Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply puritysourcelabs US-PHARMACIES
UGL OZ Raptor Labs UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAKUS-PHARMACIESRaptor Labs

Gadafi is a military target

mrplunkey

New member
NATO official: Gadhafi a legitimate target - CNN.com

Holy spin batman!

So a UN resolution for protecting civilians has now been stretched into a formal mission to assassinate a foreign leader -- even without as much as a congressional resolution approving the first bomb.

I sure hope the "Bush is a war criminal" crowd are warming up for their assault on Barry. Now they've got a bona fide villain.
 
LMFAO

Not only has Barry not pulled out of the war he swore he would when he was lying his way into office, but he's out there getting involved in new ones. Have you libtards realized that you've been bamboozled yet?
 
LMFAO

Not only has Barry not pulled out of the war he swore he would when he was lying his way into office, but he's out there getting involved in new ones. Have you libtards realized that you've been bamboozled yet?

And watch them support him anyway...
 
Dude, we have to bomb everyone else off the planet or else people will pay attention to how much we suck as a country in every other aspect! Its genious!
 
C'mon EF libs -- represent!

Stop googling Weiner's wiener and defend your president.
 
NATO official: Gadhafi a legitimate target - CNN.com

Holy spin batman!

So a UN resolution for protecting civilians has now been stretched into a formal mission to assassinate a foreign leader -- even without as much as a congressional resolution approving the first bomb.

I sure hope the "Bush is a war criminal" crowd are warming up for their assault on Barry. Now they've got a bona fide villain.

QUOTE FROM ARTICLE:

But NATO spokeswoman Oana Lungescu disputed the claim, saying the alliance was not specifically targeting Gadhafi.

"We are targeting critical military capabilities that could be used to attack civilians, including command and control centers that could be used to plan and organize such attacks," Lungescu said.

END QUOTE:


sounds like the spin is by you and the article's headline. a resolution COULD apply to him? *yawn*
 
You cannot pass! I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the Flame of Anor. The dark fire will not avail you, Flame of Udun! Go back to the shadow. You shall not pass!
 
NATO official: Gadhafi a legitimate target - CNN.com

Holy spin batman!

So a UN resolution for protecting civilians has now been stretched into a formal mission to assassinate a foreign leader -- even without as much as a congressional resolution approving the first bomb.

I sure hope the "Bush is a war criminal" crowd are warming up for their assault on Barry. Now they've got a bona fide villain.

Congress controls NATO now???
 
Congress controls NATO now???

Congress declares war.

Oh wait... Those US troops and equipment are under NATO! And gosh knows we don't have any say within NATO.

:rolleyes:

Between this and the silly stretch of logic that says guadafi is a military target because he commands the troops at some level, we've got a mechanism for taking out just about whoever we want.

At least bush had a violated cease fire to fall back on.

C'mon -- you sure didn't like Bush's wars. How do you feel about barry's?
 
it's bad, but not as bad as iraqi freedom. super expensive, lots of casualties, and was premised on that whole crock of shit about WMD.
 
The thing about libs, they won't say anything right now. Or they will blame all this on Bush.

But as soon as a Cons. president gets back in to clean up Obama's mess, they will all blame it on that dude.
 
why do libs need to say anything, nobody has even targeted gadafi yet. that whole article was just speculation that it could happen
 
it's bad, but not as bad as iraqi freedom. super expensive, lots of casualties, and was premised on that whole crock of shit about WMD.

Sadam had violated a number of UN resolutions regarding weapons inspection and a cease fire agreement that his specific administration had signed to end the first gulf war.

Compared to Libya, the second gulf war was an iron clad deal. At least we weren't tearing off trying to assassinate a foreign head of state in the name of protecting civilians.

If we want to off Guadafi because he's an asshole who contributes to the destabilization of the region and supports terrorism (I.e. Flight 103), go for it. But this charade about declaring him a military target based on some resolution to protect civilians is a joke.

Let's try using that logic somewhere else: I'm sure there is a UN resolution out there protecting the rights of women. I'm sure Pakistan has problems in this area. But we give financial aid and military support to the Pakistani government. And the US commander-in-chief is Barry. So does that make him a legitimate military target per UN resolution?
 
NATO official: Gadhafi a legitimate target - CNN.com

Holy spin batman!

So a UN resolution for protecting civilians has now been stretched into a formal mission to assassinate a foreign leader -- even without as much as a congressional resolution approving the first bomb.

I sure hope the "Bush is a war criminal" crowd are warming up for their assault on Barry. Now they've got a bona fide villain.


How dare you talk bad about our unsung president. You better hope Barry doesn't re-enact the Sedition Act, because your ass is going to the pen. Barry is just a little schizophrenic, he confuses himself with being a Totalitarian-Marxist, but he's really not....
 
C'mon -- you sure didn't like Bush's wars. How do you feel about barry's?

Well, in Bush's wars, we had a unilateral act of aggression perpetrated by us onto them, spearheaded by Bush and his Neo-Con cronies in the DOD, with limited cooperation from other allied states. In Barry's war, we've got a coalition of states, spearheaded by Nicholas Sarkozy of France, UN resolutions initially promoted by neighboring Arab states, and NATO. This isn't Barry's war, it's Nicky's war, and Barry is cooperating, mostly I think because we've got a huge stockpile of arms that we can sell to the other coalition states. US troops are still limited to air strikes aren't they?
 
Well, in Bush's wars, we had a unilateral act of aggression perpetrated by us onto them, spearheaded by Bush and his Neo-Con cronies in the DOD, with limited cooperation from other allied states. In Barry's war, we've got a coalition of states, spearheaded by Nicholas Sarkozy of France, UN resolutions initially promoted by neighboring Arab states, and NATO. This isn't Barry's war, it's Nicky's war, and Barry is cooperating, mostly I think because we've got a huge stockpile of arms that we can sell to the other coalition states. US troops are still limited to air strikes aren't they?

1) Iraq was a coalition as well.

2) how exactly did France lead, when we've admitted to providing the command and control for the initial bomb attacks? France lent their name, but we called the shots.

3) we've had operators on the ground there even before the initial bombing attacks. Those laser-guided bombs need someone to paint the target.
 
Compared to Libya, the second gulf war was an iron clad deal.

false WMD claims, flimsy claims of al qaeda ties. that is such horse shit man

At least we weren't tearing off trying to assassinate a foreign head of state in the name of protecting civilians.

If we want to off Guadafi because he's an asshole who contributes to the destabilization of the region and supports terrorism (I.e. Flight 103), go for it. But this charade about declaring him a military target based on some resolution to protect civilians is a joke.

Let's try using that logic somewhere else: I'm sure there is a UN resolution out there protecting the rights of women. I'm sure Pakistan has problems in this area. But we give financial aid and military support to the Pakistani government. And the US commander-in-chief is Barry. So does that make him a legitimate military target per UN resolution?


you're being a clown right now and deliberately ignoring the fact that article is just speculation on what is technically feasible. nobody has declared him as a target. jesus, it even explicitly says so in the article. i bet you didn't even read the resolution. here you go man, show me where it says we're taking out gaddafi. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/un-security-council-resolution

all this speculation about taking out gaddafi because of the phrase "all necessary measures"

check this:
"Prime Minister David Cameron told his Members of Parliament on March 21st that while he still wanted Col Gaddafi to go, the UN resolution was “limited in scope” and “explicitly does not provide legal authority for action to bring about Gaddafi’s removal from power by military means”."
 
Last edited:
You guys haven't learned yet ? Liberals will NEVER admit to being wrong or that their leaders play a part in anything ever. It's not even worth drawing them a picture because the side of their brain that controls rational logical thought doesn't exist.
 
Just a quick reminder here guys


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
 
Youre a retard.
 
An that's just a very very small portion of the info


That is a very good post.... However, you left out they found "Yellow Cake Uranium," the main component to making nukes. They hid it in Canada, so the liberal media coudn't get their hands on the story, and down play it, like they always do....
 
false WMD claims, flimsy claims of al qaeda ties. that is such horse shit man




you're being a clown right now and deliberately ignoring the fact that article is just speculation on what is technically feasible. nobody has declared him as a target. jesus, it even explicitly says so in the article. i bet you didn't even read the resolution. here you go man, show me where it says we're taking out gaddafi. UN security council resolution 1973 (2011) on Libya ? full text | World news | The Guardian

all this speculation about taking out gaddafi because of the phrase "all necessary measures"

check this:
"Prime Minister David Cameron told his Members of Parliament on March 21st that while he still wanted Col Gaddafi to go, the UN resolution was “limited in scope” and “explicitly does not provide legal authority for action to bring about Gaddafi’s removal from power by military means”."

So were the terms of the UN resolutions requiring inspections and the violated cease fire so-called "horseshit" as well? I love how people rally around WMD accusations being false and conveniently overlook the round-after-round of weapons inspectors that were thrown out of the country by sadam.

And I'm warming-up to this "he isn't a target, but his military is and he is the head of the military" argument. Maybe it's just pure coincidence that all the places he seems to hang out wind-up flattened. As a matter of fact, let's argue that we haven't dropped a single bomb. Instead, we have dropped "a collection of parts that could and in this case have been coincidentally assembled into a device that under certain circumstances may have percussive and thermal effects.". I like that! I sure hope this license to drop the aforementioned devices doesn't expire the moment Barry leaves office.
 
Just a quick reminder here guys


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

^^^ impressive collection of quotes.
 
lol
 
So were the terms of the UN resolutions requiring inspections and the violated cease fire so-called "horseshit" as well? I love how people rally around WMD accusations being false and conveniently overlook the round-after-round of weapons inspectors that were thrown out of the country by sadam.

Not overlooking that, but inspections had already resumed by the time we declared war. Given that, there were no grounds for the war imo


And I'm warming-up to this "he isn't a target, but his military is and he is the head of the military" argument. Maybe it's just pure coincidence that all the places he seems to hang out wind-up flattened. As a matter of fact, let's argue that we haven't dropped a single bomb. Instead, we have dropped "a collection of parts that could and in this case have been coincidentally assembled into a device that under certain circumstances may have percussive and thermal effects.". I like that! I sure hope this license to drop the aforementioned devices doesn't expire the moment Barry leaves office.

nobody in charge is even making that argument, so have fun getting riled up for nothing
 
:(
 
I will not be bliquemaled, but if you ask nicely Im sure I could make it happen.
 
I'll meet you half way then.
 
Done. Now STFU
 
:wavey:
 
Top Bottom