Isn't It Time To End This 70yr Bombing Campaign?

[LibocalypseNow]

It really is stunning that people are actually watching their Freedom slip away here at home yet are still marching in lock-step supporting this never-ending bombing campaign. It really is sad.

 

[Douger]

I think it's fair to say that we have been bombing nations uninterrupted for the last 70yrs. We have continued this round-the-clock bombing campaign straight through several Republican and Democrat Presidents,going back to WWII. Isn't it time to start considering putting an end to this seemingly never-ending bombing campaign? Is aggressive Foreign Interventionism/Globalism really working for us? Personally i feel this foreign policy has done far more harm than good. I really do feel that the "World's Referee" and "World's Policeman" time should now pass. Enough is enough. That's just my opinion though. I would be very interested in hearing what others think about this issue. Thanks.

Not so fast. The empire still has resources to stea.....I mean, Evil to destroy.
On to Iran, Venezuela and North Korea !

 

[Vanquish]

It doesn't take much research to look at the interventionist nature of American foreign policy since colonial times and the Monroe Doctrine was put in place.

We've constantly been in multiple armed conflicts unceasingly since the birth of this nation - wars are the longest single "jobs bill" in the history of this country. When conservatives say they don't want welfare...ask them to cut the size of the military. They wont.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I think the biggest problem with this never-ending Bombing Campaign is that most people don't think it has any real adverse effects on them here at home. The more enemies you create,the less Freedom & Liberty you will have here at home. Most just can't seem to grasp this reality. Just go to your local Airport and see for yourself how much Freedom & Liberty you have lost. Not a pleasant experience. Most are beginning to just drive to their Vacation destinations at this point. Airports are only the beginning though. As we continue bombing,we will also continue to lose more Freedoms. It's happening right now. Lets just end this endless War. If we do this soon,we might even be able to regain some of our lost Freedom & Liberty. Something to ponder i guess.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

And now Libya. So damn sad.

 

[Foxfyre]

You are talking about an end to empire, and I'm all for it.

The USA should not be policing the world, or paying or providing anyone else's defense but our own.

Yea it's to the point now where you just assume we're always going to be bombing someone. Doesn't seem like it will ever end. Doesn't matter whether there's a Republican or a Democrat in power. The bombing just goes on and on. 70yrs sure is an incredibly long bombing campaign. We shouldn't aspire to be an Empire. Our Founding Fathers didn't want that.

Seems like the Peaceniks don't get too excited if we bomb or rocket or use drones on people--most especially if it's one of THEIR guys ordering it. They only get excited if we use rifles and tanks and stuff, so it's pretty safe to pretend you're 'doing something' or 'being tough' if you order a bomb strike and you don't have to risk heavy criticism by ordering in any kind of artillery or ground troops.

Remember it wasn't all that long ago that it was a standing 'joke'. Every time President Clinton had another 'bimbo eruption', somebody somewhere would get bombed. Probably wasn't so funny to those being bombed but it made for great political cartoons.

This little ditty came out long before 9/11 or the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YqpAEA3wYE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YqpAEA3wYE[/ame]

So yeah. If we don't have a firm goal in mind for dropping bombs on people and no way to know if we have accomplished it, I would rather we didn't do it.

 

[Douger]

NO !
gAWD bLAST MURKA !!!!!!!!!1

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I think Americans would actually be shocked if we ever had a President who didn't bomb someone. That's all most Americans have ever known. Sad but true.

 

[High_Gravity]

NO !
gAWD bLAST MURKA !!!!!!!!!1

You are retarded.

 

[High_Gravity]

You nailed it with this thread Lib, its like you read the future or something.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think Americans would actually be shocked if we ever had a President who didn't bomb someone. That's all most Americans have ever known. Sad but true.

Since WWII, the one military action that I think actually did what it was supposed to accomplish is the bombing raid on Lybia after Gadhafi blew up a bar with a bunch of Americans and allies in it. Reagan warned Gadhafi that the next terrorist attack would result in swift and certain retaliation, and he made good on it. And we didn't hear from Gadhafi for decades after that.

A close second would be Desert Storm intended to kick Saddam out of Kuwait and prevent invasion of Saudi Arabia and that also was accomplished relatively quickly, decisively, and effectively. But it did involve ground troops so that was somewhat different than a bombing raid.

Now I think Gadhafi and international thugs like him don't take any warnings or resolutions all that seriously. They know Europe is pretty impotent when it comes to enforcing world peace and American leaders will pull their punches and stop short of really accomplishing all that much. And the more savage world powers (China, Russia et al) are going to give more passive support to the terrorists than to anybody else. They are no threat at all to international terrorists, genocide, or other uglies that humankind can inflict on humankind.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Imagine an America where we weren't bombing anyone? Most Americans can't even imagine that anymore. Endless bombing is all most have ever known.

 

[High_Gravity]

I think Americans would actually be shocked if we ever had a President who didn't bomb someone. That's all most Americans have ever known. Sad but true.

Since WWII, the one military action that I think actually did what it was supposed to accomplish is the bombing raid on Lybia after Gadhafi blew up a bar with a bunch of Americans and allies in it. Reagan warned Gadhafi that the next terrorist attack would result in swift and certain retaliation, and he made good on it. And we didn't hear from Gadhafi for decades after that.

A close second would be Desert Storm intended to kick Saddam out of Kuwait and prevent invasion of Saudi Arabia and that also was accomplished relatively quickly, decisively, and effectively. But it did involve ground troops so that was somewhat different than a bombing raid.

Now I think Gadhafi and international thugs like him don't take any warnings or resolutions all that seriously. They know Europe is pretty impotent when it comes to enforcing world peace and American leaders will pull their punches and stop short of really accomplishing all that much. And the more savage world powers (China, Russia et al) are going to give more passive support to the terrorists than to anybody else. They are no threat at all to international terrorists, genocide, or other uglies that humankind can inflict on humankind.

Ghaddafi came to the table, renounced terrorism, gave up his WMD's, helped us track Al Qaeda in his country, gave reparations to the victims from Lockerbie and re-established diplomatic relations with the West. What happened to make us throw him under the bus for a bunch of Al Qaeda allied rebels?

 

[Foxfyre]

I think Americans would actually be shocked if we ever had a President who didn't bomb someone. That's all most Americans have ever known. Sad but true.

Since WWII, the one military action that I think actually did what it was supposed to accomplish is the bombing raid on Lybia after Gadhafi blew up a bar with a bunch of Americans and allies in it. Reagan warned Gadhafi that the next terrorist attack would result in swift and certain retaliation, and he made good on it. And we didn't hear from Gadhafi for decades after that.

A close second would be Desert Storm intended to kick Saddam out of Kuwait and prevent invasion of Saudi Arabia and that also was accomplished relatively quickly, decisively, and effectively. But it did involve ground troops so that was somewhat different than a bombing raid.

Now I think Gadhafi and international thugs like him don't take any warnings or resolutions all that seriously. They know Europe is pretty impotent when it comes to enforcing world peace and American leaders will pull their punches and stop short of really accomplishing all that much. And the more savage world powers (China, Russia et al) are going to give more passive support to the terrorists than to anybody else. They are no threat at all to international terrorists, genocide, or other uglies that humankind can inflict on humankind.

Ghaddafi came to the table, renounced terrorism, gave up his WMD's, helped us track Al Qaeda in his country, gave reparations to the victims from Lockerbie and re-established diplomatic relations with the West. What happened to make us throw him under the bus for a bunch of Al Qaeda allied rebels?

Very very good question. I am going to revive my "WWIII?" thread and perhaps we can explore that there. If you have no objection, I am going to move your question over there.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I think Americans would actually be shocked if we ever had a President who didn't bomb someone. That's all most Americans have ever known. Sad but true.

Since WWII, the one military action that I think actually did what it was supposed to accomplish is the bombing raid on Lybia after Gadhafi blew up a bar with a bunch of Americans and allies in it. Reagan warned Gadhafi that the next terrorist attack would result in swift and certain retaliation, and he made good on it. And we didn't hear from Gadhafi for decades after that.

A close second would be Desert Storm intended to kick Saddam out of Kuwait and prevent invasion of Saudi Arabia and that also was accomplished relatively quickly, decisively, and effectively. But it did involve ground troops so that was somewhat different than a bombing raid.

Now I think Gadhafi and international thugs like him don't take any warnings or resolutions all that seriously. They know Europe is pretty impotent when it comes to enforcing world peace and American leaders will pull their punches and stop short of really accomplishing all that much. And the more savage world powers (China, Russia et al) are going to give more passive support to the terrorists than to anybody else. They are no threat at all to international terrorists, genocide, or other uglies that humankind can inflict on humankind.

Ghaddafi came to the table, renounced terrorism, gave up his WMD's, helped us track Al Qaeda in his country, gave reparations to the victims from Lockerbie and re-established diplomatic relations with the West. What happened to make us throw him under the bus for a bunch of Al Qaeda allied rebels?

I'm sure Oil is playing a big part in this Libyan War. The Western Europeans depend on Libya for a lot of their Oil. That's why they were the most gung-ho about bombing them. "Protecting the Civilians/He was going to destabilize the Region" is absolute BULLSHIT. Period,end of story.

 

[High_Gravity]

Imagine an America where we weren't bombing anyone? Most Americans can't even imagine that anymore. Endless bombing is all most have ever known.

I have grown up in war Lib, I remember the Gulf War, the Bosnia bombings, than I joined the Military in 2000 and we had the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts. I don't remember a time when we weren't at war.

 

[High_Gravity]

Since WWII, the one military action that I think actually did what it was supposed to accomplish is the bombing raid on Lybia after Gadhafi blew up a bar with a bunch of Americans and allies in it. Reagan warned Gadhafi that the next terrorist attack would result in swift and certain retaliation, and he made good on it. And we didn't hear from Gadhafi for decades after that.

A close second would be Desert Storm intended to kick Saddam out of Kuwait and prevent invasion of Saudi Arabia and that also was accomplished relatively quickly, decisively, and effectively. But it did involve ground troops so that was somewhat different than a bombing raid.

Now I think Gadhafi and international thugs like him don't take any warnings or resolutions all that seriously. They know Europe is pretty impotent when it comes to enforcing world peace and American leaders will pull their punches and stop short of really accomplishing all that much. And the more savage world powers (China, Russia et al) are going to give more passive support to the terrorists than to anybody else. They are no threat at all to international terrorists, genocide, or other uglies that humankind can inflict on humankind.

Ghaddafi came to the table, renounced terrorism, gave up his WMD's, helped us track Al Qaeda in his country, gave reparations to the victims from Lockerbie and re-established diplomatic relations with the West. What happened to make us throw him under the bus for a bunch of Al Qaeda allied rebels?

Very very good question. I am going to revive my "WWIII?" thread and perhaps we can explore that there. If you have no objection, I am going to move your question over there.

Go for it.

 

[High_Gravity]

Since WWII, the one military action that I think actually did what it was supposed to accomplish is the bombing raid on Lybia after Gadhafi blew up a bar with a bunch of Americans and allies in it. Reagan warned Gadhafi that the next terrorist attack would result in swift and certain retaliation, and he made good on it. And we didn't hear from Gadhafi for decades after that.

A close second would be Desert Storm intended to kick Saddam out of Kuwait and prevent invasion of Saudi Arabia and that also was accomplished relatively quickly, decisively, and effectively. But it did involve ground troops so that was somewhat different than a bombing raid.

Now I think Gadhafi and international thugs like him don't take any warnings or resolutions all that seriously. They know Europe is pretty impotent when it comes to enforcing world peace and American leaders will pull their punches and stop short of really accomplishing all that much. And the more savage world powers (China, Russia et al) are going to give more passive support to the terrorists than to anybody else. They are no threat at all to international terrorists, genocide, or other uglies that humankind can inflict on humankind.

Ghaddafi came to the table, renounced terrorism, gave up his WMD's, helped us track Al Qaeda in his country, gave reparations to the victims from Lockerbie and re-established diplomatic relations with the West. What happened to make us throw him under the bus for a bunch of Al Qaeda allied rebels?

I'm sure Oil is playing a big part in this Libyan War. The Western Europeans depend on Libya for a lot of their Oil. That's why they were the most gung-ho about bombing them. "Protecting the Civilians/He was going to destabilize the Region" is absolute BULLSHIT. Period,end of story.

Basically your right, if Ghaddafi was in charge of a dirt poor country like Uganda or Liberia and was doing this, nobody would give a ****. There definently wouldn't be any cruise missiles or fighter jets heading to those countries, thats for sure.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Imagine an America where we weren't bombing anyone? Most Americans can't even imagine that anymore. Endless bombing is all most have ever known.

I have grown up in war Lib, I remember the Gulf War, the Bosnia bombings, than I joined the Military in 2000 and we had the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts. I don't remember a time when we weren't at war.

You're not alone. Most Americans can't remember that time either. We just expect our Presidents to get in there and bomb someone. It's sad.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

And now more American kids brutally murdered in Iraq over the weekend. Will we ever know a time when our Government isn't bombing & killing?