It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Vandettas
People that try to bash Obama never put up a good argument. Its embarrassing really.
Originally posted by superman2012
What did he even do to deserve this Peace Prize?!??
I haven't declared war on a country. I haven't invaded a country. I don't suck the teet of the UN. I don't seal records showing where I was born. I don't send my friends to a war that doesn't mean anything and let them die because of my ideals. Can someone nominate me please!??
Originally posted by AnimositisominA
I cant believe he said "I don't see the contradiction"
KILLING PEOPLE FOR PEACE.
Why didn't I think of that?
Originally posted by jonnywhite
I"m not convinced going into Libya was a bad idea yet, but I'm not sold on anything. The rebels don't seem like peaceful protesters to me. They're armed and have access to weaponry and defenses that I don't think normal citizens would have access to. The feeling I'm getting from it is that whatever is going on over there has deep roots and didn't just happen one day. It seems more like a civil war or internal strife. Thusly, it's hard for me to support interferrence from the international community. Furthermore, if we're to interfere in this instance for the sake of the innocent peoples, then one must ask why we're not involved in a lot more wars of this sort. I must also ask how would we afford it. Can we be the police of the world? The UK and France cannot. The US is hte most highly funded and capable military in the world. And why're we not questioning whether enforcing a no-fly zone, which is essentially similar to declaring war on libya, is necessarily going to make things better? Libya has not directly attacked another nation. We know from history that war almost always has bad results. War is hell. Why would we then use war to settle something like this when the act itself might in fact make things worse than they're? War is something we should only do when it's absolutely necessary. The risks are too high.
No war is free. War is not precise like the justice system. We should use it carefully. Anytime we use it we risk making more enemies and/or killing innocents that we did not want to kill.edit on 24-3-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by schuyler
He can keep his Oscar and his Grammy, too. When Nero was Emperor of Rome he took his entourage to the Olympic Games and personally entered many of the contests. He won even though he fell of his horse. That may have pleased him no end, but I doubt anyone else was fooled. So, too, with Obama, an empty puppet of a man who is impressed with his own arrogance.edit on 3/24/2011 by schuyler because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Vandettas
People that try to bash Obama never put up a good argument. Its embarrassing really.
Originally posted by kinda kurious
Strike 1 : Slow response to Gulf Oil disaster.
Strike 2 : Failure to live to campaign promise and stand by WI Union workers.
Strike 3 : Engaging US in unnecessary war counter to campaign promises of being anti-war.
So our reasons might be different so I'll take the easy out and be an equal opportunity basher.
I make no excues though, I fell for it. Live and learn.edit on 24-3-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)