that clearly isnt true. obama campaigned and was elected as an anti-war guy, and he was either dishonest or now realizes that it was an unreaslistic and stupid position. thank goodness for that. we know who trotsky is, junior. that is a very lasalle-esque non-point to make.
Hey, there.....poindexter! :yelwink2: The wikipedia quote didn't really emphasize it and I know how easy it is to miss something in a: wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffftttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxtttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt. Wasn't being condescending....I was trying to make a clear point, something I would imagine you would appreciate. Why so tense martin? Make the switch to Sanka..... Anti-war candidate? Where? What politician in power is pushing this policy sea-change?
Here is a question someone may be able to answer. Who is on our side in Libya? First the present goverment hates us and has been involved in terrorist acts. Regan even bombed them. To their side they have renounced their nuclear program. I had thought they were coming around. The resistance, from what I've heard, are funded by the Muslim brotherhood. The Muslim brotherhood has ties to al queda. The Muslim brotherhood would want to install an Islamic goverment. They would not be an ally. Now back to my question , who is on our side. Neither group will be on our side if they win. Are we there only to secure libyan oil for Europe ? It can't be just to save the poor people. Genocide has been going on all over Africa and no military involvement was ordered in those cases.
News this morning. An F15 jet crashed. One pilot found the other not yet. So now we have wasted a jet, maybe a life, countless missiles, time, money, energy. And what for?
Reagan is another one of these so called "conservatives". What we need is real leadership and not these actors.
Strike one. Evading the issue. Strike two. That's not an opinion, that making up a fact. What history of appeasement? More made up facts. Strike three, you're out.
Man, if Reagan were president today, and did what he did in the 80's, you would be calling him a liberal communist socialist too.
I read this quote earlier, which I thought was interesting (From this article: Another Presidential War. Yawn. | The Beacon) The article also brings up some good points about how complacent Americans are becoming to starting or getting involved in "conflicts". Isn't it illegal for the President to attack without approval from Congress?
