Liberal Talk Show Host Ed Schultz Suspended Over Disparaging Remarks

I'm pleased to see that you finally agree. There may be hope for you yet.

 

...and hypocritical... "every body here is so freaking literal" ...your statement.

 

Action, skirmish, conflict are mostly political weasel words. Same as kinetic military action. Something like getting Bin Laden, ok, that is an 'operation'. Something like the little firefight we got into with Pakistan the other day might be considered a 'skirmish' (or squirmish if you are Palin).

But, months long military action against another country's military. Day after day bombings of that military. People on the ground directing the war against that military. A goal of the deposing the leader of a nation. That is war. We aren't just sending money or bombs to some group fighting a civil war. We have intervened in a civil war and waged active warfare on behalf of one of the sides.

It doesn't matter if our people are not dying. It is still a war. It doesn't matter if we have help. It is still a war. It doesn't matter if we are only 'supporting' (supporting with 2/3rd of the military personnel involved, btw). It is still a war. The politicians may call it something ridiculous like a kinetic military action. But it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and makes little baby ducks when it ****s.

 

So Stu do you think it is perhaps a war then

 

Not a chance. It is a just a squirmish.

 

It's not a war. It's just a flesh wound.

 

Did you read the source you clown. The Libyan Health Office huh?

Hook, line, sinker.

 

Who else is going to have stats, dum dum? Egypt? Syria? Israel? Iran? Your Aunt Bertha? By the way, mathematics is our friend. Try using it sometime.

 

You're saying two thirds of our military is involved with Lybia?

 

No I am saying we are supporting with 2/3rds of the military people involved. In other words, there are about 13000 coalition military people involved in the war and we make up about 8500 of those...as of May's statistics which were the latest I found.

 

You're using the broadest sense of the word. Is everything that black and white to you? That numbskull is calling it that and the President a warmonger because he doesn't support the guy. And that's the only reason. He's only an American if his choices are picked to lead. And you know darn well if Obama had done nothing in spite of the other nations to stop Quadaffi's slaughter, he'd be calling the President loser or coward or indecisive or .....

 

I don;t call the President a warmonger. But I do call this a war. And it is. And as another point...guess where the most targets are that have been bombed in this war? Misrata to protect the citizens and rebels like we said we were going to do? Nope. It's Tripoli. The Capitol of the country. The seat of the government we are at war with.

 

I don't see how you CAN'T call it a war. Please explain.

Also, how do you know what a person might say if they haven't said it? Boy, talk about numbskulls!

 

If you want to believe the Libyan government about the number of people killed by NATO, you are a bigger fool than anyone could have imagined.

 

For God's sake! It's from the article YOU referenced to begin with!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

And that is why the author provided sources. So that the readers can make an intelligent decision about the information provided. You have demonstrated that you don't have that skill.

 

spin, top.. Spin....!!!!!!

View attachment 193

 

So weak, you know it is true.

 

What say we let the readers interpret the article and its references themselves? Please don't try to force more of your dogma down out throats.

 

You are the only one having trouble with the concept and I am not interested in forcing anything down your throat.