10 key reasons why the Obama presidency continues to melt down - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Ridge;31619530]Oil exports[/QUOTE]Sweden and Finland don't have any oil to export, though. Please don't be misinformed.

[QUOTE=Ridge;31640608]So was Iraq. Saddam Hussein was ignoring UN resolutions regarding chemical weapons and the no fly zone. [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-administration-libya-action-does-not-require-congressional-approval/2011/06/15/AGLttOWH_story.html"]Also,[/URL] So because Americans aren't being shot at while bombing the shit out of a sovereign nation, it is not a war.[/QUOTE] The Iraq war wasn't waged because of it. He was talking having boots on the ground. A series of airstrikes alongside other nations to uphold a resolution is not a war.

[QUOTE=amute;31641787]A series of airstrikes alongside other nations to uphold a resolution is not a war.[/QUOTE] How is it not? You are violating an independent country's airspace, so that you can blow it's infrastructure up. That sounds like a war to me.

[QUOTE=Ridge;31641841]How is it not? You are violating an independent country's airspace, so that you can blow it's infrastructure up. That sounds like a war to me.[/QUOTE] So every military action is a war now?

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31641863]So every military action is a war now?[/QUOTE] If China were to fly on over here and bomb the fuck out of Washington DC and every military base they could reach, would you say it's not a war?

[QUOTE=Ridge;31641902]If China were to fly on over here and bomb the fuck out of Washington DC and every military base they could reach, would you say it's not a war?[/QUOTE] If they had the support of every allied nation and the UN, and we were killing civilians left and right, I'd say the same.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31642080]If they had the support of every allied nation and the UN, and we were killing civilians left and right, I'd say the same.[/QUOTE] According to [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2011_Libyan_civil_war_before_military_intervention]this article,[/url] the whole thing started when anti-government rioters burned down government buildings in two towns, and started torching cars in a third. So it was a government quelling people seeking to destroy property. A lot like what is happening in London right now. What if we flew over and bombed Parliament, because they were violently countering protesters?

Uh okay, ridge, the british government isn't gunning down protesters.

[QUOTE=amute;31642459]Uh okay, ridge, the british government isn't gunning down protesters.[/QUOTE] Well they aren't really doing much of anything from what I've heard, plus it isn't like the Libyan government was prepared for a full-fledged revolution and i doubt they had a mass of rubber bullets. Just playing devil's advocate there, but really, not even a year ago people on facepunch were bitching about the USA being the "policemen of the world", well, who are the policemen of the world? The UN? How can anyone use that phrase with a negative connotation if under the right circumstances, certain governments are the policemen of the world? Either you get the world policemen who, believe me, aren't acting out of the goodness of their hearts, or you get the occasional genocide by horrible people we prop up with foreign aid. We can have neither of those but I don't see that ever happening so long as the attitude of the people remains that western governments should quell all evils of the world.

[QUOTE=Ridge;31639880]Something something something.[/QUOTE] Oy, what's yer' response to this; [QUOTE=mac338;31635669]Yeah hi. Noticed how Sweden and Finland and Denmark have no oil exports, but still all tree are on the top 5 most secure AAA-rated countries?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=s0beit;31642773]Well they aren't really doing much of anything from what I've heard, plus it isn't like the Libyan government was prepared for a full-fledged revolution and i doubt they had a mass of rubber bullets. Just playing devil's advocate there, but really, not even a year ago people on facepunch were bitching about the USA being the "policemen of the world", well, who are the policemen of the world? The UN? How can anyone use that phrase with a negative connotation if under the right circumstances, certain governments are the policemen of the world? Either you get the world policemen who, believe me, aren't acting out of the goodness of their hearts, or you get the occasional genocide by horrible people we prop up with foreign aid. We can have neither of those but I don't see that ever happening so long as the attitude of the people remains that western governments should quell all evils of the world.[/QUOTE] The UN's purpose is to maintain peace. The US likes to think they can try and do this, but fail miserably every time. It's a lot less black and white than you make it out to be. [editline]10th August 2011[/editline] The US is barely involved in Libya though, it's mostly France and England WITH support acting under the United Nations.

[QUOTE=amute;31643490]The UN's purpose is to maintain peace. The US likes to think they can try and do this, but fail miserably every time. It's a lot less black and white than you make it out to be. [editline]10th August 2011[/editline] The US is barely involved in Libya though, it's mostly France and England WITH support acting under the United Nations.[/QUOTE] How dare you speak in a racist tone!

Fox news has another key demographic that obama is loosing [img]http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lpovutbRyx1qdplevo1_500.png[/img] Whatever that is

[QUOTE=amute;31643490]The UN's purpose is to maintain peace. The US likes to think they can try and do this, but fail miserably every time. It's a lot less black and white than you make it out to be. [editline]10th August 2011[/editline] The US is barely involved in Libya though, it's mostly France and England WITH support acting under the United Nations.[/QUOTE] Bombing is not "barely involved", I also don't really give a shit what the UN says. Just because the UN says something is OK, does not make it OK. The UN doesn't exactly have a spotless record when it comes to peace-keeping either.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;31643833]Fox news has another key demographic that obama is loosing [img]http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lpovutbRyx1qdplevo1_500.png[/img] Whatever that is[/QUOTE] Obama is too mainstream.

[QUOTE=Contag;31643897]Obama is too mainstream.[/QUOTE] FOX didn't really write they article, they've just used a blog post as a source. As stupid as that is, it is supposed to mean independent college voters.

[QUOTE=s0beit;31643963]FOX didn't really write they article, they've just used a blog post as a source. As stupid as that is, it is supposed to mean independent college voters.[/QUOTE] Don't 'indies' typically end up in that demographic though?

[QUOTE=mac338;31643280]Oy, what's yer' response to this;[/QUOTE] The US had a Triple A rating up until last week, despite, for 6 months, have a debt of more money than exists.

[QUOTE=Ridge;31646008]The US had a Triple A rating up until last week, despite, for 6 months, have a debt of more money than exists.[/QUOTE]The USA's credit rating is a load of shit. How can an entity that is bankrupt have a good credit rating?

[QUOTE=Contag;31639560]pquote]Office of the Director of National Intelligence Independent Agencies Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) United States Department of Defense Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency (AF ISR) Air Force Office of Special Investigations Army Criminal Investigation Command (Army CID) Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Marine Corps Intelligence Activity [3] Military Intelligence Corps (United States Army) [4] National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) National Security Agency (NSA) Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) United States Department of Energy Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence United States Department of Homeland Security United States Secret Service Coast Guard Intelligence [5] Office of Intelligence and Analysis Coast Guard Investigative Service United States Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Directorate of Intelligence Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of National Security Intelligence (DEA) United States Department of State Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) United States Department of the Treasury Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence[/quote] Great, except for the part where each of those has unique requirements or a unique target to specifically defend. The CIA and FBI were already covering terrorism. They are a perfect combination of police force and military force for countering terrorist activity. [editline]10th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=amute;31643490] The US is barely involved in Libya though, it's mostly France and England WITH support acting under the United Nations.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_intervention_in_Libya#Forces_committed[/url] Not really. Numerically the US still devastates everyone else in terms of aircraft and naval vessels supplied.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;31643816]How dare you speak in a racist tone![/QUOTE] I don't even know what you're trying to say. Because I said black and white? You know what a colour is, great, I'm afraid I don't have any gold stars and a juice box for you. [editline]10th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;31649142] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_intervention_in_Libya#Forces_committed[/url] Not really. Numerically the US still devastates everyone else in terms of aircraft and naval vessels supplied.[/QUOTE] Oh, well, it's not [I]barely [/I]then, but France and England are leading it. But whatever, my point still stands, it's not a war. [editline]10th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=s0beit;31643845]Bombing is not "barely involved", I also don't really give a shit what the UN says. Just because the UN says something is OK, does not make it OK. The UN doesn't exactly have a spotless record when it comes to peace-keeping either.[/QUOTE] The UN isn't spotless but it's far better in success than the US or anyone else. It's bogged down by things, but it's still needed.

[QUOTE=amute;31650122] Oh, well, it's not [I]barely [/I]then, but France and England are leading it. But whatever, my point still stands, it's not a war. [/QUOTE] Quite true, politically, strategically, and publicly, they are definitely on point here. Just didn't want to disregard the US military entirely for doing exactly what I want them to be doing: helping without controlling.

[QUOTE=GunFox;31651336]Quite true, politically, strategically, and publicly, they are definitely on point here. Just didn't want to disregard the US military entirely for doing exactly what I want them to be doing: helping without controlling.[/QUOTE] And that's what I've always said. It's an action where the US is helping in a big way, but not leading.

[QUOTE=Contag;31636226]Are you arguing for totalitarianism?[/QUOTE] No, I'm arguing for pluralism. Separate the two big groups into pieces, make people forget and forgive, and maybe something will get done. Of course, the left wing/right wing characterization will still exist, but like in participative democracies you'll see things get done simply because every issue the Congress faces will not be tackled using only two points of view.