[FairfieldLife] Re: Ha ha ha! Idiot Bongo Brazil contradicts his hero Obama!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > > wrote: > > > > > 1) During the campaign, Barack Obama supported the > > > idea of going after Osamb Bin Laden in SOVEREIGN > > > Pakistani territory...WITHOUT the permission of > > > Pakistan! > > > > > > 2) Just today, the above statement came back to > > > haunt Obama when he was asked at a press conference > > > whether India had that same right to invade a > > > sovereign nation like Pakistan without their > > > permission > > > > (BTW, that's the definition of invasion, going > > into a country without its permission.) > > > > > vis a vis the recent terrorist attacks in India. > > > Obama reiterated his campaign statement by saying: > > > I think sovereign nations have the right to defend > > > themselves...and I'll limit my comment to that. > > > > > > Wow. Did Obama just give India the green light to > > > invade Pakistan? Or at least bomb terrorist targets > > > within the borders of Pakistan? H > > > > You nitwit. Nobody believes sovereign nations don't > > have the right to defend themselves. That light is > > always green. > > > > He was making a minimalist generic statement, not > > addressing the India/Pakistan situation > > Actually, he was. No, he was sidestepping it. > His comment was, according to what Wolf Blitzer of CNN > said, in response to a direct question about Pakistan > and the India terrorist attacks in light of his previous > statement from the campaign...and he chose to answer the > way he did. I.e., by not addressing the India/Pakistan situation or his previous campaign statement. See, "responding to" a question and "addressing" the substance of the question can be two different things (and frequently are in politics). He made an utterly noncontroversial statement, which he did not relate to India/Pakistan or to his earlier campaign statement. > He could have chosen a much wiser "generic statement" > as a response instead. Maybe, but that's a different issue. > > (or his > > earlier campaign statement, for that matter). > > Well, no, he wasn't addressing the India/Pakistan > situation in his earlier statement I didn't say he was. I said he wasn't addressing his earlier statement in his statement today.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ha ha ha! Idiot Bongo Brazil contradicts his hero Obama!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" wrote: > > > [snip] > > > > > This is another clear example of Magoo's social pathology. Here he > > tries to compare working to stop polluting the earth to prevent > > massive deaths resulting from drastic climate changes in a globally > > agreed consensus that it's imperiative to address it - to invading a > > sovereign nation that has resulted in the deaths and injuries of > > millions of human beings. What a sick fuck. > > > > Putting aside the "millions of human beings" part of that (no more > than 80,000 Iraqi civilians have died; Putting aside Magoo's pathological comparison of invading a country and massively killing its people to preventing massive deaths by addressing climate change: NOTE: The following is just violent deaths. Maimings and injuries are multiples of the number of deaths. ORB survey of Iraq War casualties --On Friday, September 14, 2007, ORB (Opinion Research Business), an independent polling agency located in London, published estimates of the total war casualties in Iraq since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.[1] At over 1.2 million deaths (1,220,580), this estimate is the highest number published so far, outnumbering even the death toll of the recent Rwandan genocide.[2] From the poll margin of error of +/-2.5% ORB calculated a range of 733,158 to 1,446,063 deaths. The ORB estimate was performed by a random survey of 1,720 adults aged 18+, out of which 1,499 responded, in fifteen of the eighteen governorates within Iraq, between August 12 and August 19, 2007.[3][4] In comparison, the 2006 Lancet survey suggested almost half this number (654,965 deaths) through the end of June 2006. The Lancet authors calculated a range of 392,979 to 942,636 deaths. On 28 January 2008, ORB published an update based on additional work carried out in rural areas of Iraq. Some 600 additional interviews were undertaken and as a result of this the death estimate was revised to 1,033,000 with a given range of 946,000 to 1,120,000.[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualties about 4,000 American troops), > let's zero in on his "invading a sovereign nation" comment: > > 1) During the campaign, Barack Obama supported the idea of going > after Osamb Bin Laden in SOVEREIGN Pakistani territory...WITHOUT the > permission of Pakistan! Besides being a sociopath, what an idiot Magoo is. Surgical strikes are -totally different- from invading a country to affect regime change resulting in massive deaths and injuries and nationwide population displacement of millions of its citizens - while destroying the country's infrastructure. > > 2) Just today, the above statement came back to haunt Obama when he > was asked at a press conference whether India had that same right to > invade a sovereign nation like Pakistan without their permission vis > a vis the recent terrorist attacks in India. Obama reiterated his > campaign statement by saying: I think sovereign nations have the > right to defend themselves...and I'll limit my comment to that. > > Wow. Did Obama just give India the green light to invade Pakistan? > Or at least bomb terrorist targets within the borders of Pakistan? > H Obama made no commitment, idiot.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ha ha ha! Idiot Bongo Brazil contradicts his hero Obama!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > wrote: > > > 1) During the campaign, Barack Obama supported the > > idea of going after Osamb Bin Laden in SOVEREIGN > > Pakistani territory...WITHOUT the permission of > > Pakistan! > > > > 2) Just today, the above statement came back to > > haunt Obama when he was asked at a press conference > > whether India had that same right to invade a > > sovereign nation like Pakistan without their > > permission > > (BTW, that's the definition of invasion, going > into a country without its permission.) > > > vis a vis the recent terrorist attacks in India. > > Obama reiterated his campaign statement by saying: > > I think sovereign nations have the right to defend > > themselves...and I'll limit my comment to that. > > > > Wow. Did Obama just give India the green light to > > invade Pakistan? Or at least bomb terrorist targets > > within the borders of Pakistan? H > > You nitwit. Nobody believes sovereign nations don't > have the right to defend themselves. That light is > always green. > > He was making a minimalist generic statement, not > addressing the India/Pakistan situation Actually, he was. His comment was, according to what Wolf Blitzer of CNN said, in response to a direct question about Pakistan and the India terrorist attacks in light of his previous statement from the campaign...and he chose to answer the way he did. He could have chosen a much wiser "generic statement" as a response instead. He could have said something to the effect that it was not the United States' business what India and Pakistan do but that he hopes they both demonstrate restraint (can't get more generic than that). But he must have felt he was trapped because of his prior statement, made during the campaign, and felt that he had to address the question in light of that. > (or his > earlier campaign statement, for that matter). Well, no, he wasn't addressing the India/Pakistan situation in his earlier statement because the Bombay attack hadn't happened yet; if memory serves me correctly, he was addressing going after Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ha ha ha! Idiot Bongo Brazil contradicts his hero Obama!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1) During the campaign, Barack Obama supported the > idea of going after Osamb Bin Laden in SOVEREIGN > Pakistani territory...WITHOUT the permission of > Pakistan! > > 2) Just today, the above statement came back to > haunt Obama when he was asked at a press conference > whether India had that same right to invade a > sovereign nation like Pakistan without their > permission (BTW, that's the definition of invasion, going into a country without its permission.) > vis a vis the recent terrorist attacks in India. > Obama reiterated his campaign statement by saying: > I think sovereign nations have the right to defend > themselves...and I'll limit my comment to that. > > Wow. Did Obama just give India the green light to > invade Pakistan? Or at least bomb terrorist targets > within the borders of Pakistan? H You nitwit. Nobody believes sovereign nations don't have the right to defend themselves. That light is always green. He was making a minimalist generic statement, not addressing the India/Pakistan situation (or his earlier campaign statement, for that matter).
