|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 21, 2011 10:23:08 GMT -5
I agree and am beginning to think that our Military wanted no part of this confilct in Libya but some probably wanted Col Khadahfy taken out.. IMHO, if they really wanted him taken out, they would have launched a special forces unit, not tomahawks. I will bet you a cup of Starbucks but we have Navy Seals or Green Berets hunting for Khadahfy and if not them the French or British Special Ops teams are looking for that Ole Scoundrel and why he is in hiding someplace..
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 9, 2024 23:36:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2011 10:28:24 GMT -5
I thought it was more about taking out the structure, so that the rebels could take out Khadahfy?...
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 21, 2011 10:40:25 GMT -5
Yeah- I wouldn't take that bet. I know you're right. We will see video of him being dragged out of a hole somewhere with disheveled hair, two weeks of facial hair, and that wife-beater T terrorists and dictators are so fond of taking their mug shots in. Obama will give a speech similar to this one...
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 21, 2011 10:42:33 GMT -5
Admiral Mullin said yesterday "Khadahfy is NOT a target" but the Ole Admiral seemed to have a sly smile on his face when he made that announcement..
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 9, 2024 23:36:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2011 12:59:27 GMT -5
By paralysed... do you mean unwiling to be the loudmouth high commander of all Earth? ...
OMG... is Rome burning... again? .. lol..
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 21, 2011 13:54:50 GMT -5
Getting back to the original topic which is interesting, I'd like to suggest that we have little way to determine Obama's motives except through his actions. That said; most of us assume that Obama would like to achieve a more government-centric society in which government would provide all "necessities," leaving freedom to be enjoyed in leisure time. Obamacare is a move in that direction, but so are EITC, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and various aspects of "affirmative action." We are moving toward a "nanny state," but that is nothing new. Back in the day, it was called "creeping socialism" [poo-pooed by no less than Hubert Humphrey]. It is, as Glenn Beck says, a product of "progressivism" started by Teddy Roosevelt, but, truth is, it started with the Constitution ~ written when the Articles of Confederation proved unworkable [so it was said]. Obama seems to be accomplishing what he wants while we sit and dither. The trick is to pass programs which provide benefits and put off paying for them. Then, when the bill comes due, it will be a choice of paying for benefits while not getting any or swallowing the program whole. If experience is any guide, we'll swallow the program whole ~ until, at long last,, the program has swallowed us.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 9, 2024 23:36:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2011 14:09:24 GMT -5
Is that the progressivism that Glen Beck used the 'free libraries' to learn all about?
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Mar 21, 2011 14:21:45 GMT -5
Possible this "welfare state " started when it was needed, under Roosevelt during the Depression, unlike the previous Administrations whwere it seemed the idea was to let the country work through it.
The great Depression was something else altogether , larger then before, many more people affected, larger population, less on the farm to care for themselves with at least the basics of food and shelter.
Then came the war, industry boomed, and after wards, hell we were well off. GI bill was passed, a college education for so many who before would have felt great just finishing High School. We were the Power..ok Soviets too , but we didn't have the population loss, the destruction of the Industry's , cities they did, so while we didn't have all the money , we borrowed to give the populace a better life.
By the way, no matter what the different parties claim as their mantra, both did the borrowing and extending help to more and more. One party possible a bit more generous , the other less so, but possible more generous to those who where their main supporters, so a wash, both guilty.
Then we had the financial blow up, market crash, two expensive wars, no taxes to pay for them, outsourcing of jobs, industry's leaving our shores, thus a 14 trillion doller debt.
The good times are over , for a while anyway, so now have to take some benefits back, do less for the populace. Don't just knock the past , for that time, we were fine, times change, now we have to change with it.
What ever you do , don't claim innocence by the Pubs, they ate at the same trough as the Dem's, spent too, gave away too, just in their case they gave to some who the others did not and vice versa.
Innocent however? Come on now my friends, they all went along , because over all , we could afford it, now we can't.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 21, 2011 14:23:36 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 9, 2024 23:36:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2011 14:29:47 GMT -5
I read, caught the unity here, and am wondering.... What if GWB was in charge of this military action?
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 21, 2011 14:30:56 GMT -5
Obama Dithers While American Credibility Burns
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Mar 21, 2011 14:50:12 GMT -5
Funny how one can see the same thing and come up with different conclusions then those of another. Interesting that. I see no weakness on his decisions on Lybia at all. He came out force full and straight on. Gaddafi has to go. [Possible that was a mistake, letting him lose his wiggle room but we are discussing force full , not the correctness of actions, thats for a different thread in my opinion} Then he worked within the system to help getting the necessary ducks in the row, not acting unilaterally as we as a Nation have done so often in the past, to great criticism, both from our own populace as well as the world, and in so many cases to our detriment as to outcome, manpower and treasure. Useing diplomacy, discussions, support from the International Community, respecting their wants and feelings, in this case NATO, UN, Arab League AND convincing the two on the Security Council with the veto to just abstain, trust me he and our government was in on those discussions, had a lot to do with those decisions of those two powerful countries. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the decisions, that is not the sign of a weak president. Don't like the decision, so be it. Come up with a scenario of ones own of what he should have done, but weak, indecisive, that was not the case at all. Suggest go toe dictionary and read definition of the words. He knows the deficit is a problem , he fired the first salvo, now waiting to see if the other side would do their job, come back with their idea and then after both legislative sides get through battling and are at where they are , then he will step in, that's how it works, some her don't understand that, the process. If so , that's their problem " byword for US presidential inaction " , If what is happening is called inaction , I would hate to see what action would be. For some who claim military experience and then expect instantaneous solutions, when military action is taken, I wonder where their experience had been, not where mine had been. To guess Obama's legacy , at this time, {I believe it's about the last thing on his mind] is ludicrous, it will be judged way down the line as most of them are, but I think history will judge him more then adequate and possible superior depending how his term finishes out. IMHO. ;D
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 21, 2011 17:50:59 GMT -5
I favor inaction on the part of MOST politicians in both Parties. A politician not doing anything is a welcome change.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 21, 2011 17:53:21 GMT -5
I favor inaction on the part of MOST politicians in both Parties. A politician not doing anything is a welcome change. You must be a big fan of Obama then??
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Mar 21, 2011 19:34:34 GMT -5
Any inaction on his part is due to Pub obstruction.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 9, 2024 23:36:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2011 19:38:03 GMT -5
Silly warsaw.
|
|