Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: dogmush on March 28, 2011, 07:32:59 PM
-
I am learning it right now. So far I've learned that countless lives have been saved.
Anyone else watching?
-
I've managed 2 15-20 second episodes before my finger apoplectically spasms on the remote back to blues music.
-
[barf] [barf] [barf]
-
That guy must absolutely love the sound of his own voice.
He could have said all he needed to in under two minutes.
-
[barf] [barf] [barf]
Ditto. What a pompous, self serving POS.
I didn't see TOTUS in view for this windbag session. Is he writing notes on his hand now?
-
Well the CinC makes a decent case for why we went in with only air strikes, and why he won't expand to a full invasion, so good there.
I think his stated strategic reason for intervention; that a massacre in Libya would result in a flood of refugees across the borders into Egypt and Tunisia and threaten their "fledgling democracy" is a little weak, he would have been better off just sticking with the moral imperative to not allow a massacre of civilians.
I also think that our president is wildly, ridiculously optimistic as to the sort of governments that North Africa's recent revolutions will turn out. He seems to think that Egypt, Tunisia, and now Libya are, now that "the people have grasped freedom" are going to morph into some kind of young Western Europe. I think it's much more likely that we'll end up with new dictators, and if we're lucky they won't band together.
I will give him credit for being between a rock and a hard place. No matter how bad Libya ends up being, at least we didn't pull another Rwanda.
-
I will give him credit for being between a rock and a hard place. No matter how bad Libya ends up being, at least we didn't pull another Rwanda.
Give it a week or so.... ;/
-
Why are we in Libya? So Obama looks manly, Bush-like, for the 2012 election. To fool all those independents into voting for him again. [popcorn]
-
Give it a week or so.... ;/
well whatever happens we didn't stand by idly for another massacre.
.
.
.
.
.
We may well have helped however.
-
Truly between a rock and a hard place.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.seattlepi.com%2Fdavidhorsey%2Ffiles%2F2011%2F03%2FLibya-news-3-23-11-color-640x472.jpg&hash=12060d7e3f49281a15406a8f292a76d56892056f)
-
Heard it. He gave himself permission to use our military in furtherance of his own moral lights, however ill-considered, capricious, autonomous. That wasn't a speech. It was a declaration of war against the U.S. Constitution, Congress, and We the People.
Funny, though, a month ago this Qaddafi fellow was at least nominally an ally. Wha' 'appened? Did he forget to make a payment?
-
And...
When in doubt wag the dog. With the side benefit of wasting more money, ignoring the Constitution, and greasing the rise of the Muslim Bro'hood.
Why worry about our insane deficits, the border, etc., etc. when you can just fabricate the reason for opening up a third theater of war when our military is already over-stressed and our materiel is, according to reports, badly wearing down?
-
Interesting that the pacifist constitutional law professor went to war without consulting congress, while Bush I and the cowboy Bush II got congressional approval first, and that our president--who accused Bush II of rushing to war--did so in a matter of days, where Bush II spent months trying to mollify his critics by consulting everyone except his dog.
-
I am learning it right now. So far I've learned that countless lives have been saved.
Anyone else watching?
I have no idea what you-all are talking about. Let me guess -- His 0-ness giving a speech on TeeVee.
-
I think his stated strategic reason for intervention; that a massacre in Libya would result in a flood of refugees across the borders into Egypt and Tunisia and threaten their "fledgling democracy" is a little weak, he would have been better off just sticking with the moral imperative to not allow a massacre of civilians.
If you replace "Egypt & Tunisia" with "Italy & France" and "refugees" with "sub-Saharan African illegal immigrants" you'd find the real reason the Froggies and pizza-slingers went to war, dragging our half East African POTUS into bombing the heck outta North Africans.
Mo-man made a deal with the Euros: We'll rehabilitate your rep, ignore your brutality, and buy your oil in return for you machine-gunning sub-Saharan Africans at your southern border. The Libyan unrest had already caused many refugees/illegal immigrants to flee to little Euro islands in the Med. Mo-man was not holding up his end. The Euros want somebody to perform that function. Maybe the other main tribe in Libya will.
-
It's a bit late for the Euros to worry about a surfeit of immigrants, legal and illegal. The former colonial powers have all had very liberal immigration policies for their former colonial subjects in Africa. Unless there's a radical shift in momentum Europe will be Eurabia in 25 years (if not sooner).
I'm still betting it's America that gets the refugees. We have a very powerful refugee lobby in this country, beginning but not ending with our own State Dept.
-
" are going to morph into some kind of young Western Europe. I think it's much more likely that we'll end up with new dictators, and if we're lucky they won't band together.
So, not unlike young Western Europe?
-
Democrats like wars where identifying the US vital interest is . . . difficult. I think they feel more self-rightous when there's no obvious gain.
No doubt Khadaffi is a bad guy - Berlin disco, Lockerbie bombing, etc., have all cost American lives, and I wouldn't mind his end at all. But in terms of tangibles . . . most of Libya's oil goes to Europe.
And one question I'd like asked - how has BHO determined that the "rebels" we're helping aren't affiliated with terrorist groups like AlQaeda, Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, Iran, or whoever?
Sometimes it's a case of better the devil you know, rather than the devil you don't.
-
If the stated reason for our involvement is not to pursue a foreign power that attacked our servicemen and civilians, nor any attempt to change global dynamics in our own favor, then I can't support the operation.
Incidentally, where's Cindy Sheehan been lately?
-
Incidentally, where's Cindy Sheehan been lately?
In defense of the nutjob, I believe she is firmly against this war as well. The press are just ignoring her now that they can't use her to bash Bush.
It's the press that are the hypocrites, not the nutjob.
-
It's the press that are the hypocrites, not the nutjob.
Ah, of course. That would be the logical supposition.
-
You know... The CHEAP way to do this would be to send in the 101st and the 82nd, and tell the Marines that there's a perfectly nice beach near Tripoli, and tell the generals "Okay. It's a war. We mean it this time. Lose this Qadaffi fool, waste him if he gets in the way, and then toss the keys on the ground when you leave. You've got a week. We don't want to hear details - just do it."
-
Out of nowhere Libya/Qaddafi becomes Priority One. Folks, this is a diversion, meant to draw attention away from our budget horrors, the EU collapse, Wisconsin, the London anarchists, Japan's manifest troubles, the southern border, and the growing encroachment of Obama's Federal hordes, et al. What the Marines could do in Libya may swell our chests for ten minutes, but if it promotes the fortunes of jihadists and the pro-Caliphate agenda, what's the point? Who does this really help?
***
I just heard U.K. P.M. David Cameron talking about how "we" will need to "restore the mosques and minarets that Qaddafi destroyed." Now that is our responsibility? We need to pay for that restoration? Does Libya have no resources? Or do we love/need foreign nation-building that much? It definitely is a bottom-line boost--for some people, we know that. This isn't humanitarianism, it's creeping mental disease combined with financial and political opportunism.
-
There are not, despite any claims in the media to the contrary, major problems with riots in London. Out of a demonstration of 400,000, a tiny group of people engaged in fairly minor violence. Worse has been seen in American cities of the Founding Era, much less of the modern day.
-
So, not unlike young Western Europe?
Point.
Let me clarify. Obama seems to think these countries will be like the stories he read of Camelot (minus the racisim) instead of what young Western Europe actually was.
-
By "young Western Europe" I mean, of course, the Europe of about 50 years ago, when at least 3 European states were ruled by dictators with U.S. and NATO backing.
-
I give up. Why are you in Libya? Stay away from tanks, AA installations, and anyone riding a camel, who has "far away" eyes and a pack of goats in tow.
We are there because we do the right things for the right people when we feel like it, have elections coming up, and/or they have oil...or hate Israel.
-
We are there because otherwise Obama would have to deal with more important matters to this country and because this affords him the perfect occasion for depreciating our sovereignty. Let's stop pretending we are missionaries ever seeking opportunities for doing good with the "heathens." We'd damn well better take care of the home front--while we still can.
-
The problem with "London" is not the riots, it's the welfare state and the obsession with de-Anglicizing England.
-
We are in Libya to protect French and Italian oil supply contracts with the Libyan government. Kadaffi goes away and so does oil contracts.
-
If so...aren't we fighting for the wrong side? :O