oldsaw wrote: If Kaddafi, Ghadhafi, Quaddafi (et al) decides he's going down fighting, a lot of people are going to die. The US either joins or sits on the sidelines and either way, gets a public relations slaughter-fest. With all the variables, it's hard to find a winner in all this mess.
Well said.
I thought better of posting my long winded BS. But one line too good to delete.
Are you kidding? France is even in favor of it. And they're the Mikey of military intervention. They hate everything!
fasted58 wrote: When the UN says 'we' in this instance, don't they mean US
whenever the UN actually does something that requires using any sort of military force, yes, they mean "the USA". we have all the coolest toys, and they like to watch us use them.. then ,after we use them, they like to complain about how we used them.
oldsaw wrote: Bush43 wasn't a socialist, but he was never a conservative either.
Depends on your definition of socialist... It seems to be changing these days.. Ugh.. Seems to me, That a certain element of the political right would define just about all of our presidents as socialists, under their new math.
The big question on the early morning news 3/22 is who is leading the rebel forces? The consensus among the media (for what their take is worth) is that the rebels are looking for outside international leadership.
I see we lost an F15E now, but the pilots are OK.
The O in 2011: Bomb them to the stone age, but don't hurt any journalists. And don't bother getting Congress' approval, just kinda keep them in the loop. As long as the UN approves it.
The O in 2007: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/
The One said: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
WHEW! I thought we were at war with Labia for a second there. Sorry to interrupt.
Dr. Hess wrote: The O in 2007: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/The One said: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
Eh, I dunno. He wishy washy-ed pretty good even then. Lot's of "history has shown" (rather than 'it never works') and "always preferable" (as opposed to "you have to do it this way"). Almost sounds like something a politician would say.
For the record, I think he messed a lot of stuff up. The health care thing should have been a slam dunk. He just blew it. But I really think he's handled this middle-east stuff pretty well. There are some tough hands to play here and no way to come out looking great. But I think we'll find we had a lot more of a hand in the Egypt deal than we've yet been told. And this one seems to be a good move in that France and England may step up and bear more of the load. Has yet to be seen if he can make the hand off. But if he does, that will be a pretty neat bit of kit.
As pointed out earlier, we were the only ones who could pull off this first bit because we're the only ones who invest such insane amounts of money in technology designed to explode. Kinda like buying a garbage bad that takes itself out when it's full. Only costs $14,000 each. I'll take the economy box!
Does fighting 3 wars on 2 continents make us involved in the 3rd world war?
excepting Iraq, we're pretty much the only one fighting. so no.
So, mm, if we're the only ones fighting in 3 (or 4 if you count Mexico) wars on 2 (or 3) continents, then it's not a "world war" because only all these other people are fighting with us and not everyone fighting everyone?
I think WW3 started 9/11/01.
Thats pretty much the standard applied to ww1 and ww2 as far as terminology goes.
fast_eddie_72 wrote:Dr. Hess wrote: The O in 2007: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/Eh, I dunno. He wishy washy-ed pretty good even then. Lot's of "history has shown" (rather than 'it never works') and "always preferable" (as opposed to "you have to do it this way"). Almost sounds like something a politician would say. For the record, I think he messed a lot of stuff up. The health care thing should have been a slam dunk. He just blew it. But I really think he's handled this middle-east stuff pretty well. There are some tough hands to play here and no way to come out looking great. But I think we'll find we had a lot more of a hand in the Egypt deal than we've yet been told. And this one seems to be a good move in that France and England may step up and bear more of the load. Has yet to be seen if he can make the hand off. But if he does, that will be a pretty neat bit of kit. As pointed out earlier, we were the only ones who could pull off this first bit because we're the only ones who invest such insane amounts of money in technology designed to explode. Kinda like buying a garbage bad that takes itself out when it's full. Only costs $14,000 each. I'll take the economy box!The One said: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
It's hard to find a politician who isn't wishy-washy anymore; we need desperately need less of their kind.
Obama sullied his reputation (again) by prematurely announcing that "Khaddafi Must Go", waiting a couple of weeks for a UN resolution and agreeing to a humanitarian mission. Just another case of talking too soon and talking too much.......
while i think thats certainly a symptom, the problem is not knowing what to do or what you're going to do to begin with...
Maybe Soros didn't send the memo in time.
If a WW is the whole W at W with each other, I still maintain we're either there or fairly close. Right now, it's the whole M world against everyone not a M. Battle equipment is no longer just tanks, rifles and aircraft, but now also IED's, energy, ideology (brain washing), and money.
Dr. Hess wrote: ....The O in 2011:... ....The O in 2007:....
BENCHMARK!
The H agrees with the O.
(not sure which one, but he agrees with him)
fasted58 wrote: The big question on the early morning news 3/22 is who is leading the rebel forces? The consensus among the media (for what their take is worth) is that the rebels are looking for outside international leadership.
If I can be dictator for life and get to live in the big tent I'm in. I've had a little training.
AC, it's easy to agree with The O. Everyone agrees with what he says. You just have to wait for him to say whichever side you agree with, depending on his audience, and NEVER look at what he does, which is usually the opposite of what he says. Great speaker.
Dr. Hess wrote: You just have to wait for him to say whichever side you agree with, depending on his audience, and NEVER look at what he does, which is usually the opposite of what he says. Great speaker.
Wait, if he eventually says he's going to do both things, and then does the opposite...
Yup. Confusing, isn't it?
Dr. Hess wrote: I think WW3 started 9/11/01.
One thing it seems we can agree on... and I pretty much said as much back in 2001: "The next decade or so is going to suck..."
"O" in '11 has discovered what he didn't know back in '07: Decisions get a lot harder when you're sitting in the big chair and no matter what you decide, a lot of people will still be pissed off at you for it. GW faced the same thing. Sometimes you get it right... often you're wrong on some level.
^^^ Thats not what Cerberus would say. :P
True... more Lord Julius...
(very rusty on my Cerberus characters...)
madmallard wrote: excepting Iraq, we're pretty much the only one fighting. so no.
Pretty much NOT the only ones, my nephew is in Afghanistan and has lost three mates in the past month.
Aussies have fought in every conflict the US has been in since 1914, never forget your allies guys.
The statement isn't meant to be a slight. I meant in the context of literal fighting front and engaging combat. I didn't mean we were 'alone'.
US outnumbers Australia's population by 14 times. For Iraq, we sent about 215,000 troops, and if Australia was our size, they woulda sent around 30,000. In terms of proportion, the Australians made a comittment of resources 2nd only to UK.
In Iraq, Oz comitted their equivalent special forces elite. The Australian response in Afghanistan is not nearly as much a combat role and is smaller by about 40%. While in harms way and helping with lots of support, they aren't doing the same kind of proportional fighting that they were in Iraq.
In terms of fighting, US is the only one now engaging directly with pretty much anyone. Most other nations have 'concluded' whatever commitments to Iraq they made in the past. The biggest personel contributors to Afghanistan after US and UK are Germany, France, and Italy. None of them are major combat or forward roles. Instead, everyone else is either providing us logistic support, or actually rebuilding Afghanistan infrastructure.
huge-O-chavez wrote:tuna55 wrote: Oddly enough O campaigned against this stronghanded tactic that Bush used, and now here he goes doing the same thing.eggsractly.. The man isn't exactly living up to his promises.. Though, to be honest.. I don't think anyone would be doing better at this point. The incoming Pres was handed a E36 M3 sandwich, whoever he was, He was going to piss off 50% of the population.
Every Prez gets handed a E36 M3 sandwich. For instance, Slick Willie got 41's Somalia problem. That's the way the world works. That's why I get pizzed when libbies beat up on conservatives for blundering through the best they can and vice versa. Although libbies still expect moonbeams and sweet smelling farts to come out of such situations when reality dictates exactly the opposite will occur.
You'll need to log in to post.
