Metal Sludge Gossip Board

Posted: **Sat Mar 19, 2011 1:17 pm**

Libya is saying we hurt and/or killed civilians while launching over 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles in our first strike against Gadhafi.
It's still dark there so we don't know the extent of the damage yet.
This is going to get interesting.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03 ... 1&iref=BN1

Posted: **Sat Mar 19, 2011 9:10 pm**

Obama should be tried for war crimes for his illegal preemptive strike against the people of Libya.
Obama lied, people died.

Posted: **Sun Mar 20, 2011 4:58 am**

What the fuck are you taking about?

Posted: **Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:00 am**

Clash of civilizations. McCain referred to the 100 year war...this is it...poorer Muslim based 2nd and third world "countries" vs Western capitalist societies... "democracies" if you'd like.

If the leaders of these countries aren't willing to let us pull them up into industrialized societies, then we will nuke n pave and install our own leaders.

Been going on since the dawn of man...

Posted: **Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:44 am**

MotleyMaiden wrote:What the fuck are you taking about?

He's talking about the President initiating a strike against a sovereign nation who we are not at war with. He barely consulted Congress and there was no debate. Nevermind's post, although drenched in his usual neo-con duplicity, is meant to draw attention to hyprocrisy involving the call for war crimes that many in the left-wing tried to pin on George Bush for similar actions.

Many Democrats are at least mentioning impeachment because of the President's action.

Posted: **Sun Mar 20, 2011 12:59 pm**

Oh good grief. You got that impeachment crap from a super conservative website. As commander in chief the president does have the power to direct the military. He does not have the power to declare war.

And there is a HUGE difference this time. We are not doing this unilaterally and we didn't cram false intelligence down anyone's throat hoping to get them to agree to join us. We weren't even the first ones in. The French were. So I guess Nicholas Sarkozy should be the first one dragged in to the Hague and brought up on war crimes. They have also actually flown sorties where as we haven't even launched a plane yet. I guess David Cameron will also be joining Obama as well since Britain is also heavily involved and has sent planes in as well. In fact I guess the entire UN can be brought up on charges since they passed the resolution. There have even been republicans on the news bitching because Obama WAITED until the UN passed the resolution and didn't go barreling in with guns blazing 2 weeks ago.

I am not thrilled about it but there are about a dozen countries involved including several Arab nations so at least we are not doing this alone.

Posted: **Sun Mar 20, 2011 2:08 pm**

MotleyMaiden wrote:And there is a HUGE difference this time. We are not doing this unilaterally and we didn't cram false intelligence down anyone's throat hoping to get them to agree to join us.

There wasn't "false intelligence" for the Iraq war, either.

Inaccurate ... Yes.

False ... No.

Big difference.

Posted: **Sun Mar 20, 2011 4:41 pm**

cantstopthemusic wrote:
MotleyMaiden wrote:And there is a HUGE difference this time. We are not doing this unilaterally and we didn't cram false intelligence down anyone's throat hoping to get them to agree to join us.

There wasn't "false intelligence" for the Iraq war, either.

Inaccurate ... Yes.

False ... No.

Big difference.

I did not lie, I was purposefully inaccurate

Posted: **Sun Mar 20, 2011 4:42 pm**

cantstopthemusic wrote:
MotleyMaiden wrote:And there is a HUGE difference this time. We are not doing this unilaterally and we didn't cram false intelligence down anyone's throat hoping to get them to agree to join us.

There wasn't "false intelligence" for the Iraq war, either.

Inaccurate ... Yes.

False ... No.

Big difference.

It was false to the extent of the inaccuracies.

Posted: **Sun Mar 20, 2011 4:49 pm**

MurrayFiend wrote:
cantstopthemusic wrote:
MotleyMaiden wrote:And there is a HUGE difference this time. We are not doing this unilaterally and we didn't cram false intelligence down anyone's throat hoping to get them to agree to join us.

There wasn't "false intelligence" for the Iraq war, either.

Inaccurate ... Yes.

False ... No.

Big difference.
It was false to the extent of the inaccuracies.

So it was false intelligence now? lol

Posted: **Sun Mar 20, 2011 4:53 pm**

cantstopthemusic wrote:
MotleyMaiden wrote:And there is a HUGE difference this time. We are not doing this unilaterally and we didn't cram false intelligence down anyone's throat hoping to get them to agree to join us.

There wasn't "false intelligence" for the Iraq war, either.

Inaccurate ... Yes.

False ... No.

Big difference.

Haha...that's rich.

Posted: **Sun Mar 20, 2011 4:56 pm**

MotleyMaiden wrote:
And there is a HUGE difference this time. We are not doing this unilaterally and we didn't cram false intelligence down anyone's throat hoping to get them to agree to join us.

Oh good grief. You got that crap from a super liberal website.

Posted: **Sun Mar 20, 2011 6:08 pm**

"An enemy attacked the state on March 19th with rockets ... Those enemies killed 48 martyrs -- mostly women, children, and religious clerics. They left more than 150 injured. The majority of these attacks were on public areas, hospitals and schools. They frightened the children and women near those areas that were subject to this aggression."

No mention that the bombs also took out a baby milk factory?

Posted: **Sun Mar 20, 2011 6:12 pm**

McCain: Obama waited too long in Libya

Washington (CNN) - Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona was critical of the president’s timetable for action in Libya, but said he is confident the American military will succeed.

“He (President Obama) waited too long, there is no doubt in my mind about it. But now, it is what it is,” McCain said in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” taped Friday. “We need now to support him and the efforts that our military are going to make. And I regret that it didn’t – we didn’t act much more quickly, and we could have.”

The ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee said if the United States had acted a couple weeks ago, before the United Nations issued a cease-fire, a no-fly zone “would probably have been enough” to prevent the situation in the African country from deteriorating.

However, since the United Nations vote, McCain added “time is not on Gadhafi’s side.”

“If he (Gadhafi) doesn’t succeed in a relatively short period of time, he’ll be driven back and, over time, I believe, defeated,” McCain said. “I have great confidence in our capabilities that the most mightiest nation in the world is now matched up against a third-rate or fourth-rate power.”

American, French and British military forces launched an operation on Gadhafi’s military Saturday, convinced the Libyan leader was not adhering to the U.N.-mandated cease-fire. The attacks on Libyan military positions with missiles and airstrikes are part of an operation that will include enforcement of a no-fly zone.

Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut said “we can’t afford to let him (Gadhafi) stay in office.”

“If Gadhafi survives, the Arab spring maybe comes to too soon an end, at least it doesn’t move beyond Tunisian and Egypt,” Lieberman told CNN Chief Political Correspondent Candy Crowley. “It’s late, but it’s not too late, if we act quickly together.”

“Now, how quickly we can move back and get him (Gadhafi) out? I think it’s going to be a matter of time,” McCain said.

Posted: **Sun Mar 20, 2011 7:01 pm**

Shut the fuck up, you doddering old fool.

Posted: **Sun Mar 20, 2011 7:48 pm**

cantstopthemusic wrote:
MotleyMaiden wrote:And there is a HUGE difference this time. We are not doing this unilaterally and we didn't cram false intelligence down anyone's throat hoping to get them to agree to join us.

There wasn't "false intelligence" for the Iraq war, either.

Inaccurate ... Yes.

False ... No.

Big difference.

Yellow cake uranium ....look it up.

Posted: **Sun Mar 20, 2011 11:58 pm**

We shouldn't have gotten involved and indeed the President should not have initiated this while abroad in Brazil and not thoroughly brief Congress. We've been talking about it for weeks and there was no real emergency. It's a civil war and an internal matter. If it's about protecting civilians and rebel forces, why aren't we in Rwanda where millions have been killed? Or Bahrain and Yemen where the same thing is happening? Or SAUDI ARABIA where it is happening? Or CHINA where it is happening?

We have a $14 trillion dollar debt, 2 other wars, and are bickering about maybe not paying our military if the government shuts down.

Qadafi's old flunky who now leads the rebels will probably end up as the new dictator, if it doesn't stabilize into an Iraq 1991-2002 stalemate, which is most likely if this coalition keeps its word and doesn't send in ground trops to help the rebels.

And what of the fact that Saudi Arabia is helping Qadafi? How do we rationalize business as usual with them if they are in his corner?

Posted: **Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:01 am**

MotleyMaiden wrote:And there is a HUGE difference this time. We are not doing this unilaterally and we didn't cram false intelligence down anyone's throat hoping to get them to agree to join us. We weren't even the first ones in.

exfuckingactly.

Nevermind is an idiot. So is buttnoid.

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:55 pm**

KneelandBobDylan wrote:
cantstopthemusic wrote:
MotleyMaiden wrote:And there is a HUGE difference this time. We are not doing this unilaterally and we didn't cram false intelligence down anyone's throat hoping to get them to agree to join us.

There wasn't "false intelligence" for the Iraq war, either.

Inaccurate ... Yes.

False ... No.

Big difference.

Yellow cake uranium ....look it up.

WikiLeaks' newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction (emphasis added). ... Chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam's toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict -- and may have brewed up their own deadly agents."

In 2008, our military shipped out of Iraq -- on 37 flights in 3,500 barrels -- what even The Associated Press called "the last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program": 550 metric tons of the supposedly nonexistent yellowcake. The New York Sun editorialized: "The uranium issue is not a trivial one, because Iraq, sitting on vast oil reserves, has no peaceful need for nuclear power. ... To leave this nuclear material sitting around the Middle East in the hands of Saddam ... would have been too big a risk."

Now the mainscream media no longer deem yellowcake -- the WMD Bush supposedly lied about -- a WMD. It was, well, old. It was degraded. It was not what we think of when we think of WMD. Really? Square that with what former Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean said in April 2004: "There were no weapons of mass destruction." MSNBC's Rachel Maddow goes even further, insisting, against the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that "Saddam Hussein was not pursuing weapons of mass destruction"!

Bush, hammered by the insidious "Bush Lied, People Died" mantra, endured one of the most vicious smears against any president in history. He is owed an apology.

When Hollywood makes "The Vindication of George W. Bush," maybe Sean Penn can play the lead.

realclearpolitics.com
December 9, 2010

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:17 pm**

What a clusterfuck this "mission" is.

It's only going to get more FUBAR as it progresses.

Thanks Hillary!

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:34 pm**

cantstopthemusic wrote:What a clusterfuck this "mission" is.

It's only going to get more FUBAR as it progresses.

Thanks Hillary!

LOL @ What a clusterfuck this "mission" is.

It's only going to get more FUBAR as it progresses.

Thanks Hillary!

Where were you when Bush Co. was fubaring Afganistan AND Iraq?

Probably rah rahing.

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:49 pm**

cantstopthemusic wrote:What a clusterfuck this "mission" is.

It's only going to get more FUBAR as it progresses.

Thanks Hillary!

No, not necessarily.

It'll probably end like Kosovo (if every nation/organization involved doesn't just up and abandon the place, when the fighting ceases).

Plus, one less insane dictator mucking up the Mideast.

Posted: **Wed Mar 23, 2011 5:44 pm**

http://lgraham.senate.gov/public/index. ... 6ed8c59bf0

SHORTER Lindsey Graham:

"If we don't use American military power to overthrow Qaddafi, then the Iranians will never take us seriously about our threats to bomb their nuclear weapons infrastructure."

Unbelievable.

And I'm not even going to get into John McCain's selective memory.

Republican politicians think there is only one source of government power - military - and that diplomatic, economic, and intelligence tools are just not serious options.

That is, unless there's a Democrat in the White House.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/world ... r=1&ref=us

Posted: **Thu Mar 24, 2011 4:17 am**

They used to spell his name differently in the 80's. Hell, it's spelled differently in a couple of posts here. I'm almost certain I've seen his first name spelled "Mommar" and "Ommar". His last name I believe I've seen as "Khadafi" and "Quadafi" but that was in the 80's.

Can't they get this translation of the sound system fixed or what?

Posted: **Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:49 pm**

The beautiful Arabic language can never be properly rendered with English characters, and that's a fact, Jack.

Posted: **Fri Mar 25, 2011 4:24 am**

I was so embarrassed. I hocked up a big, nasty, thick ass loogey once and this Saudi thought I was coming onto his wife.

Posted: **Fri Mar 25, 2011 4:32 am**

Was she wearing the thing where you only see the eyes? Nice eyes?

Posted: **Fri Mar 25, 2011 9:41 pm**

I didn't look, I didn't wanna shame her ass.

Metal Sludge Gossip Board

U.S. ATTACKS GADHAFI

U.S. ATTACKS GADHAFI

Re: U.S. ATTACKS GADHAFI

Re: U.S. ATTACKS GADHAFI

Re: U.S. ATTACKS GADHAFI

Re: U.S. ATTACKS GADHAFI

Re: U.S. ATTACKS GADHAFI

Re: U.S. ATTACKS GADHAFI

Re: U.S. ATTACKS GADHAFI

Re: U.S. ATTACKS GADHAFI

Re: U.S. ATTACKS GADHAFI

Re: U.S. ATTACKS GADHAFI

Re: U.S. ATTACKS GADHAFI

Re: U.S. ATTACKS GADHAFI

Re: U.S. ATTACKS GADHAFI

Re: U.S. ATTACKS GADHAFI

Re: U.S. ATTACKS GADHAFI

Re: U.S. ATTACKS GADHAFI

Re: U.S. ATTACKS GADHAFI

Re: U.S. ATTACKS GADHAFI

Re: U.S. ATTACKS GADHAFI

Re: U.S. ATTACKS GADHAFI

Re: U.S. ATTACKS GADHAFI

Re: U.S. ATTACKS GADHAFI

Re: U.S. ATTACKS GADHAFI

Re: U.S. ATTACKS GADHAFI

Re: U.S. ATTACKS GADHAFI

Re: U.S. ATTACKS GADHAFI

Re: U.S. ATTACKS GADHAFI