MeinRS6: It's actually worse than you think. We're in Libya so that the Europeans can buy Libyan oil.

I hope we got something good in the trade with the Euros.

Yuppers. Why do you think the French were so gung ho about the whole endeavor?

What's really going to suck for Republicans is when Libya pays us back the money we spent on the war like they promised. So not only did we topple a dictator, spread democracy, save a people from genocide, improve our standing in the region, reinforce the stance the NATO can still kick ass and take names, open the 17th largest oil producer to Western investment, doing it with zero US loses. It won't have cost the US a dime.

cretinbob: The right wing butthurt is AWESOME

Well. Obama is the best Republican in a long time.


They Jelly.

MeinRS6: It's actually worse than you think. We're in Libya so that the Europeans can buy Libyan oil.

I hope we got something good in the trade with the Euros.

A muslim nation who thinks of us as friends? A reasonable middle eastern government for the moment? A terrorist supporting dictator dead? A possible supporter in diplomatic relations in the middle east? Pick one all of em are solid wins.

we're going to be out of libya in a couple of hours. the billion dollar price tag? priceless

MeinRS6: coco ebert: What is the difference between an ally and a friend when it comes to foreign policy? It's the same thing.

I would say that there are a lot of gradations there. The Saudis only use us to keep them in power over their little kingdom. And we buy some oil from them and keep the global market for oil somewhat stable by minimizing large supply interruptions. At least that's the idea.

I've got a low opinion of the Saudi royalty and wahhabism for a long list of reasons. You must admit that it is a difficult society to defend and completely unworthy of trust. If they had any neighbors that were worth a damn, I'd be for letting them kick the shiat out of the Saudis. Unfortunately, everyone in the surrounding area is also farking retarded with muslim bullshiat. That mohammed fella really farked up a lot of the planet and his followers are now holding back the advancement of much of humankind. I'm pretty sick of all all of the garbage that passes as their "culture". They should keep the hospitality and drop just about everything else.

I really dont want to see them drop the bathrobes. that would be some messed up shiat.

Sanic123: MeinRS6: It's actually worse than you think. We're in Libya so that the Europeans can buy Libyan oil.

I hope we got something good in the trade with the Euros.

A muslim nation who thinks of us as friends? A reasonable middle eastern government for the moment? A terrorist supporting dictator dead? A possible supporter in diplomatic relations in the middle east? Pick one all of em are solid wins.

And to add something I just learned about. We got a rational government from them at the moment from the Livyan Interim Constitutional Declaration.

the state grants the right of freedom of religion for non-Muslim minorities
principle of non-discrimination and equal rights of all citizens regardless of religion, ethnicity or social status, and the guarantee of the state upholding women's rights, granting full participation of women in politics, economy and the social sphere.

I'd say that the current interim government is already one of the most free middle eastern nations. Quite glad they had it in them to fight for it and glad NATO gave them the help they needed to succeed.

His comments. Obama's actions. Clear difference.

Wesley Clark (US 4 Star General): US will attack 7 countries in 5 years.

Obama is only one in the same as the previous and is simply being passed the baton -- all whilst you people are suffering from Acute Derp Syndrome, fail to see the bigger scheme of things and still stuck in the left-vs-right time warp.

that1guy77

His comments. Obama's actions. Clear difference.

Wesley Clark (US 4 Star General): US will attack 7 countries in 5 years.

Obama is only one in the same as the previous and is simply being passed the baton -- all whilst you people are suffering from Acute Derp Syndrome, fail to see the bigger scheme of things and still stuck in the left-vs-right time warp.

who attacked what? obama attacked libya?

21-7-b: that1guy77

His comments. Obama's actions. Clear difference.

Wesley Clark (US 4 Star General): US will attack 7 countries in 5 years.

Obama is only one in the same as the previous and is simply being passed the baton -- all whilst you people are suffering from Acute Derp Syndrome, fail to see the bigger scheme of things and still stuck in the left-vs-right time warp.

who attacked what? obama attacked libya?

Through a NATO proxy, yes. Don't you read the news?

that1guy77

Through a NATO proxy, yes. Don't you read the news?

an 'attack'?

21-7-b: that1guy77

Through a NATO proxy, yes. Don't you read the news?

an 'attack'?

Again: Don't you read the news?

21-7-b: that1guy77

His comments. Obama's actions. Clear difference.

Wesley Clark (US 4 Star General): US will attack 7 countries in 5 years.

Obama is only one in the same as the previous and is simply being passed the baton -- all whilst you people are suffering from Acute Derp Syndrome, fail to see the bigger scheme of things and still stuck in the left-vs-right time warp.

who attacked what? obama attacked libya?

21-7-b: that1guy77

His comments. Obama's actions. Clear difference.

Wesley Clark (US 4 Star General): US will attack 7 countries in 5 years.

Obama is only one in the same as the previous and is simply being passed the baton -- all whilst you people are suffering from Acute Derp Syndrome, fail to see the bigger scheme of things and still stuck in the left-vs-right time warp.

who attacked what? obama attacked libya?

I don't quite consider Libya a war. Military support of the rebel forces and NATO operation? Yes but it is not really a war. We never put infantry on the ground and lost zero air units. We were air and logistical support. If anyone was at war aside from the libyan rebels it was france.

that1guy77: Again: Don't you read the news?

Are you trying to equate limited air and intelligence support with the complete mismanagement of major invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Because that's what it sounds like.

that1guy77

there was a variety of support, made in order to support the people to prevent them being ravaged - destroyed, one might even say. how is that an 'attack' to anything or anyone who understands freedom? your man chose his own fate.

Sanic123:

I don't quite consider Libya a war. Military support of the rebel forces and NATO operation? Yes but it is not really a war. We never put infantry on the ground and lost zero air units. We were air and logistical support. If anyone was at war aside from the libyan rebels it was france.

So even if we're bombing them and never physically put a foot on the ground, it's not a war? Not trolling like the other moron, just asking. This war on Libya has been redefined by this current administration so many times nobody knows what the hell it is and can't call it for what it is.

21-7-b: that1guy77

there was a variety of support, made in order to support the people to prevent them being ravaged - destroyed, one might even say. how is that an 'attack' to anything or anyone who understands freedom? your man chose his own fate.

Interesting. Who's my man?

i mean sure, that motherfarker got pinned back. tough shiat

crab66: that1guy77: Again: Don't you read the news?

Are you trying to equate limited air and intelligence support with the complete mismanagement of major invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Because that's what it sounds like.

Support is support and an act of war is an act of war. There is no way of getting around that. What it really sounds like is that you're using loaded questions and jumping to conclusions based upon words you're putting in someone's mouth.

and eeeeeeeeveryone was so worried about nuke war in the 1980s.

WTF Indeed: What's really going to suck for Republicans is when Libya pays us back the money we spent on the war like they promised. So not only did we topple a dictator, spread democracy, save a people from genocide, improve our standing in the region, reinforce the stance the NATO can still kick ass and take names, open the 17th largest oil producer to Western investment, doing it with zero US loses. It won't have cost the US a dime.

While I strongly suspect that history will view the removal of Gaddafi favorably, there's a whole lot of hopeful speculation being presented as accomplished fact, here...

...when Libya pays us back the money we spent on the war like they promised.

Maybe. We have no idea who will be in charge in Libya six months from now, let alone over the course of time it will take to pay this bill. And, while it's not Iraq, they have plenty of rebuilding to do, plus a hefty chunk of overdue social spending. I suspect we'll be forgiving a significant portion of this "debt".

spread democracy,

Maybe... hopefully... not at all certain. A far better chance exists than ever has before, but that's about all we can say for now.

improve our standing in the region

The "region" is replete with autocrats. I doubt the all enjoyed watching Gaddafi get toppled, dragged into the street, and executed (not that I personally have any problem whatsoever with that result).

open the 17th largest oil producer to Western investment

Again, dependent up on who ends up in charge as well as what kind of overtures Russia and China make.



I'm pleased he's gone, but he wasn't a pinata that automatically poured out goodies the moment he died.

that1guy77: Sanic123:

I don't quite consider Libya a war. Military support of the rebel forces and NATO operation? Yes but it is not really a war. We never put infantry on the ground and lost zero air units. We were air and logistical support. If anyone was at war aside from the libyan rebels it was france.

So even if we're bombing them and never physically put a foot on the ground, it's not a war? Not trolling like the other moron, just asking. This war on Libya has been redefined by this current administration so many times nobody knows what the hell it is and can't call it for what it is.

It's war. The problem isn't our definition of war, it's our justifications for it (want a justification for war? Go outside and tell me what color the sky is)

This country is so far beyond (collectively) even giving a shiat about just war except when it serves the purpose of throwing political mud at the other side of the aisle we can't even define what defending our nation means we've redefined it so many times.

One of our 'advisers' could die in Africa tomorrow to a grenade thrown by a 11y/o brainwashed starving coked up kid in some isolated incident in the asshole of the Earth and everyone would say "he died defending our freedom and liberty"

We need no other justifications than for some asshole in a suit to get on TV and say "evil doers"

We are an aggressive empire that will justify anything we goddamn well please. We've been this way for the last 11 Presidential administrations.

Your arguing semantics. So are they, that's the problem. And your all doing it to support political arguments that mean jack all in the scheme of things.

We kill people wherever and whenever we goddamn well please and the only reason the left isn't up Obama's ass about this is because it's the only aggressive action we've taken as a nation lately that hasn't come with a cost of blood in US Troops.

that1guy77: Sanic123:

I don't quite consider Libya a war. Military support of the rebel forces and NATO operation? Yes but it is not really a war. We never put infantry on the ground and lost zero air units. We were air and logistical support. If anyone was at war aside from the libyan rebels it was france.

So even if we're bombing them and never physically put a foot on the ground, it's not a war? Not trolling like the other moron, just asking. This war on Libya has been redefined by this current administration so many times nobody knows what the hell it is and can't call it for what it is.

We were not acting as the US military force but as a NATO coalition authorized by a UN Security council resolution not the us congress. So in effect is not a US war but a UN intervention.

Thank you for your insight, Sen. If-Dave-Foley-Were-a-Grandma.

that1guy77: Support is support and an act of war is an act of war.

So my assumption was spot on then. Regardless of you being upset and crying that I interpreted your intentional vagueness correctly.

False equivalence is false. Get over it.

MurphyMurphy: that1guy77: Sanic123:

I don't quite consider Libya a war. Military support of the rebel forces and NATO operation? Yes but it is not really a war. We never put infantry on the ground and lost zero air units. We were air and logistical support. If anyone was at war aside from the libyan rebels it was france.

So even if we're bombing them and never physically put a foot on the ground, it's not a war? Not trolling like the other moron, just asking. This war on Libya has been redefined by this current administration so many times nobody knows what the hell it is and can't call it for what it is.

It's war. The problem isn't our definition of war, it's our justifications for it (want a justification for war? Go outside and tell me what color the sky is)

This country is so far beyond (collectively) even giving a shiat about just war except when it serves the purpose of throwing political mud at the other side of the aisle we can't even define what defending our nation means we've redefined it so many times.

One of our 'advisers' could die in Africa tomorrow to a grenade thrown by a 11y/o brainwashed starving coked up kid in some isolated incident in the asshole of the Earth and everyone would say "he died defending our freedom and liberty"

We need no other justifications than for some asshole in a suit to get on TV and say "evil doers"

We are an aggressive empire that will justify anything we goddamn well please. We've been this way for the last 11 Presidential administrations.

Your arguing semantics. So are they, that's the problem. And your all doing it to support political arguments that mean jack all in the scheme of things.

We kill people wherever and whenever we goddamn well please and the only reason the left isn't up Obama's ass about this is because it's the only aggressive action we've taken as a nation lately that hasn't come with a cost of blood in US Troops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resoluti o n_1973 (note not one of the 15 nations who vote opposed this)

The UN in passing that resolution stopped a genocide, removed a dictator that supported terrorist attacks that killed people, and removed an oppressive government. This was not a war over resources, land, faith, or protecting our nation this was stopping all of the things I listed. Would you rather sitting by and watching things like that play out in our world? Maybe you would. I don't. This

crab66: that1guy77: Support is support and an act of war is an act of war.

So my assumption was spot on then. Regardless of you being upset and crying that I interpreted your intentional vagueness correctly.

False equivalence is false. Get over it.

If you're going to troll, bring your A-Game.. Otherwise use logic and reason, or shut your dirty whore mouth. Ignored. =)

Sanic123:
This was not a war over resources

You were doing great until this.

It was legal, our constitution binds us to international agreements and we were there under a UN capacity. That's why retarded people that thought they finally had Obama "why didn't fartbama go to congress!" were retarded.

It doesn't change the fact that the disruptions in the Oil supply to Europe were the primary concern for us going there.

If the UN gave a shiat about all those other things you talked about as much as you thought they did, we'd be doing this a lot more in a lot of other places.

"It took longer than it should have." Lindsey Graham

Seriously? So (Democrat initiated) Libyan war lasts a few months, which is just too long, but (Republican initiated) Iraq war lasts nearly a decade and maybe that's not long enough. Got it.

Sanic123: that1guy77: Sanic123:

I don't quite consider Libya a war. Military support of the rebel forces and NATO operation? Yes but it is not really a war. We never put infantry on the ground and lost zero air units. We were air and logistical support. If anyone was at war aside from the libyan rebels it was france.

So even if we're bombing them and never physically put a foot on the ground, it's not a war? Not trolling like the other moron, just asking. This war on Libya has been redefined by this current administration so many times nobody knows what the hell it is and can't call it for what it is.

We were not acting as the US military force but as a NATO coalition authorized by a UN Security council resolution not the us congress. So in effect is not a US war but a UN intervention.

Yup, I see the logic and your point is taken. However, with enough drummed up support in the UN Security council and (pick your country) can start a war without having to claim direct involvement by rule of semantics. Either way, it's still a war started by (pick your country).