Well Cheney & Bush have been already convicted of War Crimes in abstensia by a special war crimes tribunal in Malaysia. So a precident has been set. Will the UN do anything, probably not. But curiously neither Bush or Cheney have traveled abroad since leaving office. For fear of being arrested? Me thinks so.
Well Cheney & Bush have been already convicted of War Crimes in abstensia by a special war crimes tribunal in Malaysia. So a precident has been set. Will the UN do anything, probably not. But curiously neither Bush or Cheney have traveled abroad since leaving office. For fear of being arrested? Me thinks so.
Obma
"Islam teaches peace. Muslims the world over aspire to live with dignity and a sense of justice. And when it comes to America and Islam, there is no us and them, there is only us — because millions of Muslim Americans are part of the fabric of our country."
"
President Barack Obama speaks during the 69th Session of the United Nations General Assembly at the United Nations in New York City on Sept. 24.Associated Press
Obma
"Islam teaches peace. Muslims the world over aspire to live with dignity and a sense of justice. And when it comes to America and Islam, there is no us and them, there is only us — because millions of Muslim Americans are part of the fabric of our country."
"
Obama: "Islam teaches peace"
Yeah, except for the Koran, and their one holy prophet Mohammad, and their bloody history of death by sword, and their 1400 year history of abusing women...
"Ladies and gentlemen, militant Islam’s ambition to dominate the world seems mad, but so too did the global ambitions of another fanatic ideology that swept into power eight decades ago. The Nazis believed in a master race. The militant Islamists believe in a master faith. They just disagree who among them will be the master of the master faith. That’s what they truly disagree about. And therefore, the question before us is whether militant Islam will have the power to realize its unbridled ambitions.
the Islamic State of Iran. For 35 years, Iran has relentlessly pursued the global mission which was set forth by its founding ruler, Ayatollah Khomeini, in these words. “We will export our revolution to the entire world until the cry ‘there is no god but Allah’ will echo throughout the world over.” And ever since, the regime’s brutal enforcers, Iran’s revolutionary guards, have done exactly that.
Listen to its current commander, General Mohammad Ali Jafari. And he clearly stated his goal. He said “Our imam did not limit the Islamic revolution to this country, our duty is to prepare the way for an Islamic world government.”
For 35 years, Iran has relentlessly pursued the global mission which was set forth by its founding ruler, Ayatollah Khomeini, in these words. “We will export our revolution to the entire world until the cry ‘there is no god but Allah’ will echo throughout the world over.” And ever since, the regime’s brutal enforcers, Iran’s revolutionary guards, have done exactly that.
Now listen to Khaled Mashal, the leader of Hamas. He proclaims a similar vision of the future: We say this to the West -- by Allah you will be defeated. Tomorrow our nation will sit on the throne of the world.
As Hamas’ charter makes clear, Hamas’ immediate goal is to destroy Israel, but Hamas has a broader objective. They also want a caliphate. Hamas shares the global ambitions of its fellow militant Islamists, and that’s why its supporters wildly cheered in the streets of Gaza as thousands of Americans were murdered in 9/11, and that’s why its leaders condemn the United States for killing Osama bin Laden whom they praised as a holy warrior.
ISIS and Hamas share a fanatical creed, which they both seek to impose well beyond the territory under their control. Listen to ISIS’ self-declared caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. This is what he said two months ago: A day will soon come when the Muslim will walk everywhere as a master. The Muslims will cause the world to hear and understand the meaning of terrorism and destroy the idol of democracy.
[h=1]Netanyahu's UN speech: Hamas, Iran, Islamic State and a finger in Obama’s eye[/h]So don’t be fooled by Iran’s manipulative charm offensive. It’s designed for one purpose and for one purpose only: to lift the sanctions and remove the obstacles to Iran’s path to the bomb.
The Islamic Republic is now trying to bamboozle its way to an agreement that will remove the sanctions it still faces and leave it with a capacity of thousands of refugees -- of centrifuges, rather -- to enrich uranium.
This would effectively cement Iran’s place as a threshold military nuclear power.
And in the future, at the time of its choosing, Iran, the world’s most dangerous regime, in the world’s most dangerous region, would obtain the world’s most dangerous weapons.
Allowing that to happen would pose the gravest threat to us all.
It’s one thing to confront militant Islamists on pickup trucks armed with Kalashnikov rifles. It’s another thing to confront militant Islamists armed with weapons of mass destruction.
I remember that last year, everyone here was rightly concerned about thechemical weapons in Syria, including the possibility that they would fall into the hands of terrorists.
Well, that didn’t happen, and President Obama deserves great credit for leading the diplomatic effort to dismantle virtually all of Syria’s chemical weapons capability. Imagine how much more dangerous the Islamic State, ISIS, would be if it possessed chemical weapons. Now imagine how much more dangerous the Islamic state of Iran would be if it possessed nuclear weapons.
Ladies and gentlemen, would you let ISIS enrich uranium? Would you let ISIS build a heavy water reactor? Would you let ISIS develop intercontinental ballistic missiles? Of course you wouldn’t. Then you mustn’t let the Islamic state of Iran do those things either, because here’s what will happen. Once Iran produces atomic bombs, all the charms and all the smiles will suddenly disappear. They’ll just vanish. And it’s then that the ayatollahs will show their true face and unleash their aggressive fanaticism on the entire world.
There’s only one responsible course of action to address this threat. Iran’s nuclear military capabilities must be fully dismantled. (Applause.) Make no mistake: ISIS must be defeated. But to defeat ISIS and leave Iran as a threshold nuclear power is to win the battle and lose the war. (Applause.) To defeat ISIS and leave Iran as a threshold nuclear power is to win the battle and lose the war.
The Islamic Republic is now trying to bamboozle its way to an agreement that will remove the sanctions it still faces and leave it with a capacity of thousands of refugees -- of centrifuges, rather -- to enrich uranium.
This would effectively cement Iran’s place as a threshold military nuclear power.
And in the future, at the time of its choosing, Iran, the world’s most dangerous regime, in the world’s most dangerous region, would obtain the world’s most dangerous weapons.
Allowing that to happen would pose the gravest threat to us all.
It’s one thing to confront militant Islamists on pickup trucks armed with Kalashnikov rifles. It’s another thing to confront militant Islamists armed with weapons of mass destruction.
I remember that last year, everyone here was rightly concerned about thechemical weapons in Syria, including the possibility that they would fall into the hands of terrorists.
Well, that didn’t happen, and President Obama deserves great credit for leading the diplomatic effort to dismantle virtually all of Syria’s chemical weapons capability. Imagine how much more dangerous the Islamic State, ISIS, would be if it possessed chemical weapons. Now imagine how much more dangerous the Islamic state of Iran would be if it possessed nuclear weapons.
Ladies and gentlemen, would you let ISIS enrich uranium? Would you let ISIS build a heavy water reactor? Would you let ISIS develop intercontinental ballistic missiles? Of course you wouldn’t. Then you mustn’t let the Islamic state of Iran do those things either, because here’s what will happen. Once Iran produces atomic bombs, all the charms and all the smiles will suddenly disappear. They’ll just vanish. And it’s then that the ayatollahs will show their true face and unleash their aggressive fanaticism on the entire world.
There’s only one responsible course of action to address this threat. Iran’s nuclear military capabilities must be fully dismantled. (Applause.) Make no mistake: ISIS must be defeated. But to defeat ISIS and leave Iran as a threshold nuclear power is to win the battle and lose the war. (Applause.) To defeat ISIS and leave Iran as a threshold nuclear power is to win the battle and lose the war.
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
What is even funnier than you being so laughably stupid to fall for such dumb shit, is this:
WASHINGTON — The White House believes that Congress’s 2002 authorization of the Iraq war — and not just the 2001 authorization to fight Al Qaeda — provides a legal justification for President Obama’s air campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the Obama administration said Friday.
By claiming statutory authority, the administration sidestepped the War Powers Resolution, which requires deployments into hostilities to end after 60 days if Congress has not signed off.
And this
Future historians will ask why George W. Bush sought and received express congressional authorization for his wars (against al Qaeda and Iraq) and his successor did not. They will puzzle over how Barack Obama the prudent war-powers constitutionalist transformed into a matchless war-powers unilateralist. And they will wonder why he claimed to “welcome congressional support” for his new military initiative against the Islamic State but did not insist on it in order to ensure clear political and legal legitimacy for the tough battle that promised to consume his last two years in office and define his presidency.
“History has shown us time and again . . . that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch,” candidate Barack Obama told the Boston Globe in 2007. “It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.” President Obama has discarded these precepts. His announcement that he will expand the use of military force against the Islamic State without the need for new congressional consent marks his latest adventure in unilateralism and cements an astonishing legacy of expanding presidential war powers.
And finally:
Obama Will Fight ISIS With George W. Bush’s Legal Theories
You are so silly and stupid it is surreal.
This thread is your epic beclowning.
Note that the Obama Administration has done nothing, not 1 thing different, regarding the war on terror than the previous administration.
In fact, Obama has claimed powers no previous President has ever asserted.
And this dumbshit is talking about "war criminals" and a kangaroo in absentia court.
What a complete dumb ass.
In fact, Obama has claimed powers no previous President has ever asserted.
And this dumbshit is talking about "war criminals" and a kangaroo in absentia court.
What a complete dumb ass.
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
The White House has acknowledged for the first time that strict standards President Obama imposed last year to prevent civilian deaths from U.S. drone strikes will not apply to U.S. military operations in Syria and Iraq.
A White House statement to Yahoo News confirming the looser policy came in response to questions about reports that as many as a dozen civilians, including women and young children, were killed when a Tomahawk missile struck the village of Kafr Daryan in Syria's Idlib province on the morning of Sept. 23.
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
You're a laughable rube.
As a Republican, I can safely say there is no substantive difference between Bush and Obama. That being said, I take no issue with Obama's actions. If ISIS is going to hide among civilians and the civilians fail to act, they are fair game. If it's us or them, I'm taking us every time. Just don't let Democrats blame Bush and sanctify Obama.
Are you speaking only on foreign policy or on all issues? I think there are many differences overall. It's a different world now than even several years ago. I believe both want security for America. During the Bush presidency there were two threats, dictatorships seeking WMD and Islamic extremism/terrorism. Bush believed removing dictators would decrease Islamic extremism ("Dictators breed radicalism. Free people are less likely to want to attack us") but instead it created a vacuum which was filled by jihadis. People can argue all day whether Obama contributed to this by failing to solidify a SOFA.
Obama ran, and remains married to a philosophy of "we're getting out." That strategy has also failed and we are seeing the repercussions now. He is slow to intervene while terrorists take territory, slicing off heads as they go. Now he has sworn to, "degrade and eventually destroy" ISIL but at the same time refuses to abandon his "no boots on the ground" talking point. Obama has recently moved right by using air power. If that fails, or he fails to get Arab armies to finish the job he will again face another quandary. Does he stick by his "no boots on the ground" slogan which is purely for political folly, or do what is necessary to win the war.
