/dev/null Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110624/ap_on_go_co/us_us_libya 295-123 with about 1/3 of Dem Caucus voting against funding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Munich! Qadaffy is cheering! Will he send his supporters in Congress another letter of praise? So much for giving new born Egypt some breathing space. After Qadaffy is done butchering his people you know he will send his terrorists to Egypt to fix that country's new government. This is a shameful, cowardly act by a bi-partisan band of bozo's. I wonder how they are reacting in Lockerbie at this news? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Munich! Qadaffy is cheering! Will he send his supporters in Congress another letter of praise? So much for giving new born Egypt some breathing space. After Qadaffy is done butchering his people you know he will send his terrorists to Egypt to fix that country's new government. This is a shameful, cowardly act by a bi-partisan band of bozo's. I wonder how they are reacting in Lockerbie at this news? Easy to send other peoples kids to every f'd up region in the world. If your such a hero suit up and get your ass over there instead of spending OUR money and sending other peoples kids to die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Easy to send other peoples kids to every f'd up region in the world. If your such a hero suit up and get your ass over there instead of spending OUR money and sending other peoples kids to die. Now this really is a bizarro world. A hard-core liberal rallying the troops to go kill a butcher, and a conservative telling him if it's that important, go there yourself and fight...and spend you're own money to finance it. Though, in fairness, I think one of you was just mocking the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 You have to love the Doves on the Conservative side. They should get a catchy phrase like, "No blood for oil". Is that one taken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110624/ap_on_go_co/us_us_libya 295-123 with about 1/3 of Dem Caucus voting against funding Too bad Obama's hero is Abe Lincoln, not Teddy Roosevelt. Though I never quite understood how Congress defunds an active line-item...it seems kind of like me trying to keep my wife from getting her hair done by not giving her money. She'll just get it done anyway, and pay for it out of the grocery budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 ...it seems kind of like me trying to keep my wife from getting her hair done by not giving her money. She'll just get it done anyway, and pay for it out of the grocery budget. Or worse. She does it herself, screws it up, and then you have to pay double to get it fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Now this really is a bizarro world. A hard-core liberal rallying the troops to go kill a butcher, and a conservative telling him if it's that important, go there yourself and fight...and spend you're own money to finance it. Though, in fairness, I think one of you was just mocking the other. Point is you can't plug every hole. And why is it on us? I'm tired of being responsible for every jerked off culture that can't and never will get their act together. They never will. Its just way to easy to send people off to die when you are sitting back watching on tv like just another NFL game. And not just the Dems. Bush was just as bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Point is you can't plug every hole. And why is it on us? I'm tired of being responsible for every jerked off culture that can't and never will get their act together. They never will. Its just way to easy to send people off to die when you are sitting back watching on tv like just another NFL game. And not just the Dems. Bush was just as bad. Like it or not, the world needs a beat cop, and US is best served for that role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 24, 2011 Author Share Posted June 24, 2011 You have to love the Doves on the Conservative side. They should get a catchy phrase like, "No blood for oil". Is that one taken? No Taffy for Kadaffy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Point is you can't plug every hole. And why is it on us? I'm tired of being responsible for every jerked off culture that can't and never will get their act together. They never will. Its just way to easy to send people off to die when you are sitting back watching on tv like just another NFL game. And not just the Dems. Bush was just as bad. Except that in this case it's a NATO operation in which US military forces are playing a minor, largely supporting role. This basically means the Europeans will have to use their own tankers. Whoop-de-!@#$ing-do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Point is you can't plug every hole. And why is it on us? I'm tired of being responsible for every jerked off culture that can't and never will get their act together. They never will. Its just way to easy to send people off to die when you are sitting back watching on tv like just another NFL game. And not just the Dems. Bush was just as bad. I can't decide if that sounds more like a Federalist snearing at a Jeffersonian Republican or a White Redeemer ordaining that the Freedmen could never be trusted with democracy? Prey, do tell how you know they will never get their act together? Too bad Obama's hero is Abe Lincoln, not Teddy Roosevelt. Though I never quite understood how Congress defunds an active line-item...it seems kind of like me trying to keep my wife from getting her hair done by not giving her money. She'll just get it done anyway, and pay for it out of the grocery budget. What does this mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 (edited) Doubtless this rings into the farewell speech to NATO given by Sec'y Gates a couple of weeks ago, where he basically said that he doesn't know how much longer the U.S. is going to continue providing $ and lives to fight European problems. The hypocrisy on this is just oozing. The left is all for intervention against a dictator butchering his own people now that it's a DEM president. At least the Republicans are mostly arguing from the perspective of 'Hey, we sympathize and we want Qadaffi/Kaddafi/Qaddoffi/Kadaphi (one or all of those spellings may be right) sitting on a pole even more than the next guy, but we're !@#$ing broke and we're fighting two wars as it is....' But yeah, we've been providing them big brother protection since WW2 (and how much of it was uncompensated?). It's time for Europe to step up for themselves. DaveinNorfolk, they're probably taking it better than the release of Megrahi, he of the "terminal prostate cancer, with only months to live" by the Scots, pressured by / channeled through the Brits, and come to find out, in exchange for oil contracts. That was a corrupt rooster-up to the tune that it helped boot Brown and elect Cameron and the conservatives. At least we have a forgivable reason. Edited June 24, 2011 by UConn James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 What does this mean? Which word didn't you understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Now this really is a bizarro world. A hard-core liberal rallying the troops to go kill a butcher, and a conservative telling him if it's that important, go there yourself and fight...and spend you're own money to finance it. Though, in fairness, I think one of you was just mocking the other. I was just thinking the same thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 The hypocrisy on this is just oozing. The left is all for intervention against a dictator butchering his own people now that it's a DEM president. In fairness, the US didn't collectively agree on a bipartisan basis to start the Iraq War because Hussein was butchering his people. I understand what you're saying, and if we HAD gone into Iraq for the very reasons we went into Libya, the left would still cry about it because, y'know, that's what the left does. But you can't draw direct parallels. We went into Iraq for a completely different reason. Stopping him from slaughtering any more people was a benefit, not a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 In fairness, the US didn't collectively agree on a bipartisan basis to start the Iraq War because Hussein was butchering his people. I understand what you're saying, and if we HAD gone into Iraq for the very reasons we went into Libya, the left would still cry about it because, y'know, that's what the left does. But you can't draw direct parallels. We went into Iraq for a completely different reason. Stopping him from slaughtering any more people was a benefit, not a reason. Well, to be certain, that was a major point. Of course, WMD was the money shot, but "the slaughter of innocent Iraqi citizens" was a big feature of the foreplay after Gulf War I (and why we kept the No-Fly Zone) and leading up to the 2003 invasion. Bush cited it plenty of times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Well, to be certain, that was a major point. Of course, WMD was the money shot, but "the slaughter of innocent Iraqi citizens" was a big feature of the foreplay after Gulf War I (and why we kept the No-Fly Zone) and leading up to the 2003 invasion. Bush cited it plenty of times. "The real reason" is none of these things. And, they probably thought that the real reason was too complex for the average person to get, hence the reasons they gave us. The real reason is to create two fronts, and a handy land supply line to the sea, to be used against Iran, especially if they develop nuclear weapons. Iran has a very large army, and making them fight on two fronts divides it in half. Taking that with the attrition from our air assets, it makes it a strategically winnable war with far less divisions that you would otherwise need. People like Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld don't plan for Presidential terms of office, they plan for the long haul, and ultimate victory, as they did in the Cold War. You are fooling yourself if you think Obama can have any real effect on what has already been set in motion. Chances are he's gone anyway, but it never mattered. The fact that we are leaving our tanks, etc. right where they are in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq, tells you all you need to know. The troops may leave, but they can easily come back. The equipment stays. While putting Iran in a strategically precarious position also means deterrence from what they might do in the short term, the real goal is to gradually tighten the noose geographically while working on the diplomatic and intelligence fronts as well. They have a choice: behave or get rolled over. We'll see what they do over the next 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Which word didn't you understand? Why would it be better for Obama to follow Teddy than Lincoln, if that is what you were saying, if not, what was your point about them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Why would it be better for Obama to follow Teddy than Lincoln, if that is what you were saying, if not, what was your point about them? Seriously? Do you know anything about American history? Anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts