reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Mar 23, 2011 9:33:59 GMT -5
That means they can go to war at anytime for any reason.During the course of my lifetime they pretty much have, unfortunately. Reading the history books, it seems that this follows a long tradition of gunboat diplomacy. I guess what I am saying is that our voting right is being degraded here. With false information or lack there of your vote is just an uneducated guess, because you really don't even know half of the truth of things. If nobody has the truth to enforce laws like the war act, what is the point of having them. All they are is a false sense that our politicians really have our best interests at heart. If the politicians just give us a false sense then what is the point of voting? just because you can?
|
|
|
Post by maui1 on Mar 23, 2011 9:58:57 GMT -5
we, america, can't get out of our own way.
we, america, can find a way to trip over a reflection on the ground
why do we continue to do this to ourselves?
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Mar 23, 2011 10:16:27 GMT -5
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 23, 2011 10:31:09 GMT -5
Except, of course, for those who were against the Libya attack before they were for it.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Mar 23, 2011 10:31:27 GMT -5
Seems like only last week he was saying-----VAN SUSTEREN: What would you do about Libya? GINGRICH: Exercise a no-fly zone this evening. … It’s also an ideological problem. The United States doesn’t need anybody’s permission. We don’t need to have NATO, who frankly, won’t bring much to the fight. We don’t need to have the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening. And we don’t have to send troops. All we have to do is suppress his air force, which we could do in minutes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Today he says----- "WASHINGTON – Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is questioning President Barack Obama's intervention in Libya, calling it a "badly run" operation without a clear goal.
The Georgia Republican tells NBC's "Today" show he believes Obama painted the United States into a corner with his decision to authorize air strikes to establish a no-fly zone and dismantle Moammar Gadhafi's air defenses. Gingrich says that Obama is relying on a standard of "humanitarian intervention," a policy he said would have justified American military engagement in countries like Sudan, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Yemen and Bahrain.
Gingrich, who is believed to be considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination, says the standard Obama applied to get involved in Libya could conceivably get the United States mired in military intervention "in all sorts of places." "
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,611
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 23, 2011 10:37:54 GMT -5
ugonow-combining this new thread with your Obama's Illegal war thread.
Tennesseer/Moderator
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 23, 2011 10:38:23 GMT -5
Yep. I find his stand here about as clear as Obama's. We want regime change, we don't want regime change. It's for humanitarian reasons, it's to help establish democracy. I think we have a right to kill Momar Qadaffi over the Pan Am bombing and we should have killed him-- assassinated him-- years ago. Obama missed an opportunity to send a message that he was going to do what Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 failed to do-- get this turd. Would have made him look more like a strong leader.
But overall, you're right. Republicans just don't know how to deal with an intervention they aren't running. I think it's twisting them up in knots.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Mar 23, 2011 10:41:39 GMT -5
One thing I am curious about was, I thought they intended to keep the fight fair by using air support to take out Ghadi's air offense. I see multiple ground targets being constantly bombed by U.N. air support. Did they change their mind just to win the war for the rebels? It is like playing a game of chess and having your smarter brother take over the whole game for you instead of just asking help on one move. It would be stupid to try to "make it fair" that would just increase the length of the conflict, once we targeted Ghadifis forces we picked a side.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 23, 2011 10:46:39 GMT -5
Hey Tenn..., Do me a favor and start a poll on how long we are going to pay attention to Libya.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Mar 23, 2011 11:30:29 GMT -5
Hey Tenn..., Do me a favor and start a poll on how long we are going to pay attention to Libya. When Japan has another earthquake.....
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 23, 2011 11:33:37 GMT -5
I hope this works out better than Kennedy's attempt to take out Castro.
|
|
|
Post by maui1 on Mar 23, 2011 11:42:27 GMT -5
why do we think we own the world?
why do we feel we have the best ideas and that everyone must follow them or we will bomb them to the hell?
why do we feel everyone in the world feels and wants the same things out of life, that we want?
who gave america the world right to contol everthing?
who do we think we are?
|
|
|
Post by maui1 on Mar 23, 2011 11:44:58 GMT -5
you know..........
i can understand why so many all over the world hate us.........
i am an american, served 4 years in the service, worked all my life, and i am beginning to hate us!
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Mar 23, 2011 12:07:15 GMT -5
you know.......... i can understand why some many all over the world hate us......... i am an american, served 4 years in the service, worked all my life, and i am beginning to hate us! Don't hate the game or the played, hate the playas
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 23, 2011 12:33:45 GMT -5
Oh! A liberal Democrat.
|
|
|
Post by maui1 on Mar 23, 2011 12:44:02 GMT -5
reason- and safe-.......you are two that qualify, for sure
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 23, 2011 16:05:20 GMT -5
Let's go back to Teddy Roosevelt: Gun Boat diplomacy. Seems that he decided to sail "The Great White Fleet" around the world to impress, particularly, Japan over Congressional opposition. Claiming that he had the money for the voyage and dared the Congress to "try and get it back." That's probably not the first time a President ignored Congress and did as he pleased, but it was notable and it was over a hundred years ago. So......why would things be different now? Just about all the wars in which the US has engaged have at least been precipitated by Executive actions which many, if not most, in Congress opposed. In short: It ain't nothing new ~ so don't have a stroke over it.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Mar 23, 2011 16:14:53 GMT -5
Let's go back to Teddy Roosevelt: Gun Boat diplomacy. Seems that he decided to sail "The Great White Fleet" around the world to impress, particularly, Japan over Congressional opposition. Claiming that he had the money for the voyage and dared the Congress to "try and get it back." That's probably not the first time a President ignored Congress and did as he pleased, but it was notable and it was over a hundred years ago. So......why would things be different now? Just about all the wars in which the US has engaged have at least been precipitated by Executive actions which many, if not most, in Congress opposed. In short: It ain't nothing new ~ so don't have a stroke over it. Just as a aside that has nothing to do with the thread, while he was showing the power of the USA, the Forign Naval authorities when they saw the ships sent around the world, realized in #'s they had but quality was lacking, they . the ships of the White fleet, were completly outdated, in how they looked at Battle Ships , the big power on the seas at the time, so while they looked impressive, as far as a force to be feared, anything but. Just a bit of history that means nothing.
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 23, 2011 16:37:04 GMT -5
The thought of too many, unfortunately. The precedent is well established. Some Presidents have more power than others, but they all have the ability to take initiatives which the Congress then must either support of not. Congress typically takes the easy way out.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 21:58:53 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2011 15:04:22 GMT -5
Japan had another small one... today? yesterday? ... anyway, my cousin facebooked that she is ready for the earth to stop shaking, and it was this week...
|
|