Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 10 to 18 of 34

Thread: Libya almost proves mt theory

  1. #10
    Olympic Champ r.payton@att.net's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Danville .Indiana
    Posts
    8,718

    Default Re: Libya almost proves mt theory

    President Barack Obama, speaking in Santiago, Chile on Monday, defended his decision to order U.S. strikes against Libyan military targets, and insisted that the mission is clear.
    And like a parade of Pentagon officials the past few days, Obama insisted that the United States' lead military role will be turned over?"in days, not weeks"?to an international command of which the United States will be just one part.
    The only problem: None of the countries in the international coalition can yet agree on to whom or how the United States should hand off responsibilities.
    sounds like the president might get stuck holding the jackpot.PLEASE remember the president said DAYS -Not WEEKS or MONTHS-he has NO exit strategy and is doing the bidding of the UN !!

  2. #11
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,935

    Default Re: Libya almost proves mt theory

    Quote Originally Posted by RYou View Post
    Wow, all this support for intervention against a "brutal dictator" and not 18 months ago the majority here were all over Bush for getting involved with Hussein who was 10 times the tyrant Ghadaffi has become, even though they were supportive at hte onset of the conflict.

    So what will be thinking 6 months from now if this initiative remains active.
    I didnt support the war for what is was based on. I have always said that if Bush had come out and said he wanted to remove Saddam because of who saddam was then I was all for it. I say that but I still beleive that we can not get involved in every humanitarian event.

  3. #12
    Olympic Champ r.payton@att.net's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Danville .Indiana
    Posts
    8,718

    Default Re: Libya almost proves mt theory

    President Barack Obama said Monday that "it is U.S. policy that Gadhafi has to go." But, he said, the international air campaign has a more limited goal, to protect civilians.
    This statement is in direct contrast to the MISSION-which is to lay down suppressive bombing to force Gadhafi to stay with in his capitol so he cannot commit atrocity against the rebels .( A tactic which never works as the soldiers simply mingle in amongst civilians )-3 questions-1)Who is in charge ? NATO? US ?France ?-2) WHO takes over in a few DAYS ? The ''ALLIANCE'' is splintered into factions already and 3) WTH are WE fighting someone else's war ?? Even if we only fire 100 100 million dollar bombs ? We are 10 billion in the hole to start with-just in Rockets launched.
    I usually pay no attention to these things but in the SAME article 3 contradictory statements are made and there is NO ALLIANCE as Italy says yes,Germany no and no one can decide if this should even be a UN sanctioned action .
    Could one of these clowns read ''THE ART OF WAR ''?

  4. #13

    Default Re: Libya almost proves mt theory

    ODH, I love your response. "he is doing his best in a difficult situation".

    That extra space I left was for the laughter. I think 9/11 was a pretty difficult situation. Maybe even more difficult than a riot in Tripoli (sarcasm meant). At least you all find a way to justify Obama's actions and not Bush's. The Gitmo comments were the best. Did you forget that he "vowed" to have it closed down within a year?

    The reality is that the world is an ugly place and the Utopian "feel good" ideas don't work. He realized it and bombed Libya and kept Gitmo open, just like Bush.

  5. #14
    World Champ ODH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,968

    Default Re: Libya almost proves mt theory

    Quote Originally Posted by quinn14 View Post
    ODH, I love your response. "he is doing his best in a difficult situation".

    That extra space I left was for the laughter. I think 9/11 was a pretty difficult situation. Maybe even more difficult than a riot in Tripoli (sarcasm meant). At least you all find a way to justify Obama's actions and not Bush's. The Gitmo comments were the best. Did you forget that he "vowed" to have it closed down within a year?

    The reality is that the world is an ugly place and the Utopian "feel good" ideas don't work. He realized it and bombed Libya and kept Gitmo open, just like Bush.
    I don't get what you are trying to get at.
    You asked if I was planning to vote for him and I told you I was and why.
    9/11 was not a difficult situation. It was horrible but not difficult.
    Fighting two wars while going through the worst recession since the Great Depression is difficult.

    I am not sure if your last sentences are a criticism of Obama or in support him. Of course he campaigns with high ideals and then has to temper them when he faces reality. I don't have a problem with that.
    He his not the radical leftists that many on the right would like to portray him as.

  6. #15
    Olympic Champ r.payton@att.net's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Danville .Indiana
    Posts
    8,718

    Default Re: Libya almost proves mt theory

    <cite class="vcard"> By National Journal national Journal </cite> ? <abbr title="2011-03-22T08:12:30-0700" class="timedate">Tue Mar 22, 11:12 am ET</abbr>
    By Jim O'Sullivan
    National Journal
    President Obama's decision to send American warplanes into Libya opened the nation's third military theater in the Middle East?and quickly cast the administration onto more battlegrounds at home.
    Three days into the first war he's helped to start, Obama finds himself in an increasingly familiar position in relation to the Congress: detached, under fire, and going it largely alone.
    American liberals who gravitated to Obama because he was the most plausible anti-war candidate broke sharply with him this weekend for projecting U.S. force into a corner of the world where it's traditionally unwelcome, humanitarian intervention doctrine be damned. Even some congressional Democrats who voted for the Iraq invasion call the Libyan venture "gratuitous" and question Obama's standing. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, on Monday called the U.S. involvement in Libya an "impeachable offense."
    'Nuff said''

  7. #16
    Olympic Champ kr1963's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Clearwater, Florida, United States
    Posts
    7,028

    Default Re: Libya almost proves mt theory

    Quote Originally Posted by UGLY View Post
    I didnt support the war for what is was based on. I have always said that if Bush had come out and said he wanted to remove Saddam because of who saddam was then I was all for it. I say that but I still believe that we can not get involved in every humanitarian event.
    Saddam was Saddam because of the USA government backing everything he did. Then to go in & say he is a horrible dictator is just hypocritical.

    Why did we go in? In 92 was it because he "invaded Kuwait"? A humanitarian event? No it was because Saddam was taking back the Iraqi oil wells that originally were Iraqi territory before the British demarcation of 1918 breaking up the Ottoman empire AND because the Kuwaitis were slant drilling into the Iraqi oil wells & Saddam stopped them from stealing Iraqi resources.

    How had the biggest investment in Kuwaiti oil fields? The Bush family of course.

    So you can believe all this high fluentent talk of giving Democracy to the Iraqi all you want. Nothing could be further from the truth. It has always been & continues to be about oil & money.

    The Tunisians & Egyptians over threw their own dictators without our help. Should Libya be any different? Or is ti just because Qadaffi isn't OUR dictator that we should go invade Libya & help them out?

  8. #17
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,935

    Default Re: Libya almost proves mt theory

    Quote Originally Posted by kr1963 View Post
    Saddam was Saddam because of the USA government backing everything he did. Then to go in & say he is a horrible dictator is just hypocritical.

    Why did we go in? In 92 was it because he "invaded Kuwait"? A humanitarian event? No it was because Saddam was taking back the Iraqi oil wells that originally were Iraqi territory before the British demarcation of 1918 breaking up the Ottoman empire AND because the Kuwaitis were slant drilling into the Iraqi oil wells & Saddam stopped them from stealing Iraqi resources.

    How had the biggest investment in Kuwaiti oil fields? The Bush family of course.

    So you can believe all this high fluentent talk of giving Democracy to the Iraqi all you want. Nothing could be further from the truth. It has always been & continues to be about oil & money.

    The Tunisians & Egyptians over threw their own dictators without our help. Should Libya be any different? Or is ti just because Qadaffi isn't OUR dictator that we should go invade Libya & help them out?
    He was a horrible dictator before and after Kuwait, he murdered his own people is great numbers, there is nothing hypocritical about that.

    Again you are getting ver conspiracy theorist on us. You are saying that the only reason we went into the first Gulf war was because the Bush family had a major investment in the oil fields of Kuwait. Now how is it that you know that and yet he was never brought up on charges and the left leaning news did not report it, to the best of my knowledge. Did the Dems have no idea about this or are they a part of the act? I dont remember in this Iraq war or the last that America ever reaped any benefit from the oil or was ever repaid for the military efforts we put forth.

    As to Tunisia and Egypt, they had governemtns that were willing to give in and the military would not fire on its own people. In Libya Gadhafi will not give up and the military is backing him. Now I agree with you that we should not get involved, if we are the main force. I believe we can provide support for the UN and our allies in this conflict. We need to get finished with the other two wars.

  9. #18

    Default Re: Libya almost proves mt theory

    Quote Originally Posted by ODH View Post
    I don't get what you are trying to get at.
    You asked if I was planning to vote for him and I told you I was and why.
    9/11 was not a difficult situation. It was horrible but not difficult.
    Fighting two wars while going through the worst recession since the Great Depression is difficult.

    I am not sure if your last sentences are a criticism of Obama or in support him. Of course he campaigns with high ideals and then has to temper them when he faces reality. I don't have a problem with that.
    He his not the radical leftists that many on the right would like to portray him as.
    What I was trying to get at was that Obama is doing many things just like Bush did. I support helping the Libyan people gain there freedom, I also supported going into Afghanistan and Iraq. So, yes, I agree with Obama on the no fly zone. I wish he would have gotten it paid for, though. I was wondering if the "hope and change" that he promised is what you think you are getting. It seems that a lot of his decisions are the same policies Bush had and people villified Bush.

    I agree that some of his decisions are the opposite of Bush, especially the health care, but the things that most liberals hated about Bush the most (preemptive war and Gitmo) are turning out to be the same under him.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •