Am listening to the O'bama speech.

My thought is he is lying out of his ass or his people basically made up excuses (or at least dramatically exaggerated) about what was going on in Libya to justify interfering with Libya's internal affairs.  "Thousands of people being massacred", "broad coalition", "700,000 people stranded in Benghazi", "We stopped a massacre".

All hyperbole.

This intervention will go down in the anals of history as a foreign policy debacle.  Whoever takes over in Libya is going to hate us anyway and screw us big time.

Oh.... now he is saying that if we did not intervene, refugees from Libya would have overrun Tunisia and Egypt and messed up their revolutions.

He just did what Bush did back in 2003, just faster and at least hopefully without ground troops.

He is now claiming that we are not attempting to overthrow Quadaffi by force.  No sir-ree... we are just bombing the living hell out of his military so that the rebels can walk into Tripoli.  That's not force, silly ducks...

Libya was almost done with a short civil war.  Thanks to O'bama and the rest of the interventionists (some of them Republicans) we have set Libya on the path of a long, slow, brutal guerilla/terrorist civil war.

He is now blathering on about defending American lives.

America is no safer due to this supremely stupid and cynical action.

Oh he's now remarking about the welcome-with-open-arms that the Libyan rebels gave our downed pilots over there.

Funny... he did not mention the part where we strafed those guys as they were trying to assist the American pilots. Details, details...

Interesting how two people can listen to the same speech and come away with such different conclusions. 

Obama's foriegn policy seems like Bush W's foriegn policy but even worse.

Meet the new boss same as the old boss.

Oh, he's just asking Quadaffi to resign, you know, voluntarily.  And monkeys might fly out of my butt.

Anyway, most of the oil is now in rebel territory, and if it wasn't for the oil, wouldn't give rat's ass.
::)

Meet the new boss same as the old boss.

Oh, he's just asking Quadaffi to resign, you know, voluntarily.  And monkeys might fly out of my butt.

Anyway, most of the oil is now in rebel territory, and if it wasn't for the oil, wouldn't give rat's ass.
::)


Funny thing is, I do not really believe that this is about the oil.  I really cannot speculate on a logical reason for why we are doing this.  hey, the Arab league wanted a no-fly-zone?  Then let THEM do it with all those jets we've sold them over the years.

Who knows, maybe O'bama all of a sudden got a Messiah complex?

Bottom line is we played with our peckers when mass killings and rapes were (and still are) going on in the Congo and Darfur, now all of the sudden we feel the irresistable pull to be hero of the day.

Our noses did not belong in the Congo or Darfur.  They don't belong in Syria, they don't belong in Libya.

Oh he's now remarking about the welcome-with-open-arms that the Libyan rebels gave our downed pilots over there.

Funny... he did not mention the part where we strafed those guys as they were trying to assist the American pilots. Details, details...


Considering that the guys we shot at are cool with the fact that it was a misunderstanding, I think it's safe to say that this issue has been addressed.  War's confusing.

Of course, I would say that, given that I'm getting my talking points from those commie pinkos at the National Review.

Libya was almost done with a short civil war.  Thanks to O'bama and the rest of the interventionists (some of them Republicans) we have set Libya on the path of a long, slow, brutal guerilla/terrorist civil war.

I've already ribbed at ya for being on the same side as Hugo Chavez, but you're right, he's just a RINO.  We need to bring out the heavy artillery here.  A real conservative!

"If Gaddafi honours his people’s traditions and decides to fight to the last breath as promised with the Libyans who are facing the worst ever bombing a country has ever suffered, it will spell a mire of shame to NATO and its criminal projects … Now, the criminal and discredited NATO is telling a ‘beautiful’ story about its ‘humanitarian’ bombing."
 - noted Defender of American Values, Fidel Castro.

There are reasonable (conservative) arguments to support an isolationist foreign policy, but neither you, nor Hugo Chavez, nor Fidel Castro, are making them.

This is the short war, ending in regime change, costing us a few billion in weapons we were going to replace anyways, and netting us a few tens of billions of dollars' worth of secure oil supply, that Bush tried - and failed - to win in Iraq.  The only differences are that it's about 100 times smaller/cheaper/faster than Iraq, that the UN supported it rather than refused to support it, and that everybody involved has to pinky-swear on TV that it's not about regime change.  

Bottom line is we played with our peckers when mass killings and rapes were (and still are) going on in the Congo and Darfur, now all of the sudden we feel the irresistable pull to be hero of the day.



Yeah, we could have played with our peckers with one hand and stopped the atrocities with the other...God gave us two after all!
:D

Just read where the US administration is pulling its attack aircraft from Libya, while reports are frequent that Quadaffi is kicking butt even without his planes.  Administration is also vacillating on whether or not to provide arms to the rebels.

If this were an "action of conscience" then we should have had no problem air-dropping arms for the rebels.

I have opposed this intervention in all of its forms, and the Repubs who are hawkish on Libya are as wrong as O'bama on this one.

But... If you are going to throw the US military might at this thing, why the half-assed approach?  More evidence of a poorly conceived military adventure.  Sounds like a reincarnation of the Johnson Administration.

Our behavior has extended the Libyan conflict and will result in more lives lost than if we had stayed out of it.  Only now both sides will hate us more.

Our behavior has extended the Libyan conflict and will result in more lives lost than if we had stayed out of it.  Only now both sides will hate us more.


...in about the same way as our behavior in 1941 extended World War 2.  The jury's still out, but I've still got money riding on the prospect that it works out well for us.  You've got mocking rights if the place turns into a theocracy, but unlike you...

http://blogs.aljazeera.net/sites/default/files/imagecache/FeaturedImagePost/images/LibyaRussia.jpg

...call me a commie pinko mutant traitor if you wanna for opposing the Nashi (literal translation: "Ours") folks hanging around the US embassy in Moscow.  If Chavez and Castro weren't enough, congrats, you've now got Putin himself on your side.

...in about the same way as our behavior in 1941 extended World War 2.  The jury's still out, but I've still got money riding on the prospect that it works out well for us.  You've got mocking rights if the place turns into a theocracy, but unlike you...

http://blogs.aljazeera.net/sites/default/files/imagecache/FeaturedImagePost/images/LibyaRussia.jpg

...call me a commie pinko mutant traitor if you wanna for opposing the Nashi (literal translation: "Ours") folks hanging around the US embassy in Moscow.  If Chavez and Castro weren't enough, congrats, you've now got Putin himself on your side.


Well in 1941 the USA was directly attacked, so we gave the enemy the ass kicking he so richly deserved.

And as I recall back then, Mao and Stalin were on our side... ;)

And as I recall back then, Mao and Stalin were on our side... ;)


Touche!  (Seriously, you've got a point there.  Geopolitics makes strange bedfellows.)

But I'm not gonna let it stop me tonight.  ("Forget it, I'm rolling.")


Well in 1941 the USA was directly attacked, so we gave the enemy the ass kicking he so richly deserved.


"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"

PGIPCGyihxw

(Assuming everyone here's younger than 50something), this could be the greatest year our country's seen in our lives, but you're willing to make it the worst.  "Ooh, we're afraid to go with you anonymous wikileaking dictator-overthrowing rebels, we might get in trouble."  Well just kiss my ass from now on!  Not me!  I'm not gonna take this. What happened to the America I used to know?  Where's the spirit?  Where's the guts?

TbpyXVyFyIQ

And we're just the guys to do it!

Osama, he's a dead man!  Saddam - dead!  Ahmadinnerjacket - OK, I was wrong on that one last year  Gaddafi...

Here's what I don't get...

Bush declares an illegal war...people want him crucified...well, they DID get their wish!

But Obama declares an illegal war...people STILL love him...am I missing something? :-\\

Here's what I don't get...

Bush declares an illegal war...people want him crucified...well, they DID get their wish!

But Obama declares an illegal war...people STILL love him...am I missing something? :-\\
The media(the basic TV channels) will support Obama no matter what he does. The mainstream media has been liberal left for like 30-40 years. The only liberals I hear crucifying Obama on Libya are Rep. Dennis Kucinich and liberal commentator Katrina Van Huevel.

im definitely against intervention in Libya. i mean, I despise Gadhafi's actions as much as the next guy, but really, is it any of our business?

Here's what I don't get...

Bush declares an illegal war...people want him crucified...well, they DID get their wish!

But Obama declares an illegal war...people STILL love him...am I missing something? :-\\


Well in all fairness... Bush DID first get permission from the United States Congress, where the issue got a hearing.  O'bama simply let himself get goaded into the Libyan invasion by random politicians (from both sides of the aisle) with no organized harings or congressional approval.

And Bush was not universally reviled.  He DID win reelection after the Iraq invasion.

I objected to both the Gulf II and Libyan adventures, but at least Bush went thru Congress (for albeit a hugely bier war than Libya).

Well in all fairness... Bush DID first get permission from the United States Congress, where the issue got a hearing.  O'bama simply let himself get goaded into the Libyan invasion by random politicians (from both sides of the aisle) with no organized harings or congressional approval.

And Bush was not universally reviled.  He DID win reelection after the Iraq invasion.

I objected to both the Gulf II and Libyan adventures, but at least Bush went thru Congress (for albeit a hugely bier war than Libya).


And likewise, Bush institutionalized the doctrine of the unitary executive, which made it absolutely crystal clear tha the President doesn't need Congressional approval for jack fecal matter.  Nixon?  It's not illegal when the President does it.  Bush?  It's not torture when it's done under the Vice President's orders.  Obama?  Well, guess what?  It's also not war when Congress isn't asked for its opinion.  Partisan Elephants simply let themselves get goaded into handing over that sort of power in the wake of 9/11, and banned from their party anyone who inquired as to what might happen if Partisan Jackasses ever got hold of those powers.

I supported/support both the Gulf II and Lybian adventures (I was wrong on the first, and maintain that the jury's still out on the second), and my only complaint with Congress is that it refused to follow its orders by delaying the bailouts of 2008.  Congress is allowed to play politics with wiretapping, torture, and war, but I was stunned that they had the audacity to mess around on something that actually mattered.

The world doesn't end in the event of a government shutdown, but if Congress is dumb enough to refuse to raise the debt ceiling, then the world really does end, and the only investments worth holding will be physical gold, silver, and lead, because the first two make lousy bullets.