Author Topic: Do we really need to get involved in third war? (Read 1092 times)

OldSchoolRanger · « **on:** March 18, 2011, 09:04:56 AM »

From NBC news:
"The U.S. appears headed for military action in a third country (in addition to Iraq and Afghanistan) with the United Nations Security Council’s approval of a resolution authorizing the international community “to take all necessary measures … to protect civilians” in Libya. ... The Pentagon has also warned of what it calls “Mission Creep,” that a “no-fly zone” might not be enough and would require further intervention."

Imagine that! President "Oh!", who criticized "W" for getting us involved in Iraq, now is letting us be dragged into another conflict. I feel our military is being stretched too thin, and we are asking our boys & girls to sacrifice too much. If "O' feels that strongly about Libya (where we really have no dog in the fight), then he should at least increase the size of our military, or maybe now is the time when I finally agree with US Rep Charlie Rangel to re-institute the draft. The draft without educational exemptions would make the liberal elite think twice before sending our sons and daughters (not theirs) off to war. Maybe "Oh!" thinks he can blame this one on "W' also.
Lets hear your opinions on this.

Conan The Librarian · « **Reply #1 on:** March 18, 2011, 09:26:01 AM »

We absolutely do need to get into as many simultaneous wars as possible. We also need to send more and more aid to Japan.

The reason is that Obama's leadership style is like a predictable machine: No matter what happens, we must spend a lot of money. Did you notice how quickly he volunteered billions in aid to Japan?

There may be no other practical purpose for the wars, but spend we must!

BBF · « **Reply #2 on:** March 19, 2011, 09:09:56 AM »

Keep the armament industry running! Lets face it, what "fun" is there in owning big war toys if you can't use them for real.

Mohawk · « **Reply #3 on:** March 19, 2011, 10:29:17 AM »

Who was the last President to NOT authorize military action against someone during their term?

Cabin4 · « **Reply #4 on:** March 19, 2011, 07:29:53 PM »

Mark Twain.

Quote from: Mohawk on March 19, 2011, 10:29:17 AM

Who was the last President to NOT authorize military action against someone during their term?

magooch · « **Reply #5 on:** March 20, 2011, 04:07:21 AM »

The big questions really are, will we get any oil out of this one and will we find any WMD's?

Conan The Librarian · « **Reply #6 on:** March 20, 2011, 04:15:42 AM »

Any bets on when the first US ground troops land in libya? Of course they will be branded as coalition peace keepers. I'd say as early as next week.

-Shaggy- · « **Reply #7 on:** March 20, 2011, 05:54:17 AM »

I would bet the farm that there are a few there right now, quietly doing what they do.

Shu · « **Reply #8 on:** March 20, 2011, 06:01:15 AM »

Jimmy Carter was the last president not to attack anything. He let Americans be taken hostage in Iran and gave away the Panama canal.
Some will say there was an attempt to send miltary troops into Iran but that was more of a Ross Perot funded operation.

We really need to mind our own business instead of meddling in other countries. Our forces should protect US interests and not play policeman. The only time we should use military assets against any nation is if they have harmed any US citizen or a soveign nation asks for help to repel foriegn invaders. We really need to stay out of civil wars.

Pakistan captured a US citizen with diplomatic immunity and would not release him until blood money had been paid. This alone is an act of aggression. The US allows foriegn diplomats with immunity to commit murder and rape on US soil but pays off another country for not recognizing that immunity. Double standards do not earn respect.

I find the no fly zone over Lybia very hypocritical, there isnt a no fly zone over Saudi, Bahrain or Yemen. Those governments are oppressing the citizens right to protest. So by the same mentality we should be there also. Right thats going to happen, thats were the US gets oil so it will stay out of it.

Double standards, and weak leadership do not earn respect.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #9 on:** March 20, 2011, 06:06:51 AM »

The answer is simple as some will say. Isreal is a supporter of Gahdafi, the USA is a puppet of Isreal. Makes sense.

BBF · « **Reply #10 on:** March 20, 2011, 07:10:48 AM »

The Hammer has dropped !! France was the first.....my my

Of course, China India and Russia didn't approve.
Why India ??

Spirithawk · « **Reply #11 on:** March 20, 2011, 07:32:00 AM »

All the problems we all ready have, sure lets go looking for more! If we can't fix things right here at home ya really think we can fix things for other's in their countries? Gee Alice, what's it like living in Wonder Land?

Cabin4 · « **Reply #12 on:** March 20, 2011, 08:35:28 AM »

Quote from: scatterbrain on March 20, 2011, 07:10:48 AM

Why India ??

I'm sure it has something to do with Bush.

Spanky · « **Reply #13 on:** March 20, 2011, 10:35:51 AM »

Who even gives a rats a$$ about Libya or what happens there? We got enough problems of our own.
Once again we'll spend our resources on something that we have no business getting involved in.

Spanky

Spirithawk · « **Reply #14 on:** March 20, 2011, 02:20:29 PM »

Wellll, we're involved now! Wouldn't it be something if our government could not go to war, or commint an act of agression, except in retaliation to a direct attack on us, without first the issue being voted on by we the people? I mean what the heck ever happened to "A government for the people by the people " ?Shouldn't we have a say in such matters?

Dee · « **Reply #15 on:** March 20, 2011, 02:34:08 PM »

Why should YOU have a say in it Spirithawk? The Congress didn't. Bush got two wars goin (one resurrected), and now Obama's got us in another. Funny how the guys that make the decisions to go to war, never do any of the fightin. Hmmmmmmm.
When we used to get called out in the middle of the night on a SWAT call, the Lt.s, and Captains, and Chief would give advice, but never volunteer to be first man thru the door. I had a Sheriff once that called for tactical K-9 tell me to be careful and not shoot anyone. I was called out on loan from another dept. because the State and his dept. wouldn't go in after these two guys, so asked I him: Do you want to go in? Answer: No. So I asked: Why did you call me here? His reply was: To get those two armed suspects out of that corn field. I replied: If either point a gun at me, my backup officer, or the dog, down the SOB goes. If your scared get behind a car, or go do it yourself.
He and the deputies, and the State boys got down, and my officer, and dog went in. Guess what? They flushed out the other side. Seems they didn't like dogs, or automatic shotguns toted by guys that would actually shoot back. When I go back to that area to visit family, I still have farmers walk up and shake hands, and say: Remember when?
A politician is a politician, is a politician. He's usually a gutless wonder, with a lot of flaky ideas, and a law degree.JMTCW

FourBee · « **Reply #16 on:** March 20, 2011, 05:44:43 PM »

Do we really need to get involved in a third war ?

My gut feeling, is ~ its a bad sign of things already in the brew.

magooch · « **Reply #17 on:** March 21, 2011, 04:15:47 AM »

My theory is that sooner, or later bad actors such as what Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Libia, Syria, Somalia, North Korea and others feature, will mess around until we have two choices--eat a crap sandwich, or take em out. Most often, we will chew on the crap sandwich for awhile and finally get tired of it.

In the case of Ghadafi, he is unfinished business from years ago. We probably should have left it unfinished and just kept an eye on the sob. However, it's on, so now it's a matter of how it is finished. My normal reaction to this dilemma is to nuke em. After considerable anguish (about 5 minutes worth), my thought is that we should NUKE THE SUMBITCHES. Why should the japs be the only ones to have all the fun.

LONGTOM · « **Reply #18 on:** March 21, 2011, 04:25:37 AM »

Quote

Jimmy Carter was the last president not to attack anything.

Well, not quit true.
There was that incident with the rabbit in the river!

All said that Bush was after Hussein and was looking for a reason to go in.
Looks like THE LIAR IN THE WHITE HOUSE is doing the same thing for the same reason.
He has talked about going in every since he took office.
If he puts troops on the ground in force in Labia he will be a one term puppet for sure.
I don't think the people will stomach another reasonless war.
For once, why couldn't we have let some of the others do the fighting!
Why do we always have to bare the blunt of the charge.
I guess we just love to be fighting someone.
GOD forbid that we be a peaceful nation for a while and get our own house in order before we jump into another conflict and waste more of our money that we don't have.
That's OK I guess, president PRINT MORE will just, well, PRINT MORE and drive us farther down that road to a broken nation!

LONGTOM

bikerbeans · « **Reply #19 on:** March 21, 2011, 04:31:32 AM »

Quote from: Shu on March 20, 2011, 06:01:15 AM

Jimmy Carter was the last president not to attack anything. He let Americans be taken hostage in Iran and gave away the Panama canal.
Some will say there was an attempt to send miltary troops into Iran but that was more of a Ross Perot funded operation.

Carter did send US troops to Iran in an effort to liberate the hostages. The mission failed, for a number of different reasons, and left, I believe, 8 dead US servicemen in the Iranian desert.

BB

nw_hunter · « **Reply #20 on:** March 21, 2011, 04:43:00 AM »

Who is WE? We the people damn sure don't need any of these meddling wars!
We the government evidently does. We the people don't have any say in it..

Actually we are not ruled by a Government anymore, but by a class.

LONGTOM · « **Reply #21 on:** March 21, 2011, 08:02:10 AM »

Maybe Gaddafi was there when THE LIAR IN THE WHITE HOUSE was born and knows the truth about him so THE LIAR want to wack him before he talks!!!

LONGTOM

DANNY-L · « **Reply #22 on:** March 21, 2011, 08:10:03 AM »

With our military being spread out,make ya wonder if we're on someone's hit list. More than likely we are,just a matter of when.

Spirithawk · « **Reply #23 on:** March 21, 2011, 08:31:50 AM »

Quote from: DANNY-L on March 21, 2011, 08:10:03 AM

With our military being spread out,make ya wonder if we're on someone's hit list. More than likely we are,just a matter of when.

Yep, just stop and think about it. As spread out as our military is just what would happen if we got hit hard here at home? We wouldn't have the military strength to fight back! Heck, our strongest, and possibly only, defense would be rednecks with guns!

LONGTOM · « **Reply #24 on:** March 21, 2011, 08:44:43 AM »

Quote

Heck, our strongest, and possibly only, defense would be rednecks with guns!

Did someone call my name?

That may well be our last & only line of home defence!!!

LONGTOM

Savage .250 · « **Reply #25 on:** March 21, 2011, 09:16:27 AM »

Now that we are involved, the bigger picture is are we on the hook to re-build Libya ?
If it wasn`t for the oil, they would have been treated the same as Ruwanda !

Lost Farmboy · « **Reply #26 on:** March 21, 2011, 01:07:04 PM »

Do we really need to get involved in third war?

No!!!

LONGTOM · « **Reply #27 on:** March 21, 2011, 03:06:50 PM »

Libia's oil accounts for less than 2% of the market so oil ain't the reason.

LONGTOM

Lost Farmboy · « **Reply #28 on:** March 22, 2011, 02:18:05 AM »

Quote from: LONGTOM on March 21, 2011, 03:06:50 PM

Libia's oil accounts for less than 2% of the market so oil ain't the reason.

LONGTOM

But, that oil goes to France and they are leading the charge. What does that tell you?

bilmac · « **Reply #29 on:** March 22, 2011, 02:46:52 AM »

The new tea partiers in Washington were getting too serious about this budget cutting business. One thing that that Republicans will have a hard time saying no to is money for the troopers.

I have a friend who believes that if he is deep enough in debt that the bank will leave him alone because they can't afford to shut him down.