Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Why can't he just say it's about the oil? I'll bet the folks in Darfur would just love to hear this speech about authorizing military action to save those poor civilians in Libya..

houndawg wrote:Why can't he just say it's about the oil? I'll bet the folks in Darfur would just love to hear this speech about authorizing military action to save those poor civilians in Libya..

he wasn't potus during darfur

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

houndawg wrote:Why can't he just say it's about the oil? I'll bet the folks in Darfur would just love to hear this speech about authorizing military action to save those poor civilians in Libya..

he wasn't potus during darfur

good point.

houndawg wrote:Why can't he just say it's about the oil? I'll bet the folks in Darfur would just love to hear this speech about authorizing military action to save those poor civilians in Libya..

Interesting choice of words: "I refuse to wait for images of slaughter and mass graves" before action.

Oh, you mean like those we saw from Iraq?

AZGrizFan wrote:Interesting choice of words: "I refuse to wait for images of slaughter and mass graves" before action.

Oh, you mean like those we saw from Iraq?

obviously you didn't wait for him to distinguish our actions in Libya vs. how we proceeded in Iraq...

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

houndawg wrote:Why can't he just say it's about the oil? I'll bet the folks in Darfur would just love to hear this speech about authorizing military action to save those poor civilians in Libya..

he wasn't potus during darfur

He was probably "voting present" during Darfur.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Interesting choice of words: "I refuse to wait for images of slaughter and mass graves" before action.

Oh, you mean like those we saw from Iraq?

obviously you didn't wait for him to distinguish our actions in Libya vs. how we proceeded in Iraq...

Sure, but if Reagan or Bush or Clinton had gone into Iraq before the mass graves surfaced, they'd have been crucified.

AZGrizFan wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
obviously you didn't wait for him to distinguish our actions in Libya vs. how we proceeded in Iraq...

Sure, but if Reagan or Bush or Clinton had gone into Iraq before the mass graves surfaced, they'd have been crucified.

As I recall HW Bush came under a lot of fire from the right for sticking to the mission and not going onto Baghdad.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

houndawg wrote:Why can't he just say it's about the oil? I'll bet the folks in Darfur would just love to hear this speech about authorizing military action to save those poor civilians in Libya..

he wasn't potus during darfur

The cease fire was in February of 2010...and it has been violated, including reported airstrikes, ever since. It will flair up again soon...you can bet on that. And you can bet Obama will sit on his hands...as he is doing in Bahrain.

This sums it up:

"Addressing concerns that the intervention could open the door to further U.S. action in the Muslim world — where U.S. forces are already on the job in Afghanistan and Iraq — Obama's deputy national security adviser, Denis McDonough, told reporters Monday that the intervention in Libya shouldn't been seen as a precedent.

"Each of them, frankly, is nationally motivated. It's not an international thing," McDonough said. "So we don't get very hung up on this question of precedent, because we don't make decisions about questions like intervention based on consistency or precedent.

"We base them on how we can best advance our interests in the region," he said."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42305344/ns ... hite_house" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Very Bush-like...and crickets from the left.

No doubt about his oratorical ability, gotta give him that.

Cluck U wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
he wasn't potus during darfur

The cease fire was in February of 2010...and it has been violated, including reported airstrikes, ever since. It will flair up again soon...you can bet on that. And you can bet Obama will sit on his hands...as he is doing in Bahrain.

This sums it up:

"Addressing concerns that the intervention could open the door to further U.S. action in the Muslim world — where U.S. forces are already on the job in Afghanistan and Iraq — Obama's deputy national security adviser, Denis McDonough, told reporters Monday that the intervention in Libya shouldn't been seen as a precedent.

"Each of them, frankly, is nationally motivated. It's not an international thing," McDonough said. "So we don't get very hung up on this question of precedent, because we don't make decisions about questions like intervention based on consistency or precedent.

"We base them on how we can best advance our interests in the region," he said."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42305344/ns ... hite_house" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Very Bush-like...and crickets from the left.

I don't disagree with advancing our interests, I disagree that military action does so beyond the short run, if at all
.

Why is it that we can always find resources for more war while our so-called leaders gasp in horror about the terrible consequences of any domestic spending that isn't a tax cut for the ultra-rich?

houndawg wrote:No doubt about his oratorical ability, gotta give him that.

He reads a mean speech.

AZGrizFan wrote:

houndawg wrote:No doubt about his oratorical ability, gotta give him that.

He reads a mean speech.

Does anyone else wonder who is calling the shots in putting together those mean speeches?

AZGrizFan wrote:

houndawg wrote:No doubt about his oratorical ability, gotta give him that.

He reads a mean speech.

A big improvement!

LeadBolt wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
He reads a mean speech.

Does anyone else wonder who is calling the shots in putting together those mean speeches?

Nope. It's Soros/Ayers/Pelosi/Reid.

Cluck U wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
he wasn't potus during darfur

The cease fire was in February of 2010...and it has been violated, including reported airstrikes, ever since. It will flair up again soon...you can bet on that. And you can bet Obama will sit on his hands...as he is doing in Bahrain.

This sums it up:

"Addressing concerns that the intervention could open the door to further U.S. action in the Muslim world — where U.S. forces are already on the job in Afghanistan and Iraq — Obama's deputy national security adviser, Denis McDonough, told reporters Monday that the intervention in Libya shouldn't been seen as a precedent.

"Each of them, frankly, is nationally motivated. It's not an international thing," McDonough said. "So we don't get very hung up on this question of precedent, because we don't make decisions about questions like intervention based on consistency or precedent.

"We base them on how we can best advance our interests in the region," he said."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42305344/ns ... hite_house" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Very Bush-like...and crickets from the left.

Yup, as I've said before, it's the third term. And if Obama was Republican, conks would have been about this and stumbling all over themselves trying to connect the dots between Ghaddafi and Al Quaeda.

Funny how conks normally appreciate a little Maciavellianism.

Obama in February: The US Must Give Libya's Military More Money



In February, in the midst of a revolution in Egypt and an uprising in Tunisia, the President actually asked the United States Congress to provide Dictator Maummar Gaddafi with an additional $1.7 million in funds for his military.


In response, Republican Congressman Ted Poe of Texas stated, "It's certainly not wise or smart to give American aid to countries like Libya where the ruling class use it against their own people." Apparently the leader of the free world disagrees.

The report continues:

According to State Department figures, the money was earmarked to train Libyan military officers, improve its air force, secure its borders and to counter terrorism.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03 ... st-unrest/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bronco wrote:Obama in February: The US Must Give Libya's Military More Money



In February, in the midst of a revolution in Egypt and an uprising in Tunisia, the President actually asked the United States Congress to provide Dictator Maummar Gaddafi with an additional $1.7 million in funds for his military.


In response, Republican Congressman Ted Poe of Texas stated, "It's certainly not wise or smart to give American aid to countries like Libya where the ruling class use it against their own people." Apparently the leader of the free world disagrees.

The report continues:

According to State Department figures, the money was earmarked to train Libyan military officers, improve its air force, secure its borders and to counter terrorism.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03 ... st-unrest/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We're giving him aid....to the tune of $1 billion per week in missles. Used missles.

The Prez just reported that he's sending the US carrier group led by the SS Michelle Obama to the Mediterranean to support the no-fly zone.

It has a bigger flight deck than the Enterprise.

FACT CHECK: How Obama's Libya claims fit the facts

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... TE=DEFAULT" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


and this seems to go farther than a no fly zoneU.S. deploys low-flying attack planes in Libya
Washington Post ^ | March 28, 2011 | Greg Jaffe and Karen DeYoung

The U.S. military dramatically stepped up its assault on Libyan government ground forces this weekend, launching its first attacks with AC-130 flying gunships and A-10 attack aircraft, which are designed to strike enemy ground troops and supply convoys, according to senior U.S. military officials.

Their use in Libya could be “a significant game changer,” said a senior military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military operations.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
________________________________________

Bronco wrote:FACT CHECK: How Obama's Libya claims fit the facts

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... TE=DEFAULT" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


and this seems to go farther than a no fly zoneU.S. deploys low-flying attack planes in Libya
Washington Post ^ | March 28, 2011 | Greg Jaffe and Karen DeYoung

The U.S. military dramatically stepped up its assault on Libyan government ground forces this weekend, launching its first attacks with AC-130 flying gunships and A-10 attack aircraft, which are designed to strike enemy ground troops and supply convoys, according to senior U.S. military officials.

Their use in Libya could be “a significant game changer,” said a senior military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military operations.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
________________________________________

I used to make anti-tank rounds for the A-10. I have nothing but pity for any poor bastard in their sights.

houndawg wrote:

Bronco wrote:FACT CHECK: How Obama's Libya claims fit the facts

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... TE=DEFAULT" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


and this seems to go farther than a no fly zoneU.S. deploys low-flying attack planes in Libya
Washington Post ^ | March 28, 2011 | Greg Jaffe and Karen DeYoung

The U.S. military dramatically stepped up its assault on Libyan government ground forces this weekend, launching its first attacks with AC-130 flying gunships and A-10 attack aircraft, which are designed to strike enemy ground troops and supply convoys, according to senior U.S. military officials.

Their use in Libya could be “a significant game changer,” said a senior military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military operations.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
________________________________________

I used to make anti-tank rounds for the A-10. I have nothing but pity for any poor bastard in their sights.

The A-10: One of (if not THE) baddest weapons in the US arsenal.

AZGrizFan wrote:

houndawg wrote:
I used to make anti-tank rounds for the A-10. I have nothing but pity for any poor bastard in their sights.

The A-10: One of (if not THE) baddest weapons in the US arsenal.

It's also got one of the worst safety records too. Flying coffins, just like our helicoptors.

The US military is a joke.

AZGrizFan wrote:

houndawg wrote:
I used to make anti-tank rounds for the A-10. I have nothing but pity for any poor bastard in their sights.

The A-10: One of (if not THE) baddest weapons in the US arsenal.

still think i'd rather have one of them make a flyover at the superbowl...