...then you MUST criticize the Libya intervention.
Two thoughts:
1. Crabby? Where are you? Where's that intellectual honesty?
2. Have you ever seen a President who was willing to commit us to a war, and go on vacation in the same day? What a piece of work...
If you criticized the Iraq war...
Discussion in 'News & Current Events' started by rbell, Mar 22, 2011.
Page 1 of 2
-
It is really unbelievable. Where is our exit strategy? What are our goals? It looked like Qaddafi had his insurrection about crushed and now we have brought them back to life. What is our goal, to draw the conflict out as long as possible? If we want Qaddafi out then why not target him and get it over with? Is killing a few thousand of his followers somehow more humane than just killing him? If the rebel force gets close to winning will we switch sides and bomb them? Keep them fighting till they kill thousands more? I don’t understand.
-
He most certainly could not cancel the trip because it was his daughters spring break. -
Oh yeah, and I was a critic of the Iraq debacle long before it became fashionable. As it turns out Iraq and Libya aren't different "wars" they are just different theaters of the same long running ongoing crusade to save the petrodollar from becoming extinct. Does that make it any easier to understand North Carolina Tentmaker? -
With Libya, I think the president made the opposite mistake--waiting too long. We could have intervened earlier, and Gadhafi would already be gone. -
-
As soon as President Obama puts troops on the ground in harms way I will oppose this action as well. I don't like action do far, but it is not yet the same as sending in combat troops.
-
-
Meanwhile, in Rwanda..... -
Reminds me of an episode of M*A*S*H. An air force pilot is mended at MASH - and learns the cruelty of war - on the ground
(if someone knows the exact episode, please post)
Sarge Salty -
Well, I just don't believe we can excuse the illegal killing of foreign nationals in their own homeland just because we don't put boots on the ground.
If we do, then we might as well just nuke 'em and go on about our business.
And I don't use the term "illegal" lightly. With Libya representing no danger to the security of this country and no Americans to protect, we shouldn't be there without congressional approval. We don't even know who we're fighting for. But we chose up sides and started killing anyhow.
The president must believe he is above the law. He should be impeached. -
When the left uses this kind of anti-war talk they are accused of not supporting the troops.
I am glad to see that folks realise that speaking against the war does not mean a lack of support for the military, but is an attack on bad policy. -
Crabtownboy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I have not posted on the BB on this topic until now.
I do feel that so many presidents have violated the Constitution in taking us to war that it has become, sadly, meaningless.
I have wondered why he agreed to help the British and French. I can think of two reasons, neither of which may have played a part.
1. They called in some chips, especially the British, for helping in Iraq.
2. To build up good will that he or a future president can call in sometime during the future.
I do not see these as compelling reasons.
C4K said:
-
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
Obama made his choice, without congressional approval.
Bush had congressional approval.
Obama acted because of the criticism he was recieving,
Bush acted his despite it.
That's how I see it. -
-
I am not in favor of the expense in lives, money, or national morale that military conflict involves, accept as a last resort against a direct attack against us. I also reject the notion that conflict between armies is somehow more moral than assassination. Both are murder, and murdering 10 leaders responsible for a decision is always more moral that killing 5,000 troops that are forced to obey orders.
If a situation arises where action is required, I am in favor of covert operations as a first response, whether it be political assassinations, spy infiltration, paramilitary operations, or stealthed missile or similar attacks.
I am in favor of devoting much more of our efforts to border security and much less to policing the world. There are great financial and political considerations for such a move, such as leaving allies we have previously protected to build their own defenses, and they should be addressed now.
How many Muslim nations will we attack? What are we up to now? 4 that we know of? Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, not counting the weapons we have supplied to Israel. Did I forget any?
It's disgusting for a president to go on vacation or play golf with 4 wars/conflicts happening at the same time, a nation budget deadlock, the largest national disaster in their history affecting one of our closest allies (and a nuclear disaster a possibility, with unknown implications for our western states). Mr. Obama is now challenging Jimmy Carter for running the most passive administration of the modern era.
Imo it is illogical and usually an attempt to vent or stir up anger to claim that these conflicts are all because of oil. These conflicts have harmed the flow of oil, not secured it. They have damaged our economy both in the costs of the conflicts and in the slowing of the economic growth and recovery that escalating energy prices cause. In other words, fighting for oil is counter-productive.
Lastly, while I have no proof, it is my firm assertion that these regimes we are forcefully changing in several Islamic countries will sooner or later be replaced with regimes every bit as anti-American as those replaced, and with more money, better infrastructure, and more capable militaries than previously. -
-
I agree with the general consensus. The problem with the president is not his birth cert or supposed Muslim ties or picking his NCAA bracket or any of that nonsense. The problem is that he is not a leader. He has no experience in executive leadership. That was always going to come out eventually. The situation in Libya is a prime example.
First he did nothing. Then he acted arbitrarily by ordering bombings. Now he wants to turn it over to NATO.
This lack of leadership ability has been my problem with President Obama since the campaign.
If this had been the focus during the campaign instead of whether or not he would take the oath on the Koran he might not be president today.
Of course, was the alternative a whole lot better? -
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
Nice swipe, but there was a lot of talk about the comparison of executive experience between him and the Palin. There was also a lot of talk about his philosophy. Certainly, as moderator, you remember me being called a racist for bringing this up. We exposed his racist writings, we exposed who his mentors were, and yes, we brought up how he likes to hide his past.
The main stream media did not vett this guy, they covered for him. I really don't think you can blame the birthers for this mess. -
The dollar is all but washed up. The oil producing nations know this and they may wish to start trading their oil for other currencies besides the dying dollar. In November of 2000 Saddam Hussien announced his plan to do just that. Result? Regime change!
Saddam was an example to the rest of the oil producing nations of what might happen should they also decide to accept other currencies or move away from the dying dollar altogether.
Why is it so important that the globalists (think, "international community") maintain the global oil trade in dollars? Because they have the ability to create them out of nothing! Not only do they have the ability to create the dollar from nothing, they have a blessed monopoly on it's creation. Our congress blessed them with this monopoly in 1913 with the Federal Reserve Act.
Is it getting any easier to understand?
Page 1 of 2