Obama vs Ghadafi VOTE!!

[kyzr]

Just curious if forumites agree or disagree with the US getting involved removing another ME tyrant.

Do you support or oppose Obama's actions against the Ghadafi regime....

 

[Sallow]

In full support. Fucking Qadaffi needed a bullet to the head after Lockerbie.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You should have made the poll show who voted for what.

 

[kyzr]

You should have made the poll show who voted for what.

Don't want anyone to see who thinks that they are lib/con. The point of the poll is to see who supports or opposes joining with the other nations collectively to help get rid of the bad Colonel.

I don't want to pick nits about how slow the process was, is it too late, etc.

 

[Immanuel]

I am generally conservative. Well for the most part anyway.

I support the President in his decision because I am confident that he knows more about the situation than I do. I supported the war in Iraq up to and no farther than the capture of Saddam Hussein.

I think we need to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and let those people fend for themselves. However, I am sure there are national security reasons, aka oil, that will keep us in both locations for decades if not forever. I do not want us to get into a war with Libya. I am confident that militarily we can crush them. So we go in and get Qadaffi, then what? More "nation building" Whoopie!!!

Immie

 

[Anachronism]

I'm VERY Conservative and I most definitely OPPOSE Mr. Obama's use of United States military forces in Libya; just as I have been opposed to the regime change in Iraq and Afghanistan which was begun under former President Bush.

The ongoing violence in Libya has NOTHING to do with the United States, therefore we should not be involved in its resolution in any way.

In Iraq and Afghanistan there were issues related to the United States (Iraq - Hussein's plots to assassinate a former POTUS & Afghanistan - support of individuals who had attacked US soil). Those issues should have been dealt with similarly to how Dresden, Germany and Japan were dealt with late in World War II. Especially Hiroshima and Nagasaki.... Minimal chance of loss of US life with MAXIMUM loss of Iraqi/Afghani life.

 

[California Girl]

Just curious if forumites agree or disagree with the US getting involved removing another ME tyrant.

Do you support or oppose Obama's actions against the Ghadafi regime....

It's not 'Obama's actions', it's a UN action. Completely different.

 

[Oddball]

Completely oppose....Just like I did for Iraq.

This is even wore...Congress wasn't even consulted, let alone was their constitutionally required approval sought.

Our dippy dithering Boyking sat on his ass and only piled on after the UN acted...Since when is any U.S. military action dependent upon the approval of that band of Euroweenies and dictatorial miscreants?

But there's that (D) next to the name of the occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania, so the Winston Smith wing of the Democrat Party is at full war whoop.

 

[WillowTree]

You should have made the poll show who voted for what.

I voted against it. YOu liberals have become warmongerers. Libya is none of our business. Where the hell is Scotland? Notice how mum's the word with them?

 

[kyzr]

Just curious if forumites agree or disagree with the US getting involved removing another ME tyrant.

Do you support or oppose Obama's actions against the Ghadafi regime....

It's not 'Obama's actions', it's a UN action. Completely different.

Nope, the UN doesn't command ANY U.S. military forces. Obama could beg off and say that we are fully engaged in AFG & Iraq, that "this is one that the EU can handle w/o the US."

Congress wasn't consulted, so next time the dems should remember this one.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I don't know what he is trying to achieve here.

he has not followed the law on this. Not that I approve of the law, but it is the law.

 

[B. Kidd]

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again expecting a different outcome. 10+ years and still bogged down in Afghanistan. Now we let the U.N. supercede Congress's responsibility concerning our involvement in Libya and have embarked on yet another futile military venture. We've been at war for so long that it would seem abnormal if we weren't at war. The age of Militarism has descended and foolishly we are letting our empire slowly bleed out financially and morally.
Hell yeah I'm dead set against our involvement in Libya.

 

[kaz]

Completely oppose....Just like I did for Iraq.

This is even wore...Congress wasn't even consulted, let alone was their constitutionally required approval sought.

Our dippy dithering Boyking sat on his ass and only piled on after the UN acted...Since when is any U.S. military action dependent upon the approval of that band of Euroweenies and dictatorial miscreants?

But there's that (D) next to the name of the occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania, so the Winston Smith wing of the Democrat Party is at full war whoop.

Wouldn't it be nice if at some point we learned to let other people deal with their own problems and we started dealing with our own? Our government is run away crushing our economy and eroding our liberty. The Left is on a full out war on achievement and fostering dependency. They want Americans to sacrifice for the good of our government. We aren't in any position at this point to be trying to solve someone elses problems.

 

[percysunshine]

Obama vs Ghadafi

Golf or Basketball?

 

[kaz]

You should have made the poll show who voted for what.

I voted against it. YOu liberals have become warmongerers. Libya is none of our business. Where the hell is Scotland? Notice how mum's the word with them?

I grew up in liberal, pacifist churches, the Church of the Brethren and the Quaker church. I attended more Quaker churches as I moved around the country and there are more of those then the Church of the Brethren. My wife is a very conservative Christian, so I've attended many of hers as well. Despite the claims of the left it is the Right that uses religion in politics, I have found two things:

1) Politics is almost never discussed in most Conservative churches, it is discussed constantly and openly and in the services of liberal churches

2) Pacifist churches are liberal over pacifist. I am not pacifist, but I believe the military should only be used for direct defense. I oppose the presence of the US military in the middle east at all much less being involved in these endless wars. However, pacifists are blind followers of the Democratic party even though as you completely accurately point out, Democrats are not pacifist, they only want to be behind the steering wheel.

I was attending a Quaker church during the Bush/WMD thing and they were saying, "Bush lied." I asked, if he hadn't, would you support the war? They'd say "no." I said but the Democrats would, so why do you not criticize them? The best I'd get would be they'd admit they don't agree with them when they do that, then they'd go back to glorifying the Democratic party.

Liberalism is an end, not a means. Until one understands that, they will be confused at the contradictions. But once it's realized it's an end, not a means, it makes sense.

 

[BluesMistress]

I don't know what he is trying to achieve here.

he has not followed the law on this. Not that I approve of the law, but it is the law.

Obama is doing as little as he possibly can. This is NOT Obama vs Gadhafi. Obama is tied to Rev. Wright & Farrakhan who are connected to Gadhafi.

Obama is in Way Over his head................

Linking Barack Obama, Moammar Gadhafi, Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan - Albuquerque Christian Apologetics | Examiner.com

The Unholy Trinity: Obama, Wright-Farrakhan, Gadhafi | Flopping Aces

Pajamas Media » Obama, Wright, Farrakhan, and Gaddafi

 

[Douger]

Me ? Who has some blue corn seed ?
I could give a fuck about either one of those whores. ( sorry to any REAL whores that might read this and are useful to society)

 

[BenNatuf]

What we are doing in Libya is the right thing to do, and once Obama gets Congressional authorization it will even be right to do.

I am witholding my vote until the congress authorizes the action.

 

[JWBooth]

Reactionary and opposed.