War in Libya...

It's not like Obama's going to be impeached for sending arms to Libya or anything. Now if he lied under oath about a blowjob...
 
I assumed we had people collecting intelligence, I mean we regularly spy on countries without their knowledge, at least this is out in the open.
 
I'm getting so burned out on politics. The same people criticizing him for pulling out are the same ones who would criticize him for going too far.
 
[quote name='Clak']I'm getting so burned out on politics. The same people criticizing him for pulling out are the same ones who would criticize him for going too far.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it's annoying as hell.

Mostly a bunch of old farts like McCain who thinks the US has to lead in everything, and doesn't realize there are plenty of other countries out there who can enforce a no fly zone, bomb ground forces etc. just as well as us in a small-scale intervention like this where the enemy has little capacity to fight back against air forces.

And the rest is just sheer party line politics of just always bashing the other side regardless of what they do.
 
Not related to Libya, but the notion of not doing things elsewhere with similar problems...

UN and French forces attacked and cornered Gbagbo in the Ivory Coast and he's now negotiating a surrender.

And with the situation in Yemen the US is apparently now working diplomatically to find a way to shift government from Saleh to another stable group that shows equal or better commitment to fighting Al Qaeda in Yemen. That's our clear interest there as apparently he's been mostly cooperative on that front over the years, and there's growing concern that the rising instability is giving Al Qaeda freer reign as government forces are focused on the protests etc.

Both from articles I read in the NYT on the ipad ealier, sorry I don't have time to find web links at the moment.
 
how come i never see people in forums referring to cnn? do people think theyre biased or something? i always watch cnn international at home.. because it covers more than just the US (and im a foreigner so i always hope to see my country in the news.. with positive story of course)

and that piers morgan show is actually pretty good
 
I like CNN ok, I just don't watch much TV news.

I mainly get my news on the iPad these days and mainly use the New York Times and Washington Post apps and Politico. Also use USA Today and CNN apps, but not as much as they seldom have anything not in the Times or the Post and the writing isn't as good.

Just my bias, my undergrad was in print journalism and I worked for a newspaper for a year or so before switching to criminology for grad school, so I'm just partial to newspapers.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, it's annoying as hell.

Mostly a bunch of old farts like McCain who thinks the US has to lead in everything, and doesn't realize there are plenty of other countries out there who can enforce a no fly zone, bomb ground forces etc. just as well as us in a small-scale intervention like this where the enemy has little capacity to fight back against air forces.

And the rest is just sheer party line politics of just always bashing the other side regardless of what they do.[/QUOTE]

While I agree politics are becoming horribly partisan I disagree that there are plenty of other countries that can enforce the no fly zone and bomb ground forces. Don't take my word for it turn on any news channels and all you see is Libyan rebels saying where the hell is NATO! Honestly Europeans are coming off as a bunch of jokes in this whole thing. They are now crying that they need the AC-130 gunships and A-10 to better pound ground forces. They have nothing with those capabilities. What the hell were they gonna do in the 80's when all those Soviet Tanks were supposed to over run western Europe? Oh that's right the US has those so why should we buy them they'll protect us. Good grief with friends like these. They need to step up period! And the US needs to ask itself why we don't have universal healthcare and University for it citizens. It might be all those AC-130 gunships and A-10's we bought protecting European oil supply and preventing an undesirable (to them) migration of Libyans showing up on their shores. Yeah this is about the anti-Muslim furor in Europe going on now too. Hey I'm against the whole thing and believe outside of a no fly zone we should not be siding with one army or another. if we are siding then have at them but none of this protecting civilians crap declare war against the Libyan government.



/rant
 
I seriously doubt other Nato countries lack AC-130s etc.

That's shit we shouldn't have been doing if we weren't actually going to war.

Hitting ground troops with AC-130s is not enforcing a no fly zone. The mission was stated as knocking out their air force, their anti-air craft defenses and major artillery like tanks that could cause mass damage.

As you note, getting into using AC-130s with their machine guns to take out ground force personnel is going to far if the UN mission and authorization is only to enforce a no fly zone. If you're getting into targeting ground forces to aid the rebel advancement then you've moved beyond protecting citizens and into picking sides in what's essentially a civil war.

And that's not the mission and not something I'd remotely support the US getting involved in.
 
This conflict with Libya needs to stop and NOW. Gas is up to $3.74 a gallon on average in my area(PA).:cry: That's seriously curtailing any and all gaming deal activities on my part.:whistle2:#

Either that or the US needs to focus on the real villians in the world: The OPEC nations.

I say bomb the ever loving shit out of them NOW and TAKE their damned oil.
 
[quote name='benjamouth']So we're not protecting the civilians in Syria because...................[/QUOTE]

Yep, shit has really hit the fan there with them using tanks etc. now. Going to be a huge double standard problem if the international community doesn't also intervene there and start bombing the tanks etc.

But it probably won't happen since Iran is allied with them and we won't want to risk starting a regional war.
 
Wtf is the point of this? What is the point of holding onto power now? Why would he even want to rule Libya after this? Great you're still in power, you raped and killed to keep it, but you kept it.
 
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/05/illegal-war-congress-doesnt-care

On Friday the 60-day clock ran out, leaving Obama in clear violation of the War Powers Resolution, passed in 1973 to "fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution ... [and] insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities."

Instead of withdrawing U.S. forces, the president sent a letter to congressional leaders insisting -- bizarrely -- that drone attacks and "suppression and destruction of air defenses" don't qualify as "hostilities" under the resolution.
Click to expand...

With friends like that....
 
Never mind that no President has ever given notice to the War Powers Resolution, let alone that Obama isn't the first president to make use of the military without congressional approval. And keep in mind that I know Kucinich is part of this lawsuit, so no BS about this being dems vs reps.
 
Kucinich is suing a fellow Democrat. That's not politics, that's principle. The Republicans signing onto this and criticizing Obama is nice, but they're probably playing politics. When Dems criticized Bush during the Iraq War, the default response was 'youre emboldening the enemy', 'youre pro Saddam', 'you hate America', 'dont criticize Prez during wartime', etc. The Dems and Repubs who criticized Bush and Obama for doing the same types of things are the ones who are principled.

It's doubtful we'll see as many Repubs criticizing President Romney or Bachmann if they do exactly what Obama did here. I hope I'm wrong on that.
 
1. Missiles and drones do not constitute "hostilities"
2. DoS attacks on the DoD are considered acts of war

Also funny: by the Obama administration's stance, Al-Qaeda never committed "hostilities" against us, since they never had boots on the ground. Also II: The Return of Also, Pearl Harbor.

I'm going to stop trying to understand this position, it's fucking moronic. Even more moronic than Obama saying ATMs cause unemployment. What a fucking fool.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']1. Missiles and drones do not constitute "hostilities"
2. DoS attacks on the DoD are considered acts of war

Also funny: by the Obama administration's stance, Al-Qaeda never committed "hostilities" against us, since they never had boots on the ground. Also II: The Return of Also, Pearl Harbor.

I'm going to stop trying to understand this position, it's fucking moronic. Even more moronic than Obama saying ATMs cause unemployment. What a fucking fool.[/QUOTE]

I think we need to print out several hundred copies of this post and send it to the editorial pages of every major newspaper (both of them).

It's no secret that I'm not Obama's number one fan, but there were somethings that I expected him to do/work towards that I did approve of.

More military spending was *not* one of those things.
 
[quote name='nasum']Oh come on, Pearl Harbor was nothing but an unfortunate set of plane accidents involving boats...[/QUOTE]
Haha, but seriously wow.
 
[quote name='FeedingTheAbscess']Even more moronic than Obama saying ATMs cause unemployment. What a
shaqfu.gif
[/QUOTE]

Wait he actually said ATMs cause unemployment? Or is this a more liberal interpretation of what he actually said? quotesplz
 
[quote name='President Obama']There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you’re using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.[/quote]

From the June 14th Today Show.
 
So it's not true. Machines aren't taking the jobs of workers. It's just yet another way for Obama to avoid blame for the high unemployment.
 
Yeah I needed a sauce, wanted to be sure you guys weren't pulling another 'Obama spent infinity billion dollars per day for his India trip' thingies.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Those machines existed before the unemployment rate hit 9-10%. http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

But by all means keep your capes on oh great defenders.[/QUOTE]
Now I don't know, but have unemployment rates been calculated in the same way since the start of that chart? My point was that sure some people lose jobs to machines, but people also gain them for the same reasons. Obama wasn't blaming unemployment solely on anything and to say so is ridiculous.
 
[quote name='Clak']Now I don't know, but have unemployment rates been calculated in the same way since the start of that chart? My point was that sure some people lose jobs to machines, but people also gain them for the same reasons. Obama wasn't blaming unemployment solely on anything and to say so is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

When unemployment rates were lower people were employed building houses that didn't need to be built or taking advantage of inflated home prices.

People can be put to work now building things that are useful but that is just silly communism.
 
[quote name='Msut77']When unemployment rates were lower people were employed building houses that didn't need to be built or taking advantage of inflated home prices.

People can be put to work now building things that are useful but that is just silly communism.[/QUOTE]

Yep an average of 4.25% unemployment between '48 and '57 compared to an average of 4.90% unemployment between '98 and '07.

I guess the government really put people to work between '98 and '07. Or is the .65% difference the government not putting people to work?

Or can this comparison possibly be made?
 
As I've stated before (though maybe not here), when I was in college making less than half of what I do now, my effective tax rate was in the mid teens (I think it was 16% the year I graduated) and last year it was 7%. By no means do I even have a six figure income and yet as I've gone up in income I've gone down in taxes.
Brilliant!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top