US just launched missiles into Libya.......

[Jack Fate]

Typical hypocrisy from the rightwingloon bedwetters.

I expect nothing less from them.

Yep...some things never change.

We should all be concerned about the terrorists Obama is creating. We can probably expect a terrorist attack any minute. Nice going Obama.

 

[RadiomanATL]

I expect nothing less from them.

Yep...some things never change.

We should all be concerned about the terrorists Obama is creating. We can probably expect a terrorist attack any minute. Nice going Obama.

You keep repeating this. You do know that the two situations are not analogous, correct?

 

[Charles_Main]

Obama is so soft....

Cruise Missiles, Yep Pretty soft.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Where was the congressional resolution on this?

(Not that I think the WPA is a good idea, but the Democrats always insist that it is, and I am wondering why it is being ignored this time.)

 

[Jack Fate]

Yep...some things never change.

We should all be concerned about the terrorists Obama is creating. We can probably expect a terrorist attack any minute. Nice going Obama.

You keep repeating this. You do know that the two situations are not analogous, correct?

No, I don't know that. Obama still has Gitmo open and he is bombing a country that never attacked us. Obama called this a "failed policy".

Tell us the difference.

 

[Charles_Main]

Yep...some things never change.

We should all be concerned about the terrorists Obama is creating. We can probably expect a terrorist attack any minute. Nice going Obama.

You keep repeating this. You do know that the two situations are not analogous, correct?

Wait so you actually believe that Jihadists will not point to Libya and claim the US is behind it and it is just more of our War on Islam?

Please, the situations are clearly Analogous to some extent. Libya might not be as potent a propaganda/recruiting tool as Iraq or Afghan, but it will be in the mix.

 

[Toome]

I think Obama is finding out that being in the hot seat ain't what he thought it would be when he was taking potshots at his predecessor. That being said, I think he made the right decision to launch the Tomahawks and clear the air lanes for NATO aircraft. It's the smart thing to do.

What concerns me is what we don't know about US commitments. Are we going to put troops on the ground? Or are we just providing air cover for NATO ground forces? Either way, I hope we avoid any slippery slopes. History tells us that we have a tendency to slide right into something else, so I won't hold my breath on that one.

By the way, this has nothing to do with the innocent civilians being slaughtered by Gadhafi's forces. This has nothing to do with the civil war and possible emergence of a democracy.

This is all about oil. As it should be.

Interestingly enough, the first post-Revolutionary War military engagement was in this same region back in 1801. Pirates along the Barbary Coast captured vessels and demanded ransom for the return of crew members. The US enjoyed protection from the French government during the Revolutionary War but was on its own when the war was over. Under President Adams, the US "negotiated" treaties with each of the Barbary States in the form of paying them off. This put a huge burden on the US since it was still recovering from its war debts, and the payoffs alone put a significant dent in the US treasury. When Jefferson was inaugurated in 1800, the Pasha of Tripoli demanded almost a quarter of a million dollars in payment. Jefferson responded by deploying the newly-formed US Navy to Tripoli and conducted a series of attacks on the Barbary Coast states for three years. In 1804, after the latest capture of US sailors, Marine Lt. Presley O'Bannon led a coalition force across the desert from the shores of Tripoli in a stunning victory that ended the First Barbary War and was the first time that the new US flag was raised over foreign soil in victory.

The line "to the shores of Tripoli" from the Marine Hymn comes from this military campaign.

 

[RadiomanATL]

We should all be concerned about the terrorists Obama is creating. We can probably expect a terrorist attack any minute. Nice going Obama.

You keep repeating this. You do know that the two situations are not analogous, correct?

No, I don't know that. Obama still has Gitmo open and he is bombing a country that never attacked us. Obama called this a "failed policy".

Tell us the difference.

In Bush's case, we invaded a muslim country without broad support from other muslim countries (whether you agree with the invasion or not). Hence, the creating more terrorists argument.

In this case, we are supporting a popular muslim uprising with the support of a broad range of other muslim countries (whether you agree with it or not). Hence, the "creating more terrorists" argument fails.

 

[RadiomanATL]

We should all be concerned about the terrorists Obama is creating. We can probably expect a terrorist attack any minute. Nice going Obama.

You keep repeating this. You do know that the two situations are not analogous, correct?

Wait so you actually believe that Jihadists will not point to Libya and claim the US is behind it and it is just more of our War on Islam?

Please, the situations are clearly Analogous to some extent. Libya might not be as potent a propaganda/recruiting tool as Iraq or Afghan, but it will be in the mix.

Um, the Arab League SUPPORTS the French, UN and US actions.

 

[Jack Fate]

You keep repeating this. You do know that the two situations are not analogous, correct?

No, I don't know that. Obama still has Gitmo open and he is bombing a country that never attacked us. Obama called this a "failed policy".

Tell us the difference.

In Bush's case, we invaded a muslim country without broad support from other muslim countries (whether you agree with the invasion or not). Hence, the creating more terrorists argument.

In this case, we are supporting a popular muslim uprising with the support of a broad range of other muslim countries (whether you agree with it or not). Hence, the "creating more terrorists" argument fails.

There are no muslim nations in this coalition and there were none in 2003. I don't know what you mean by "support". Unless you have something to show us.

 

[bodecea]

You keep repeating this. You do know that the two situations are not analogous, correct?

No, I don't know that. Obama still has Gitmo open and he is bombing a country that never attacked us. Obama called this a "failed policy".

Tell us the difference.

In Bush's case, we invaded a muslim country without broad support from other muslim countries (whether you agree with the invasion or not). Hence, the creating more terrorists argument.

In this case, we are supporting a popular muslim uprising with the support of a broad range of other muslim countries (whether you agree with it or not). Hence, the "creating more terrorists" argument fails.

But it's catchy.

 

[RadiomanATL]

No, I don't know that. Obama still has Gitmo open and he is bombing a country that never attacked us. Obama called this a "failed policy".

Tell us the difference.

In Bush's case, we invaded a muslim country without broad support from other muslim countries (whether you agree with the invasion or not). Hence, the creating more terrorists argument.

In this case, we are supporting a popular muslim uprising with the support of a broad range of other muslim countries (whether you agree with it or not). Hence, the "creating more terrorists" argument fails.

There are no muslim nations in this coalition and there were none in 2003. I don't know what you mean by "support". Unless you have something to show us.

Saturday's launch of military strikes by French, British and U.S. forces with Arab backing and U.N. mandate was not universally endorsed. And it's unclear whether it will be fast enough to do what its proponents want, to shore up rebel forces and oust Libya's leader Moammar Gadhafi.

But the cascade of quick, weighty decisions getting there was unusual — just one of the unusual things about this dramatic operation.

It has the backing of the Arab League, which has balked at other interventions in the Arab world and is known more for lengthy deliberations than action.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7481472.html

 

[Jack Fate]

Does it have the backing of Al Queda?

 

[RadiomanATL]

No, I don't know that. Obama still has Gitmo open and he is bombing a country that never attacked us. Obama called this a "failed policy".

Tell us the difference.

In Bush's case, we invaded a muslim country without broad support from other muslim countries (whether you agree with the invasion or not). Hence, the creating more terrorists argument.

In this case, we are supporting a popular muslim uprising with the support of a broad range of other muslim countries (whether you agree with it or not). Hence, the "creating more terrorists" argument fails.

But it's catchy.

It's stupid.

Our intervention is stupid, and I have deep reservations about the whole situation (Obama should have gone to Congress first IMO), but taking every accusation that was thrown at Bush and lobbing it at Obama is no more than "Oh yeah, I know you are but what am I" elementary school bullshit.

 

[Modbert]

There are no muslim nations in this coalition and there were none in 2003. I don't know what you mean by "support". Unless you have something to show us.

The ignorance is telling here.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Does it have the backing of Al Queda?

Do you have a working brain?

 

[Jack Fate]

There are no muslim nations in this coalition and there were none in 2003. I don't know what you mean by "support". Unless you have something to show us.

The ignorance is telling here.

Not as telling as a moderator who should know better than to troll. Pusillanimous pissant.

 

[Modbert]

It's stupid.

Our intervention is stupid, and I have deep reservations about the whole situation (Obama should have gone to Congress first IMO), but taking every accusation that was thrown at Bush and lobbing it at Obama is no more than "Oh yeah, I know you are but what am I" elementary school bullshit.

I think the argument that will be used is that there wouldn't be enough time. Whether I agree with that is another story. I personally think it would of been better off if the emergency session was used to talk about this instead of trying to get rid of federal funds for NPR before going on vacation.

Edit: Of course, Obama should of gone to Congress first and present his plan.

 

[Jack Fate]

Does it have the backing of Al Queda?

Do you have a working brain?

Do you have a hemmorhoid on your shoulders?

 

[RadiomanATL]

Does it have the backing of Al Queda?

Do you have a working brain?

Do you have a hemmorhoid on your shoulders?

Curiously enough, the answer to all three questions is "no".


Thanks for playing.