Dave_In_Norfolk Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 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. So you are making the argument that this is Iraq all over? Thats just stupid, this is a different situation altogether. How many American soldiers are on the ground in Libya? How many American lives have been lost? How dare you accuse us of hypocrisy when you need to make people believe this is another Iraq. You are a stupid moron, you know that? You do realize that don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 So you are making the argument that this is Iraq all over? Thats just stupid, this is a different situation altogether. How many American soldiers are on the ground in Libya? How many American lives have been lost? How dare you accuse us of hypocrisy when you need to make people believe this is another Iraq. You are a stupid moron, you know that? You do realize that don't you? 95% of the demagoguing and sloganeering that people like you applied to Iraq...can be applied to Libya: No blood for oil War of convenience Illegal War Unnecessary Civilian Casualties Creating Terrorists and people who hate us Libya didn't attack us(when the truth is both Libya and Iraq attacked us, and Iraq more recently) Blah, blah, blah But only if the right chooses to be as big a bunch of phony, political gain seeking D-bags as you were with Iraq. So, OK, you aren't a 100% hypocrite....only 95% of one. Great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 95% of the demagoguing and sloganeering that people like you applied to Iraq...can be applied to Libya: No blood for oil War of convenience Illegal War Unnecessary Civilian Casualties Creating Terrorists and people who hate us Libya didn't attack us(when the truth is both Libya and Iraq attacked us, and Iraq more recently) Blah, blah, blah But only if the right chooses to be as big a bunch of phony, political gain seeking D-bags as you were with Iraq. So, OK, you aren't a 100% hypocrite....only 95% of one. Great. But that's okay, because only sand !@#$s are dying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 95% of the demagoguing and sloganeering that people like you applied to Iraq...can be applied to Libya: No blood for oil War of convenience Illegal War Unnecessary Civilian Casualties Creating Terrorists and people who hate us Libya didn't attack us(when the truth is both Libya and Iraq attacked us, and Iraq more recently) Blah, blah, blah But only if the right chooses to be as big a bunch of phony, political gain seeking D-bags as you were with Iraq. So, OK, you aren't a 100% hypocrite....only 95% of one. Great. Of course they are, you need Libya to be Iraq to attack the president, really, do you ever think at all? Seriously? Do you know anything about American history? Anything? Scary cat, scary cat!!!! Try me boy! I bet the point you were trying to make was real dumb! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 So you are making the argument that this is Iraq all over? Thats just stupid, this is a different situation altogether. How many American soldiers are on the ground in Libya? How many American lives have been lost? How dare you accuse us of hypocrisy when you need to make people believe this is another Iraq. You are a stupid moron, you know that? You do realize that don't you? I didn't subject the Libya action to a force-level comparison to Iraq. Where did I say those things? YOU. "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. Yeah... the totality of reasons for war are never so simple. Vouchsafe that putting the squeeze on Iran vis-a-vis their nuclear ambition was a sizable consideration / side benefit. To a certain extent, any commander-in-chief's hands are pretty well tied into doing what the rank-and-file military's strategic goals are. If he (or she) goes too far against the military's interests, they run the risk of losing the support of their military. And that's a dangerous situation to be in for a civilian commander of any country... even here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 (edited) Of course they are, you need Libya to be Iraq to attack the president, really, do you ever think at all? Wrong: You only needed you and Senator Obama to be who you were from 2003-2008 to attack President Obama, and the rest of you blatant 95% hypocrites, now. Are you really going to sit there and demand that now that the shoe is on the other foot, the Republicans are supposed to give you a pass? You didn't give them a pass on the concept and content, never mind the fact that you attacked their character. You made your assclown bed, the Republicans are beyond justified in making you sleep in it. My real thinking is that the whole thing is a large distraction, as I said above, but that is way over your head, isn't it? I didn't subject the Libya action to a force-level comparison to Iraq. Where did I say those things? YOU. Yeah... the totality of reasons for war are never so simple. Vouchsafe that putting the squeeze on Iran vis-a-vis their nuclear ambition was a sizable consideration / side benefit. To a certain extent, any commander-in-chief's hands are pretty well tied into doing what the rank-and-file military's strategic goals are. If he (or she) goes too far against the military's interests, they run the risk of losing the support of their military. And that's a dangerous situation to be in for a civilian commander of any country... even here. That, and keep in mind "The Corporation" are the ones who will be doing the leading, fighting and dying, not some shmuck politician who will only be effectively around for 2.5-5.5 years. The military has every right to plan to fight the next war so as to survive it, and the flag officers in each service have every right to pursue the strategies that will mean victory. In fact, that's what we are paying them to do. It's only when they fail to do their jobs, or we have a nutty President, that things get way off the rails and we lose a lot of people, like Vietnam. By comparison, and in terms of effectiveness and losses, we have done a fine job with both Iraq and Afghanistan, in purely military terms. The fact that the civilians failed to do their jobs in many cases has nothing to do with that other than to make the military missions take longer and cost more. Edited June 25, 2011 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Try me boy! I bet the point you were trying to make was real dumb! No. I like letting you live in ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 No. I like letting you live in ignorance. Ignorance of your ignorance is all. Come on, tell me about Teddy and Lincoln and war. Wus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 (edited) Ignorance of your ignorance is all. Come on, tell me about Teddy and Lincoln and war. Wus No one else needed it explained. And that you think my comment was about war shows how completely stupid you really are. Edited June 26, 2011 by DC Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/0628/Libya-not-a-stalemate-anymore Qaddafi hasn't been in such a dire situation since mid-February. He now faces an ICC arrest warrant, unrelenting NATO air strikes, and victorious rebels vowing to march on Tripoli. And Obama continues to pad his foreign policy resume! If he gets Quadaffy's head on a pike that's two major terrorists he has taken out that have bothered the United States for many years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 28, 2011 Author Share Posted June 28, 2011 http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/0628/Libya-not-a-stalemate-anymore And Obama continues to pad his foreign policy resume! If he gets Quadaffy's head on a pike that's two major terrorists he has taken out that have bothered the United States for many years. Dave citing Christian Science Monitor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 1, 2011 Author Share Posted July 1, 2011 US Aircraft still flying strike missions: http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/06/defense-africom-air-force-navy-flying-libya-missions-063011/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 US Aircraft still flying strike missions: http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/06/defense-africom-air-force-navy-flying-libya-missions-063011/ Last week, Air Force F-15E crews attending the Paris Air Show, along with their public affairs officer, said they could not talk about their activities in Libya during Odyssey Dawn because they are not able to comment on “current operations.” Probably went something like: "Sir, can you tell us if your unit is flying operations in Libya or not?" "I'm sorry, I can't answer that question, as I'm not allowed to comment on current operations." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts