Libyan Raids

[Cold_Zero]

What are your thoughts on the Libyan raids? I chuckled that the French didnt really wait for the Paris meetings to be over, before launching raids on Libya. Also, I was happy to see that Denmark sent F16's to Italy to participate. Go Denmark!

[heliochrome85]

[R/T Hemi]

I'm glad our current administration learned from the tragic mistakes of the last administration with respect to the use of force. As I understand, we've invested about 50 - 60 cruise missiles so far in the attack. That's far better than some CO having to write a letter to the next of kin. Obama says our involvement is for a few days only. He's the man.

[bigbadberry3]

Nice for it to be the UN and not just US.

[Cold_Zero]

I thought it was 110 BGM109's against 20 targets for the USA.

[heliochrome85]

my understanding is that it was 110 tomahawks between the US and the UK

[Cold_Zero]

Roger that.

[Bubba1]

Nice for it to be the UN and not just US.

This^. Shared risk FTW.

[srellim234]

Where's the conservative outrage at the expense? Where specifically in the rest of the military budget do they propose the cuts to pay for this?

Let them have their civil war. We have way too much on our plate that needs to be cleaned up first. No guarantees that the fighters we are defending in Libya are any better than the status quo. We could be defending the Libyan version of the Taliban.

Iraq was done by UN resolution, too. Twice.

[AZhitman]

Where's the conservative outrage at the expense?

Where's the liberal pantywaists crying, "Warmongerer!"

Just wondering...

[mattblancarte]

Obama is earning points in my book by keeping our stance in line with the UN.

No complaints here.

[AZhitman]

From the limited amount that I know right now, I'm right there with you.

Hope he doesn't F it up.

[stebo0728]

Im right there with you guys too at the moment. So far we seem to be doing it right. I hear talk that this will end up another Bosnia. I hope not, and if we hold the "no ground troops" line all the way, I dont see how it could become another Bosnia. But then, at some point humanitarian footmen will be required. And who will guard them?

Also, Im just gonna say it ... removing myself from the nature of the conflict, the fact that the rebels shot down their own plane, and rejoiced until the found out, was just classic ...

[AZhitman]

The rebels were doing just fine. Now, they don't need to worry about air assault. The goal was to cause mass defections of Libyan military leaders, and to break Ghadafi's control of them. That shouldn't be a tough task, and the rebels can take it from there. I hope the Arab League steps in to guide their transition to democracy.

[srellim234]

My personal opinion is that with the Arab League consisting of 10 "republics" (including Iraq and some with power totally consolidated into one faction or family), 8 monarchies, Egypt, Somalia, Palestine and the currently suspended Libya there is no way in hell they are going to step in and guide anyone to democracy. Many of those countries are not in any position to get involved; most of the ones who are aren't going to be supporting a democracy.

[AZhitman]

...probably right. I should have checked the "makeup" of the AL before I said that.

Let me revise that: I hope the middle eastern countries who respect freedom collectively step in to guide their transition to democracy.

I don't want to hear one more instance of some Arab country b****ing about the West unless they're willing to deal with their own issues in a sane, humane, and fair manner - and that means respecting the human rights of their citizenry.

[telcoman]

Where's the conservative outrage at the expense? Where specifically in the rest of the military budget do they propose the cuts to pay for this?

Just raise the income tax on those earning over $250k.

That ought to cover it

Telcoman

[srellim234]

telco- that is NOT a conservative way to pay for it. I want to hear how the conservatives in favor of our intervention in Libya will pay for all that expensive ordnance. Out of specific aspects of the military budget.

Any federal income raised by your proposal should be 100% earmarked for application to the federal deficit, coupled with a freeze on any increase of government spending. Not slowing the rate of increase that most politicians tout as a decrease, I want an actual stoppage of any $$$ increase in spending above the current dollar expenditures.

[telcoman]

telco- that is NOT a conservative way to pay for it. I want to hear how the conservatives in favor of our intervention in Libya will pay for all that expensive ordnance. Out of specific aspects of the military budget.

Any federal income raised by your proposal should be 100% earmarked for application to the federal deficit, coupled with a freeze on any increase of government spending. Not slowing the rate of increase that most politicians tout as a decrease, I want an actual stoppage of any $$$ increase in spending above the current dollar expenditures.

The conservative way to pay for this is the same method that they used for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Let the poor and middle class pay with increased taxes on them as well as giving their lives and limbs

[AZhitman]

You've gone from being a mere uninformed sheep to being a cranky old man who doesn't know WTF he's talking about.

I've got a kid in that military you love to bag on so much, so spare us your "classism" bullcrap. Yeah, we just send the poor kids to be cannon fodder, right? Ugh. Whatever.

If you understood the first thing about the tax code, you'd be credible. You're not. Maybe Isaac can educate you on it. He's a card-carrying Liberal, maybe you'll believe him.

Besides, you don't mind paying more taxes, as long as some limp-wristed Democrat suggests it. You certainly didn't raise your hand when I suggested that maybe you should contribute more of your precious 401. Or was that all talk and no action? No conviction = weak character.

BTW, why aren't you up in arms about your Messiah starting another armed conflict without any proof, any confirmed and credible intel? And without consulting Congress? You sure had a big mouth when Bush did it... oh, wait - he DID go to Congress. Where's the whining and gnashing of teeth? I haven't seen you type the word "warmongerer" yet.

Know why? Because you can't think independently. You're a mouthpiece and a toe-the-party-line-at-all-costs Liberal... you've become what you despise.

Sad... So sad.

Until you can be consistent, you're just muttering nonsense at a world that you can't comprehend.

[Bubba1]

The conservative way to pay for this is the same method that they used for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ah, does that mean paying for it with borrowed money while at the same extending the Bush tax cuts to the richest 2%, and then blaming liberals for the resulting deficit? j/k

[srellim234]

AZ, as you know I have a son currently in England in the USAF. You may or may not like what I'm about to say.

Telco is right regarding the expendibility of our troops when it comes to the Republican Party and the class warfare they are driving. That does not apply to true conservatives, of which the current Republican leaders are not. The current Republicans in Washington are far more interested in collecting their military industrial lobbying contributions as well as making sure that more and more taxpayers' money goes to their "big-ticket item" corporate friends than in protecting any of our troops. That includes snubbing "small-ticket item" suppliers without the same degree of money like those who supply body armor After all, the lower and middle class will continue to make babies who will replace those who die out there. There is no other way to justify the lack of protective gear for the troops and the Republican's insistence on building more unwanted Humvees instead. There are many examples of the Republicans supporting big ticket corporate profits of military suppliers at the expense of our soldier's families and lives.

You are a conservative. You are not one of the current crop of Republicans. There is a very clear difference between the two. Telco just needs to direct his wrath at Republican leaders instead of conservatives in general and he'll be a lot closer to the truth.

[AZhitman]

Understood Steve... However, last I checked, the Commander in Chief was a Democrat. He said, "The buck stops with me."

He's had almost 3 years to right any perceived wrongs. Playing politics with our sons and daughters is horses***.

Maybe Howie would like to explain why more Conservatives come home in flag-draped boxes than Liberals. Not quite fair, is it.

[IBCoupe]

Where's the conservative outrage at the expense?

Where's the liberal pantywaists crying, "Warmongerer!"

Just wondering...

Dennis Kucinich, right on cue!

Mobile right now; Google your own link.

[Fenris]

lol Dennis Kucinich.. the only thing important about him is how in the hell did Fez end up with Donna Pinciati

she may have 10 years on me, but damn....

[stebo0728]

She was a Pee-Wee Herman fan, he was as close as she could get to that it seems ....

[R/T Hemi]

Maybe Howie would like to explain why more Conservatives come home in flag-draped boxes than Liberals. Not quite fair, is it.

What? Did I miss something here? Statistically, I'll bet you're wrong. That comment seems like something from Fox News, the news network that places more value on sound bites than on sound analysis, would publish.

I'm not accusing you of being an O'Reilly, but that sure sounds like something he's say.

Tell me I'm wrong here please.

[IBCoupe]

[srellim234]

Understood Steve... However, last I checked, the Commander in Chief was a Democrat. He said, "The buck stops with me."

Just shows how naive the President really is. The buck stops with Congress. This President lacks the backbone to call them out by name.

BTW, you could just as easily substitute "liberal" and "Democratic leaders" for "conservative" and "Republican leaders" in my above paragraphs. Both parties are to blame.

[stebo0728]

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.

So .... who said that?

Thats right, Mr. Obama himself. This is the argument Kucinich is making, and as much of a twerp bag I think he is normally, he has good point. This argument was made by Obama regarding Bush doctrine in 2007. Now ... perhaps it was a good argument to make about Bush doctrine, but then isn't even worse now to be taking actions you spoke so ill of in the past? What does it say about Mr. Obama's appreciation of the Constitution. Ive always held some belief that he disdains it, though I've never had anything to just point right at and claim it, and Im not so much saying that this is IT either, but it definitely raises my eyebrow into just how much he DOES consider the Constitution, and in what respect he holds it.

Any thoughts on that anyone?