On 19/03/2011 12:53 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:51:31 -0600,
wrote:

On 19/03/2011 12:03 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In articlef17450d8-b84a-4ac4-ac5c-549b238af374
@z20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, says...

So, why does it make sense to attack Gaddafi and it did not make sense
to attack Saddam. So what if the "Arab LEague" wants us to attack.
Do you see them helping? With Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and
many other nations were on the side of the USA. Even Hillary and most
Dems thought there were WMD in Iraq and THEY VOTED TO ATTACK IRAQ.
Now, I will support the US in attacking GAddafi if the DNC issues an
apology to Bush saying he was correct and that they are mindless
ninnies.

The United States of America doesn't seek agreement from traitor Florida
crackers or Virginia ex-military.
The French can handle Gaddafi with a little off-site help from our
patriots serving in the armed forces.
So go kill some of those big roaches of yours and leave decent people
be.
After your state trained the 9/11 terrorists and elected a crook as
governor, it's been decided your opinion doesn't count for anything.

Too bad there wasn't a country big enough to interfere with the US civil
war. The outcome could have been quite a bit different.

Too bad you don't know anything about history.

So fleabagger when are you buying your jack boots? I will say,
politiicans do like good little sheeples like you. Lead by the nose types.

In article ,
says...

On 19/03/2011 11:35 AM, Frogwatch wrote:
So, why does it make sense to attack Gaddafi and it did not make sense
to attack Saddam. So what if the "Arab LEague" wants us to attack.
Do you see them helping? With Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and
many other nations were on the side of the USA. Even Hillary and most
Dems thought there were WMD in Iraq and THEY VOTED TO ATTACK IRAQ.
Now, I will support the US in attacking GAddafi if the DNC issues an
apology to Bush saying he was correct and that they are mindless
ninnies.

Gaddafi ticked off the wrong people.

Lets face it, they drag out crimes for the ast 4 decades yet do not
explain why they didn't do anything until now but do business with him.
Not even Loberbie was enough and that is old history.

Nope, Gaddafi must have told the French prime minister and Obama to
stuff it. So this is their revenge. These power hungry mogals....
Obama will stop short as he has to go to congress and they are not
looking for more expensive wars.

Meanwhile the Obama hypocrite is ignoring Yemen and Behrain's shooting
of peaceful unarmed protestors while backing a violent armed minority in
Liba....makes no sense but it is the way it is.

Gaddafi probably called Obama a name. He is a thin skinned dude for
sure...

On Mar 19, 2:59*pm, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...





On 19/03/2011 11:35 AM, Frogwatch wrote:
So, why does it make sense to attack Gaddafi and it did not make sense
to attack Saddam. *So what if the "Arab LEague" wants us to attack.
Do you see them helping? *With Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and
many other nations were on the side of the USA. *Even Hillary and most
Dems thought there were WMD in Iraq and THEY VOTED TO ATTACK IRAQ.
Now, I will support the US in attacking GAddafi if the DNC issues an
apology to Bush saying he was correct and that they *are mindless
ninnies.

Gaddafi ticked off the wrong people.

Lets face it, they drag out crimes for the ast 4 decades yet do not
explain why they didn't do anything until now but do business with him.
* Not even Loberbie was enough and that is old history.

Nope, Gaddafi must have told the French prime minister and Obama to
stuff it. *So this is their revenge. *These power hungry mogals....
Obama will stop short as he has to go to congress and they are not
looking for more expensive wars.

Meanwhile the Obama hypocrite is ignoring Yemen and Behrain's shooting
of peaceful unarmed protestors while backing a violent armed minority in
Liba....makes no sense but it is the way it is.

Gaddafi probably called Obama a name. He is a thin skinned dude for
sure...

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh, Now I see the difference. Obama is president now and
Bush was president then.

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article f17450d8-b84a-4ac4-ac5c-549b238af374
@z20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, says...

So, why does it make sense to attack Gaddafi and it did not make sense
to attack Saddam. So what if the "Arab LEague" wants us to attack.
Do you see them helping? With Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and
many other nations were on the side of the USA. Even Hillary and most
Dems thought there were WMD in Iraq and THEY VOTED TO ATTACK IRAQ.
Now, I will support the US in attacking GAddafi if the DNC issues an
apology to Bush saying he was correct and that they are mindless
ninnies.

The United States of America doesn't seek agreement from traitor Florida
crackers or Virginia ex-military.
The French can handle Gaddafi with a little off-site help from our
patriots serving in the armed forces.
So go kill some of those big roaches of yours and leave decent people
be.
After your state trained the 9/11 terrorists and elected a crook as
governor, it's been decided your opinion doesn't count for anything.

Apparently you can't answer the question either.. It is a tough one for
a liberal...

You're the pussy lib. You got a problem going after Gaddafi?
Justify it.
Or just throw in with the traitor O'hara.
Same goes for you what I said about about the hick O'hara.
Your cracker pal Herring only served because they drafted his ass then
he became a lifer because he was afraid of life outside the barracks.
Now he bites the hand that feeds him. He's not needed.
You never served your country in the military or elsewhere.
You just sucked up unemployment, welfare, and food stamps.
Typical lib conduct.
So who gives a **** what you, Herring or O'hara think?
There's decent patriotic Americans here who support our troops.
We don't need traitorous **** from the likes of you.
Now go **** up one of your little motor bikes.
Leave the fighting to the French. You're not needed.
And take off that American flag pin. It don't work on you.

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:58:38 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 19/03/2011 12:53 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:51:31 -0600,
wrote:

On 19/03/2011 12:03 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In articlef17450d8-b84a-4ac4-ac5c-549b238af374
@z20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, says...

So, why does it make sense to attack Gaddafi and it did not make sense
to attack Saddam. So what if the "Arab LEague" wants us to attack.
Do you see them helping? With Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and
many other nations were on the side of the USA. Even Hillary and most
Dems thought there were WMD in Iraq and THEY VOTED TO ATTACK IRAQ.
Now, I will support the US in attacking GAddafi if the DNC issues an
apology to Bush saying he was correct and that they are mindless
ninnies.

The United States of America doesn't seek agreement from traitor Florida
crackers or Virginia ex-military.
The French can handle Gaddafi with a little off-site help from our
patriots serving in the armed forces.
So go kill some of those big roaches of yours and leave decent people
be.
After your state trained the 9/11 terrorists and elected a crook as
governor, it's been decided your opinion doesn't count for anything.

Too bad there wasn't a country big enough to interfere with the US civil
war. The outcome could have been quite a bit different.

Too bad you don't know anything about history.

So fleabagger when are you buying your jack boots? I will say,
politiicans do like good little sheeples like you. Lead by the nose types.

You've already got them in your closet, along with your SS uniform.

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:27:04 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

On Mar 19, 2:59*pm, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...





On 19/03/2011 11:35 AM, Frogwatch wrote:
So, why does it make sense to attack Gaddafi and it did not make sense
to attack Saddam. *So what if the "Arab LEague" wants us to attack.
Do you see them helping? *With Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and
many other nations were on the side of the USA. *Even Hillary and most
Dems thought there were WMD in Iraq and THEY VOTED TO ATTACK IRAQ.
Now, I will support the US in attacking GAddafi if the DNC issues an
apology to Bush saying he was correct and that they *are mindless
ninnies.

Gaddafi ticked off the wrong people.

Lets face it, they drag out crimes for the ast 4 decades yet do not
explain why they didn't do anything until now but do business with him.
* Not even Loberbie was enough and that is old history.

Nope, Gaddafi must have told the French prime minister and Obama to
stuff it. *So this is their revenge. *These power hungry mogals....
Obama will stop short as he has to go to congress and they are not
looking for more expensive wars.

Meanwhile the Obama hypocrite is ignoring Yemen and Behrain's shooting
of peaceful unarmed protestors while backing a violent armed minority in
Liba....makes no sense but it is the way it is.

Gaddafi probably called Obama a name. He is a thin skinned dude for
sure...

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh, Now I see the difference. Obama is president now and
Bush was president then.

Yes, Obama is president. Get over it.

On 19/03/2011 2:20 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:58:38 -0600,
wrote:

On 19/03/2011 12:53 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:51:31 -0600,
wrote:

On 19/03/2011 12:03 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In articlef17450d8-b84a-4ac4-ac5c-549b238af374
@z20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, says...

So, why does it make sense to attack Gaddafi and it did not make sense
to attack Saddam. So what if the "Arab LEague" wants us to attack.
Do you see them helping? With Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and
many other nations were on the side of the USA. Even Hillary and most
Dems thought there were WMD in Iraq and THEY VOTED TO ATTACK IRAQ.
Now, I will support the US in attacking GAddafi if the DNC issues an
apology to Bush saying he was correct and that they are mindless
ninnies.

The United States of America doesn't seek agreement from traitor Florida
crackers or Virginia ex-military.
The French can handle Gaddafi with a little off-site help from our
patriots serving in the armed forces.
So go kill some of those big roaches of yours and leave decent people
be.
After your state trained the 9/11 terrorists and elected a crook as
governor, it's been decided your opinion doesn't count for anything.

Too bad there wasn't a country big enough to interfere with the US civil
war. The outcome could have been quite a bit different.

Too bad you don't know anything about history.

So fleabagger when are you buying your jack boots? I will say,
politiicans do like good little sheeples like you. Lead by the nose types.

You've already got them in your closet, along with your SS uniform.

You would follow Obama to hell.

Last I check acts of war required congressional approval. Well Obama
does not think so, he just launched cruise missles into Libya. Yet
ignores unarmed non-violent protesters getting shot to death in Yemen
and Behrain....

Hypocritical president of yours needs an impeachment.

On 19/03/2011 12:59 PM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...

On 19/03/2011 11:35 AM, Frogwatch wrote:
So, why does it make sense to attack Gaddafi and it did not make sense
to attack Saddam. So what if the "Arab LEague" wants us to attack.
Do you see them helping? With Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and
many other nations were on the side of the USA. Even Hillary and most
Dems thought there were WMD in Iraq and THEY VOTED TO ATTACK IRAQ.
Now, I will support the US in attacking GAddafi if the DNC issues an
apology to Bush saying he was correct and that they are mindless
ninnies.

Gaddafi ticked off the wrong people.

Lets face it, they drag out crimes for the ast 4 decades yet do not
explain why they didn't do anything until now but do business with him.
Not even Loberbie was enough and that is old history.

Nope, Gaddafi must have told the French prime minister and Obama to
stuff it. So this is their revenge. These power hungry mogals....
Obama will stop short as he has to go to congress and they are not
looking for more expensive wars.

Meanwhile the Obama hypocrite is ignoring Yemen and Behrain's shooting
of peaceful unarmed protestors while backing a violent armed minority in
Liba....makes no sense but it is the way it is.

Gaddafi probably called Obama a name. He is a thin skinned dude for
sure...

Funny how Obama will not go into Behrain where unarmed peaceful
civilians are getting shot at a higher rate than Libya, yet just
launched cruise missles into Libya without congressional approveal.

Far too much power for one man to have and I don't care if it is Dimwit
Democrates or GOP....

I can only see a president in acts of war without approval if the US is
being actively atacked, that didn't happen.

Another sad day for democracy as Obama is going to get away with it.

On 19/03/2011 1:27 PM, Frogwatch wrote:
On Mar 19, 2:59 pm, wrote:
In ,
says...





On 19/03/2011 11:35 AM, Frogwatch wrote:
So, why does it make sense to attack Gaddafi and it did not make sense
to attack Saddam. So what if the "Arab LEague" wants us to attack.
Do you see them helping? With Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and
many other nations were on the side of the USA. Even Hillary and most
Dems thought there were WMD in Iraq and THEY VOTED TO ATTACK IRAQ.
Now, I will support the US in attacking GAddafi if the DNC issues an
apology to Bush saying he was correct and that they are mindless
ninnies.

Gaddafi ticked off the wrong people.

Lets face it, they drag out crimes for the ast 4 decades yet do not
explain why they didn't do anything until now but do business with him.
Not even Loberbie was enough and that is old history.

Nope, Gaddafi must have told the French prime minister and Obama to
stuff it. So this is their revenge. These power hungry mogals....
Obama will stop short as he has to go to congress and they are not
looking for more expensive wars.

Meanwhile the Obama hypocrite is ignoring Yemen and Behrain's shooting
of peaceful unarmed protestors while backing a violent armed minority in
Liba....makes no sense but it is the way it is.

Gaddafi probably called Obama a name. He is a thin skinned dude for
sure...

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh, Now I see the difference. Obama is president now and
Bush was president then.

At least Bush asked Congress about war....

Obama the Great tyrant war monger didn't think that was necessary with
Libya.

And ignores the civiians getting shot in Behrain -- but Saudis call the
shots in DC war machine these days. Pretty obvious Obama be a puppet
president.

Hey, USA economy in the tank, a debt spiral like never before, Egypt in
turmoil, Tunisa neutered, Yemen.... even french Guiana in going in for a
round of civic unreast just like UN-France messed up Ivory Coast. Are
we really into a WWW III scenario of subversion of foreign governments?

On 19/03/2011 2:21 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:27:04 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

On Mar 19, 2:59 pm, wrote:
In ,
says...





On 19/03/2011 11:35 AM, Frogwatch wrote:
So, why does it make sense to attack Gaddafi and it did not make sense
to attack Saddam. So what if the "Arab LEague" wants us to attack.
Do you see them helping? With Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and
many other nations were on the side of the USA. Even Hillary and most
Dems thought there were WMD in Iraq and THEY VOTED TO ATTACK IRAQ.
Now, I will support the US in attacking GAddafi if the DNC issues an
apology to Bush saying he was correct and that they are mindless
ninnies.

Gaddafi ticked off the wrong people.

Lets face it, they drag out crimes for the ast 4 decades yet do not
explain why they didn't do anything until now but do business with him.
Not even Loberbie was enough and that is old history.

Nope, Gaddafi must have told the French prime minister and Obama to
stuff it. So this is their revenge. These power hungry mogals....
Obama will stop short as he has to go to congress and they are not
looking for more expensive wars.

Meanwhile the Obama hypocrite is ignoring Yemen and Behrain's shooting
of peaceful unarmed protestors while backing a violent armed minority in
Liba....makes no sense but it is the way it is.

Gaddafi probably called Obama a name. He is a thin skinned dude for
sure...

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh, Now I see the difference. Obama is president now and
Bush was president then.

Yes, Obama is president. Get over it.

Tick-tock-Obama-be-on-a-rock -- 2012 is a coming.