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

[youtube][/youtube]

It's Mrs Jelly!

"I don't care... Obama is awesome!"

Winning....

"Bush is a babykiller!"

nativist already posted it last week or so.

Skjellyfetti wrote:nativist already posted it last week or so.

Didn't see it. Ah, there it is. Crickets on that thread too.

89Hen wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:nativist already posted it last week or so.

Didn't see it. Ah, there it is. Crickets on that thread too.

Beat me to it...

Their stupidity is staring them right in the face.

Can't watch it at the moment but is it comparing Iraq to Libya?

Skjellyfetti wrote:Can't watch it at the moment but is it comparing Iraq to Libya?

You should know. You play the woman in the clip.

Is it the effort to make it truly multi-national and fully endorsed by the UN; or is it the lack of 150,000 troops being used; or perhaps its the lack of nation-building that makes it so similar to Iraq; or is it how we are displacing Libya's middle class by the millions like we did in Iraq that makes it so similar; or is it the lack of a bold-faced lie to get us into this conflict that makes Iraq such a compelling comparison?

Skjellyfetti wrote:Is it the effort to make it truly multi-national and fully endorsed by the UN; or is it the lack of 150,000 troops being used; or perhaps its the lack of nation-building that makes it so similar to Iraq; or is it how we are displacing Libia's middle class by the millions like we did in Iraq that makes it so similar; or is it the lack of a bold-faced lie to get us into this conflict that makes Iraq such a compelling comparison?

Yup. You're the woman in the clip.

Our mission in Libya is nearly identical to our mission in Iraq from 1992-2003.

The comparison with Iraq from 2003-present makes no sense.

Do you disagree? Please explain how our mission in Libya is more similar to Iraq 2003-present than 1992-2003.

Skjellyfetti wrote:The comparison with Iraq from 2003-present makes no sense.

attacking a sovereign nation to dispel it's leader in an effort to save it's citizens from a regime that hasn't attacked a neighboring country.....yep, can't understand how anyone would confuse that with Iraq, circa 2003........

Skjellyfetti wrote:Our mission in Libya is nearly identical to our mission in Iraq from 1992-2003.

The comparison with Iraq from 2003-present makes no sense.

Do you disagree? Please explain how our mission in Libya is more similar to Iraq 2003-present than 1992-2003.

I don't care. Bush was evil. He lied. Halliburton.

89Hen wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Our mission in Libya is nearly identical to our mission in Iraq from 1992-2003.

The comparison with Iraq from 2003-present makes no sense.

Do you disagree? Please explain how our mission in Libya is more similar to Iraq 2003-present than 1992-2003.

I don't care. Bush was evil. He lied. Halliburton.

Appaholic wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:The comparison with Iraq from 2003-present makes no sense.

attacking a sovereign nation to dispel it's leader in an effort to save it's citizens from a regime that hasn't attacked a neighboring country.....yep, can't understand how anyone would confuse that with Iraq, circa 2003........

It's MUCH different, Appa - there's no Congressional buy-in on this exercise.

ASUG8 wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
attacking a sovereign nation to dispel it's leader in an effort to save it's citizens from a regime that hasn't attacked a neighboring country.....yep, can't understand how anyone would confuse that with Iraq, circa 2003........

It's MUCH different, Appa - there's no Congressional buy-in on this exercise.

Ouch.

ASUG8 wrote:
It's MUCH different, Appa - there's no Congressional buy-in on this exercise.

Because it's required by the War Power Act if you want to send in 150,000+ troops and occupy a country for an extended period of time.

A mission with a minimal footprint, minimal troop committment, minimal timespan doesn't require Congressional authorization.

I wonder why US law makes a distinction between the two? Hmmm. Probably because they're completely different.


If Obama signs off on committing a large number of troops, and we end up losing thousands of soldiers in Libya... I'll be the first to show up at the protests.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
It's MUCH different, Appa - there's no Congressional buy-in on this exercise.

Because it's required by the War Power Act if you want to send in 150,000+ troops and occupy a country for an extended period of time.

A mission with a minimal footprint, minimal troop committment, minimal timespan doesn't require Congressional authorization.

I wonder why US law makes a distinction between the two? Hmmm. Probably because they're completely different.


If Obama signs off on committing a large number of troops, and we end up losing thousands of soldiers in Libya... I'll be the first to show up at the protests.

Define "minimal". I'd say lobbing a couple of hundred tomahawks to dethrone a dictator while employing significant naval and air force prescece off the Libyan coast hardly constitutes "minimal". Turning "control" over to NATO is effectively taking control from one US commander and giving it to another. Plus, since there's no defined endgame by our president, how could we possibly know what the timespan is?

ASUG8 wrote:
Define "minimal". I'd say lobbing a couple of hundred tomahawks to dethrone a dictator while employing significant naval and air force prescece off the Libyan coast hardly constitutes "minimal". Turning "control" over to NATO is effectively taking control from one US commander and giving it to another. Plus, since there's no defined endgame by our president, how could we possibly know what the timespan is?

The War Powers Act defines it for you. Look it up if you're curious.

Were you outspoken in opposition to our presence in Iraq from 1992-2003 doing the same thing?

Skjellyfetti wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
It's MUCH different, Appa - there's no Congressional buy-in on this exercise.

Because it's required by the War Power Act if you want to send in 150,000+ troops and occupy a country for an extended period of time.

A mission with a minimal footprint, minimal troop committment, minimal timespan doesn't require Congressional authorization.

I wonder why US law makes a distinction between the two? Hmmm. Probably because they're completely different.


If Obama signs off on committing a large number of troops, and we end up losing thousands of soldiers in Libya... I'll be the first to show up at the protests.

Well, the parents of Libyan children killed as collateral damage from our Tomahawks in an effort to dethrone the legitmate ruler of their country will be relieved to know we are only minimally involved....

Skjellyfetti wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
Define "minimal". I'd say lobbing a couple of hundred tomahawks to dethrone a dictator while employing significant naval and air force prescece off the Libyan coast hardly constitutes "minimal". Turning "control" over to NATO is effectively taking control from one US commander and giving it to another. Plus, since there's no defined endgame by our president, how could we possibly know what the timespan is?

The War Powers Act defines it for you. Look it up if you're curious.

Were you outspoken in opposition to our presence in Iraq from 1992-2003 doing the same thing?

Won't try to answer for G8 but....were you this supportive of Bush's regime change in Iraq even with it's bipartisan congressional support as well as it's popular support with American citizens?

It's a tough spot jelly. Just say it's F'ing BS and be done with it.