• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Obama Negotiates With Taliban Over Gitmo Prisoners

thcri

Gone But Not Forgotten
Yes the agreement was made under Bush however with all the bitching about Obama doing it and early one would think it was him backing out.

Now as for Libya again it is Obama fault when NATO forces fought it and the US gave them support with logistics. You know the thing about leading from behind.

You know you really can't have it both ways and Libya didn't cost 1 trillion dollars or 10 to 13 years either. I guess no American GI died so it had to be another illegal war, oh wait there is the war powers act and NATO fought the actual war. But then Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't perhaps it is time to back off as even the economy is improving. And guess what no one's taxes have gone up, however they have gone down.

Joec nobody can tell me we had any business being over there. And as far as Obama he did exactly what he accused Bush of doing but Bush did have approval if I remember right. If Obama would not have bashed Bush many years ago it probably would not have been a problem with me. You know that two faced thing.

Yes no Americans died but there sure could have been. Can't tell me people were not put into harms way.

Not trying to get into an argument but let's put credit where credit is due as Obama did not take us out of Iraq as far as I am concerned.

Carry On
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
Joec nobody can tell me we had any business being over there. And as far as Obama he did exactly what he accused Bush of doing but Bush did have approval if I remember right. If Obama would not have bashed Bush many years ago it probably would not have been a problem with me. You know that two faced thing.

Yes no Americans died but there sure could have been. Can't tell me people were not put into harms way.

Not trying to get into an argument but let's put credit where credit is due as Obama did not take us out of Iraq as far as I am concerned.

Carry On

I agree we had no business nor have any business in the middle east. We sure can live without their oil too since they really supply little to us. Oh and I don't give credit to Obama for getting us out of Iraq, just for getting us out earlier than was scheduled. I also think he should of pulled out of Afghanistan also but damn if the right doesn't want him to invade Iran.
 

Kane

New member
A circular conversation.

America will always need a Gitmo. Call it by any name, we will always require off-shore detention of illegal combatants (terrorists) so as to avoid the messy constraints of our own legal system.

Accept it. Embrace it. Move along.
 

mak2

Active member
Oh yea, good thing GWB gets credit, bad thing Obama gets the blame, forgot where I was. Libya is in support of NATO, a long standing treaty with no troops on the ground.
Wasn't the plan to get out of Iraq done under the Bush Administration? And didn't Obama put us in a war we had no business being in with no approval.


US - Iraq Agreement
 

Cowboy

Wait for it.
GOLD Site Supporter
Oh yea, good thing GWB gets credit, bad thing Obama gets the blame, forgot where I was. Libya is in support of NATO, a long standing treaty with no troops on the ground.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq4Bh-hlUWA"]U.S. Troops on the Ground in Libya - YouTube[/ame]
 

mak2

Active member
The only boots on the ground I can find from a real news source sites CIA operatives, who are probably everywhere in the world and bomb removal from the embassy. THe Faux piece above I find extremely interesting. In one breath the Col says the Obama administration was lying about the troops on the ground to protect him, yet Faux repeatedly states there are troops on the ground regardless of national security. IF this is to be believed, faux is no better than Manning and that Swedish goofball, Assange. Anyway the bottom line is, were American troops ever on the ground in Libya and were any of them killed? Let me think...
 

thcri

Gone But Not Forgotten
Thankfully Obama is getting us out of both Iraq and Afganistan.

You are wrong on half of your account and who knows what with Afganistan?

Wasn't the plan to get out of Iraq done under the Bush Administration? And didn't Obama put us in a war we had no business being in with no approval.

I questioned you and even showed you documentation it was part of the original plan Bush signed. Your little boy in the office is not as good as you think.

Oh yea, good thing GWB gets credit, bad thing Obama gets the blame, forgot where I was. Libya is in support of NATO, a long standing treaty with no troops on the ground.


And you still can't accept it can you. NATO or not we had no business being involved what so ever. But because Obama says it is ok then no matter what it is ok in you mind isn't it.

And who blamed Obama for anything in this?
 

Cowboy

Wait for it.
GOLD Site Supporter
Oh yea, good thing GWB gets credit, bad thing Obama gets the blame, forgot where I was. Libya is in support of NATO, a long standing treaty with no troops on the ground.
As thcri posted, just before President George W. Bush left office, he signed a Status Of Forces Agreement that said American forces will withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011. Like it or not thats a simple fact. :wink:
 

tiredretired

The Old Salt
SUPER Site Supporter
Don't forget, Obama got us out of Libya too. Oh wait, he got us into it first, then got us out. :yum:
 

Cowboy

Wait for it.
GOLD Site Supporter
Don't forget, Obama got us out of Libya too. Oh wait, he got us into it first, then got us out. :yum:
Very true TR, and lets not forget he also made this statement. “President Obama said it was ‘absolutely’ out of the question that any U.S. ground forces would be used in Libya.” :wink:
 

Kane

New member
Very true TR, and lets not forget he also made this statement. “President Obama said it was ‘absolutely’ out of the question that any U.S. ground forces would be used in Libya.” :wink:
... and that American involvement would last "a matter of days, not weeks."
 

mak2

Active member
You are wrong on half of your account and who knows what with Afganistan?


Who was the POTUS when the troops were pulled out?


I questioned you and even showed you documentation it was part of the original plan Bush signed. see above Your little boy in the office is not as good as you think. Childish derogatory term noted, I wonder if "boy" is of special significance.




And you still can't accept it can you. NATO or not we had no business being involved what so ever. But because Obama says it is ok then no matter what it is ok in you mind isn't it. I understand, long standing treaties mean nothing, when you are ate up with Obama hate. I love when you talk about libs being in lock step. :yum: Besides, almost anywhere but here I am considered conservative. But you can pretend if it makes you feel better.

And who blamed Obama for anything in this? QUOTE]

Well no one, of course.
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
He sure did under treaty agreement, and I might add without a single American dieing also. Damn that has to be what bothers you guys is no American's dieing so you can't rap yourselves in their death with righteous indignation over leaving would mean they might of died in vain. Giving reason to keep it going long past the job being done.

I love how you support the troops till they come home then to hell with them. Oh and folks we have special forces at a moments notice any place on the planet and a few you have probably never heard of.
 

thcri

Gone But Not Forgotten
You are wrong on half of your account and who knows what with Afganistan?


Who was the POTUS when the troops were pulled out?



I questioned you and even showed you documentation it was part of the original plan Bush signed. see above Your little boy in the office is not as good as you think. Childish derogatory term noted, I wonder if "boy" is of special significance.



And you still can't accept it can you. NATO or not we had no business being involved what so ever. But because Obama says it is ok then no matter what it is ok in you mind isn't it. I understand, long standing treaties mean nothing, when you are ate up with Obama hate. I love when you talk about libs being in lock step. :yum: Besides, almost anywhere but here I am considered conservative. But you can pretend if it makes you feel better.


And who blamed Obama for anything in this? QUOTE]

Well no one, of course.




Point 1
The president of the United States was Barack Obama following a document and policy instituted by Former President Bush.

Point 2
Only showing you your favoritism to the existing President. I seriously think you think he can do no wrong.

Point 3
I have no hate for Obama. My opinion of him though is he is not qualified to be President of the United States. A big difference that obviously you can't understand.

Point 4
You stated he got the blame. read your earlier post. Here I will help you.


Oh yea, good thing GWB gets credit, bad thing Obama gets the blame,
 

mak2

Active member
He sure did under treaty agreement, and I might add without a single American dieing also. Damn that has to be what bothers you guys is no American's dieing so you can't rap yourselves in their death with righteous indignation over leaving would mean they might of died in vain. Giving reason to keep it going long past the job being done.

I love how you support the troops till they come home then to hell with them. Oh and folks we have special forces at a moments notice any place on the planet and a few you have probably never heard of.

They want Obama to fail soooo bad I think they forget they and he are all Americans. Except when that guy on the radio tells them they are great Americans. :yum: actually it is not really that funny but :sad: kinda sad really.

Just to stay a little more concrete, I think the RW is to the point where they hate Obama more than they love their county.
 

Kane

New member
You are wrong on half of your account and who knows what with Afganistan?


Who was the POTUS when the troops were pulled out?


I questioned you and even showed you documentation it was part of the original plan Bush signed. see above Your little boy in the office is not as good as you think. Childish derogatory term noted, I wonder if "boy" is of special significance.




And you still can't accept it can you. NATO or not we had no business being involved what so ever. But because Obama says it is ok then no matter what it is ok in you mind isn't it. I understand, long standing treaties mean nothing, when you are ate up with Obama hate. I love when you talk about libs being in lock step. :yum: Besides, almost anywhere but here I am considered conservative. But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.” But you can pretend if it makes you feel better.

And who blamed Obama for anything in this? QUOTE]

Well no one, of course.
Besides, almost anywhere but here I am considered conservative.

Quite possibly, mak2, this is your problem. You swing with a crowd that resides way too far left of reality. Way too far.
 

thcri

Gone But Not Forgotten
They want Obama to fail soooo bad I think they forget they and he are all Americans. Except when that guy on the radio tells them they are great Americans. :yum: actually it is not really that funny but :sad: kinda sad really.

Just to stay a little more concrete, I think the RW is to the point where they hate Obama more than they love their county.


that is your opinion. You still don't understand the difference between hate and have a difference of opinion in his policies. No sense me discussing anymore with you.
 

mak2

Active member
What ever you think, but I have been anti abortion, pro gun rights and several other non Democratic things for years. I doubt you have any major divisive opinions with teh RW, too inconvient. You have to convience yourself anyone who disagrees with you has some character flaw or is just stupid. That is a device to avoid having to think. Carry on was my line, by the way..
Point 1
The president of the United States was Barack Obama following a document and policy instituted by Former President Bush.

Point 2
Only showing you your favoritism to the existing President. I seriously think you think he can do no wrong.

Point 3
I have no hate for Obama. My opinion of him though is he is not qualified to be President of the United States. A big difference that obviously you can't understand.

Point 4
You stated he got the blame. read your earlier post. Here I will help you.
 

Cowboy

Wait for it.
GOLD Site Supporter
"Combat troops" is used in newspeak because it helps obfuscate understanding about war (which is an important contribution the mainstream media and many independent outlets perform) . It has a technical military meaning, but it's often used to imply (falsely) that the troops or operatives there are not engaging in combat. This term became more prevalent after Obama pretended that following the Status of Forces Agreement 2008 that Bush signed with Iraq had something to do with his "change" of foreign policy. This was because in that agreement was this:

Article 24 - 2: All United States combat forces shall withdraw from Iraqi cities,
villages, and localities no later than the time at which Iraqi Security
Forces assume full responsibility for security in an Iraqi province,
provided that such withdrawal is completed no later than June 30, 2009.

Obama actually pushed this date back a year before speeding it up a couple months as another opportunity to pretend he had changed something about Bush's foreign policy (besides tone of diplomacy of course, which was more flattering [as opposed to Bush's undisguised arrogance]).

Likewise, for clarity, the scheduled withdrawal at the end of this year is from that same agreement:

Article 24 - 1: All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.



Furthermore!






On Feb. 27, 2009, one month after taking office as president, in a speech at Camp Lejeune, N.C., Obama said, "Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end."

He repeated the Aug. 31 date on Aug. 2 when he spoke to a group of disabled veterans in Atlanta.

“As a candidate for president, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end,” Obama said. “Shortly after taking office, I announced our new strategy for Iraq and for a transition to full Iraqi responsibility. And I made it clear that by August 31st, 2010, America’s combat mission in Iraq would end,” Obama said. “And that is exactly what we are doing, as promised and on schedule.”

http://cnsnews.com/node/72052
 

thcri

Gone But Not Forgotten
What ever you think, but I have been anti abortion, pro gun rights and several other non Democratic things for years. I doubt you have any major divisive opinions with teh RW, too inconvient. You have to convience yourself anyone who disagrees with you has some character flaw or is just stupid. That is a device to avoid having to think. Carry on was my line, by the way..

:yum: :yum: :yum: I think you have listened to too much Olberman and Mathews over the years. Personaly the above makes no sense and was a waste of your time typing. Out of here since you can't discuss respectively with others. Did Mathews tell you that the RW all hate Obama, or was it Olberman?
 

tiredretired

The Old Salt
SUPER Site Supporter
They want Obama to fail soooo bad I think they forget they and he are all Americans. Except when that guy on the radio tells them they are great Americans. :yum: actually it is not really that funny but :sad: kinda sad really.

Just to stay a little more concrete, I think the RW is to the point where they hate Obama more than they love their county.

Oh, my God! My heart is bleeding. :cry: Eight years of listening to the liberal left spread their poison toward GWB, his wife and daughters and it was OK by everyone on the left and in the lamestream media. Accepted. Business as usual. Now the right has the audacity to speak out against Mr. Fair Share and we're now unpatriotic because of our dislike toward the Fresh Prince. Wow. Sipping on some strong stuff there Mak.
 

mak2

Active member
So what? Calling him boy is not hateful? Again you retreat to your fall back position, "Someone disagrees with me, must be to his handlers telling him what to think." Cant you see what you are doing? Of course not.
What ever you think, but I have been anti abortion, pro gun rights and several other non Democratic things for years. I doubt you have any major divisive opinions with teh RW, too inconvient. You have to convience yourself anyone who disagrees with you has some character flaw or is just stupid. That is a device to avoid having to think. Carry on was my line, by the way..

:yum: :yum: :yum: I think you have listened to too much Olberman and Mathews over the years. Personaly the above makes no sense and was a waste of your time typing. Out of here since you can't discuss respectively with others. Did Mathews tell you that the RW all hate Obama, or was it Olberman?
 

Kane

New member
So what? Calling him boy is not hateful?
Only racists find hate and racism in the use of "your boy". Most of us boys and girls on FF don't see it that way. When we had our boy GWB in the White House, it wasn't hateful and racist. Why is it now?

Boy, oh boy. What has the world come to ....
 

SShepherd

New member
There is no difference in a Christian and a devout Christian or a Moslem and a devout one, I was attempting to imply they believed in the Koran, or their bible as you put it. The line did not move I did intend to confuse you.

Just say what you mean, you want to kill all Moslems, because you believe they all want to kill you cause their bible tells them to. Right? Even the ones I know at work?[/QUOTE]

and hence your apologetics about islamic ideology.
I suggest you study the quran, and the difference between shiite and sunni.
Islam and it's followers cannot be compared to other world religions, and by saying it shows you don't know much about the subject. I know you like to follow your liberal groupthink about how islam and the evil right wing, but you should really study what you're trying to debate before you continue to make yourself look foolish.
 

thcri

Gone But Not Forgotten
I didn't call him Boy. I said he was your boy that can do no wrong no matter what it is. That is the teachings of the liberal left you have consumed.
 

mak2

Active member
There is no difference in a Christian and a devout Christian or a Moslem and a devout one, I was attempting to imply they believed in the Koran, or their bible as you put it. The line did not move I did intend to confuse you.

Just say what you mean, you want to kill all Moslems, because you believe they all want to kill you cause their bible tells them to. Right? Even the ones I know at work?[/QUOTE]

and hence your apologetics about islamic ideology.
I suggest you study the quran, and the difference between shiite and sunni.
Islam and it's followers cannot be compared to other world religions, and by saying it shows you don't know much about the subject. I know you like to follow your liberal groupthink about how islam and the evil right wing, but you should really study what you're trying to debate before you continue to make yourself look foolish.

I know this is a difficult concept. I am not defending Islam. I dont beleive in any part of it. What I do believe in is religious freedom in the United States. Many people (American citizens) in this country are Moslem, they have every right to freely practice that religion in this country, until they break a law. You cannot just pretend it is not a religion and discriminate against it, or kill them. That is such a simplistic approach to the problem I think this is about the only place I ever hear about it, oh, and those whacky wing nut sites. Again with the liberal group think:yum:. Come on, lets try one original thought.
 

SShepherd

New member
Oh, excuse me. I had forgotten how truly enlightened you all are. :whistling:
I've stayed out of this thread....seeing you continually throw your backhanded insults, like you implying someone is a racist because they used the term "your boy" shows your desperation- just like jesse jackson and al sharpton.

More on topic, US policy has been not to negotiate with terrorists . This isn't the 1st time the current admin has decided against that long standing policy.
Democracies must never give in to violence, and terrorists must never be rewarded for using it. Negotiations give legitimacy to terrorists and their methods and undermine actors who have pursued political change through peaceful means. Talks can destabilize the negotiating governments' political systems, undercut international efforts to outlaw terrorism, and set a dangerous precedent.
Here's an example of the last time things were "negotiated"
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/227765/negotiating-terrorists/andrew-c-mccarthy
 

mak2

Active member
But...you did call him boy, it is right there in black and white. Isnt it about time you say I am off topic and change the subject?
I didn't call him Boy. I said he was your boy that can do no wrong no matter what it is. That is the teachings of the liberal left you have consumed.
 

SShepherd

New member
I know this is a difficult concept. I am not defending Islam. I dont beleive in any part of it. What I do believe in is religious freedom in the United States. Many people (American citizens) in this country are Moslem, they have every right to freely practice that religion in this country, until they break a law. You cannot just pretend it is not a religion and discriminate against it, or kill them. That is such a simplistic approach to the problem I think this is about the only place I ever hear about it, oh, and those whacky wing nut sites. Again with the liberal group think:yum:. Come on, lets try one original thought.
I'll say it a 3rd abd final time- study it for yourself, or are you afraid of being wrong?
The video i posted (which you obviously didn't watch) explaind things so anyone can understand them.
 
Top