in absolute tatters, and he may well still be tried if they are bale to find a away around the priminsterial privilege laws in the UK.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Yes or no: does the United States finance the majority of NATO? Yes or no: is NATO comprised of more U.S. military assets than any other entity? (hint: rhetorical). It's sad that you fully grasp the reality of Obama and Biden's statements I mentioned in my last post, yet you completely support what they are doing in Libya. It's like you're fine with whatever, as long as Obama comes out looking good. Hey, we've had 858 soldiers die in Afghanistan under Obama's tenure, and his promise to bring all troops home from Iraq in 16 months is 11 months overdue. Doesn't matter either though, does it? Whatever he does is ok because he holds some moral high ground in your mind I guess?

It's bullshit to quote 858 deaths when 4000 were under Bush, all for a fabricated war, to make Bush and Cheyney even richer, under the premise of making the world safer. lol. Talk about believe anything. It's not about conspiracies, it's about being so damn gullible.

As for nato, yes assets are heavily from the US but not under US control of military leadership in any form. Essentially, the USA does not have a dedicated military force command or autonomous asetts in place in Libya.

France and Britain have far more assets (each, let alone combined) than the USA making up the NATO force in Libya.

Stop trying to compare Iraq to Libya - not the same in any shape or form and any political or military analist would laugh you out of the room for trying...just as I am

quote:

Originally posted by Zyklon_Jay if terrorists had no one to hate, they would cease to exist. Just sayin.

You're right- we should give 'em what they want and submit to their ideology so they leave us alone.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN You you are, and yes we did. I know it must be difficult for a died in the wool republican to believe about their own party, but there simply was no other reason. All the "evidence" for WDM has now been proven to have been fabricated, at the request of Bush and Blair. There are too many to specific examples as to why this was about oil and not about terrorism or WMD's, like the 45 minute warning intelligence which was shown to be lifted verbatim from a college students thesis and presented in Parliment and congress of immediate threat and the primary reason for intervention, or the "nuclear evidence" that Valerie Plame was outed for questioning (which was later proved, along with Bush's Iraqi nuclear program source to be a total fabrication created prior to the invasion to sub). Do the research - the Bush family fortune (and it's a serious fortune) IS oil. The Bush family are estimated to have made $4-7bn as a direct result of the Iraq war. Halliburton (CEO Cheney) has made in excess of $15bn from contracts handed to them on a platter (no bidding process). Blair's reputation is in absolute tatters, and he may well still be tried if they are bale to find a away around the priminsterial privilege laws in the UK. It's bullshit to quote 858 deaths when 4000 were under Bush, all for a fabricated war, to make Bush and Cheyney even richer, under the premise of making the world safer. lol. Talk about believe anything. It's not about conspiracies, it's about being so damn gullible. Stop trying to compare Iraq to Libya - not the same in any shape or form and any political or military analist would laugh you out of the room for trying...just as I am

You'd get along really well with Rosanne Barr and Rosie O'Donnell. You could all swap conspiracy theories while watching Michael Moore videos.

The17sss came at 1:22.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss You're right- we should give 'em what they want and submit to their ideology so they leave us alone. You'd get along really well with Rosanne Barr and Rosie O'Donnell. You could all swap conspiracy theories while watching Michael Moore videos.

i've never seen you pwned so hard (and it happens a lot), and your answer pretty much confirms it.

if you are free to do what you want with your life, why can't the evil doers be free to hate you?

quote:

Originally posted by Zyklon_Jay i've never seen you pwned so hard (and it happens a lot), and your answer pretty much confirms it.

I was pwned because RANN says Bush went into Iraq for oil money and to enrich Cheney, and I refuse to acknowledge such fucking bullshit? He's just parroting years of far left indoctrination, connecting dots of convenience to support his template. "Ohhhh- the Bush family is in the oil business. Proof! What, only the other countries are benefiting from Iraq's oil now? It just means Bush and Cheney are shitty at working out a deal.. more proof of my tin foil hattedness!" Weak bro.

quote:

if you are free to do what you want with your life, why can't the evil doers be free to hate you?

That's fine- I couldn't give less of a shit if evil doers hate us. I was responding to your quote which implied (at least it seemed that way to me) that it's our fault they hate us and if we changed our ways, we could bring about peace. Was I off on that interpretation? I'm sincerely asking.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.