Whats goes on everyday, Stardock Forums, life, and all
Published on March 15, 2011 By GeneralEtrius In Everything Else

This has been all over the news. It had so much hope that Libya's government would be overthrown and that psychotic clown of a dictator Qaddafi would finally be thrown out. Now it seems like the rebels are going to fail. They've been pleading for Western Intervention but Obama is basically fiddling while Libya burns. If Benghazi, the rebel capital falls, Qaddafi will be free to butcher every single person who opposes him. Why do we always wait until its too late?


Comments (Page 1)
on Mar 16, 2011

Obama is not a leader, he is a Chicago community organizer.  He is way in over his head.

on Mar 16, 2011

Why do we always wait until its too late?

We do not.  However, the last time we did not wait, the left demonized the action (Iraq).  Obama is no Bush in that respect.  He is a coward in dealing with international issues as has been demonstrated multiple times.

I doubt we will "act" again any time soon as the left loves to demonize war - no matter the reason for it.  If they had been in charge in 1941, we would be speaking german now.

on Mar 16, 2011

I agree with you completely, Island Dog, that is exactly what he is, never should have been elected in the first place.

on Mar 16, 2011
The U.S. Intervenes and we're criticized for manipulating foreign governments. Other foreign governments don't intervene and we're criticized for not getting the ball rolling. We act unilaterally and we're called arrogant and destabilizing. The world wants to have us act when there is a price to pay and also demands an on off switch so they have control on when and where we do. Now you know why Europe has had so many wars on it's continent over the centuries. Every nation wants an advantage but doesn't want any other nation to have one. We are fools to try to accommodate them. We should help when it's the right thing to do and ignore the peanut gallery when we do so. Unfortunately it takes conviction and principle an leadership to this and most American "leaders" now lack those qualities.
on Mar 16, 2011

The U.N. is fiddling, you lying assholes.

on Mar 16, 2011
The U.N. always fiddles and who's lying?
on Mar 16, 2011

This has been all over the news. It had so much hope that Libya's government would be overthrown and that psychotic clown of a dictator Qaddafi would finally be thrown out. Now it seems like the rebels are going to fail. They've been pleading for Western Intervention but Obama is basically fiddling while Libya burns. If Benghazi, the rebel capital falls, Qaddafi will be free to butcher every single person who opposes him. Why do we always wait until its too late?

Funny, I could have sworn I heard Libyan people saying they did not want our help, Link. I guess we are only needed when they finally realize they can't do it without us. As much as I would love the idea of getting rid of that piece of garbage Qaddafi, sometimes I can't help but want to hold back on helping people who complain about us first them want our assistance afterwards.

The U.N. is fiddling, you lying assholes.

Ah, typical liberal name-calling mentality. You must be a teacher or probably wanted to be one.

on Mar 16, 2011

Dr Guy
... I doubt we will "act" again any time soon as the left loves to demonize war - no matter the reason for it.  If they had been in charge in 1941, we would be speaking german now.

That's spectacular ignorance worthy of Glen Beck. Both our declared wars in the 20th century were the product of Democratic majorities in Congress and administered by Democratic presidents. In 1941, they were freakin' New Deal Democrats. Gah! Even our last big debacle of a misguided war was almost entirely the responsibility of Democratic leaders, although LBJ & friends managed to avoid busting the treasury, unlike Bush 43 & friends.

You're woefully ignorant if you assume that what passes for 'the left' in the U.S. is dominated by pacifists. First, we have no real left, just molly-coddlers who have yet to recover from the Regan era. Second, Jimmy Carter is the closest thing we've had to an 'anti-war' president (Obama's rhetoric is anti-war, but his policy is obviously closer to some neo-real-politik mutant thing). Clinton threw our military weight around just as freely as Reagan or Bush 41, he just tried for different spin because he wanted to keep the real anti-war folks deluded enough to keep supporting him.

on Mar 16, 2011
Most Democrats vehemently opposed the draft, assistance of any kind to Europe and any sort of involvement just prior to WWII. Pearl Harbor forced a different response and the lone dissenting vote was a Democrat (who was also a member of the Pacifist movement at that time). The left are primarily zealous idealists but the problem is not their zeal but their absolute contempt an disdain of those who don't share their ideals--even if it's a majority of people in the country. Like Stalin's and Mao's communism, "We know what's best for you even if you won't agree and we have to force you.".
on Mar 16, 2011

Some worthy considerations on this subject here.

on Mar 16, 2011

What was Bush supposed to do, not go after the terrorists that want to kill us, not defend this country from a very real threat, and not retaliate when 9/11 was an act of war?

on Mar 16, 2011

Most Democrats vehemently opposed the draft, assistance of any kind to Europe and any sort of involvement just prior to WWII.

Most citizens vehemently opposed getting involved in "foreign wars" before Pearl Harbor, and before Pearl Harbor the GOP included many leading isolationists. For better or worse, it was Democratic leadership that broke the tradition of isolationism that held more or less from the founding to WW I.

The 'contempt for disagreement' thing is certainly no Democratic monopoly. Your Stalin/Mao line applies equally well to the attitude the Bush 43 administration took towards those of us who disagreed with the decision to invade Iraq. Because they refused to go the legal route and ask for a formal declaration of war, they used a lily-livered Congress to force that war on our uniformed services and taxpayers.

on Mar 16, 2011

Infidel
The U.N. is fiddling, you lying assholes.

"We" does not equal the U.N.  What are they doing anyways, getting one of those strongly worded letters ready?

on Mar 16, 2011

Wow, look at all the neocons!

The UN is fiddling because the UN can do nothing but fiddle. The UN was specifically designed to be ineffectual by the large powers of the WWII era, and was based on the idea that a US-EU-USSR-PRC alliance would remain in effect in perpetuity (which obviously didn't happen). I also find it ironic that the conservatives who so often scream about the UN doing nothing are also the ones who seem to be the most afraid of ever giving it any real power. You can't have it both ways.

I in theory support a no-fly zone over Libya, but pretty much every time the US sends the big men with big guns and little accountability in to do "something", it gets botched and they end up doing more harm than good. Qaddafi is a brute and the rebels need all the help they can get, but I simply don't trust the Air Force to properly "liberate" anything more complicated than a photo op.

on Mar 16, 2011

That's spectacular ignorance worthy of Glen Beck. Both our declared wars in the 20th century were the product of Democratic majorities in Congress and administered by Democratic presidents.

Better re-read my post.  I said LEFT - not democrats.  So the ignorance is yours.

In 1941, they were freakin' New Deal Democrats.

Again, so?  You are arguing a strawman.  But I will give you one bone.  The left then liked the war because their idol was attacked - Stalin.

although LBJ & friends managed to avoid busting the treasury, unlike Bush 43 & friends.

Hmmm....Seems we had only a 200b deficit in 07 (before the democrats got control of the purse strings), and now we cannot even pay for the "mandated" spending.  In terms of % GDP, LBJ and Bush 43 are on equal terms.  Ignorance on your part again?

You're woefully ignorant if you assume that what passes for 'the left' in the U.S. is dominated by pacifists.

I guess I am not woefully ignorant.  I never used the term pacifists.  Cowards was the word I think I used (and that was in describing Obama, not necessarily the left).  Cowards are a better term as they want to fight - when there is no risk.  Like beating up helpless old ladies and such.

First, we have no real left, just molly-coddlers who have yet to recover from the Regan era.

They seemed to have recovered very well with all the death threats against those they do not like (Walker, Palin, Bush, Cheney, etc.)

Second, Jimmy Carter is the closest thing we've had to an 'anti-war' president (Obama's rhetoric is anti-war, but his policy is obviously closer to some neo-real-politik mutant thing).

You confuse rhetoric with actions.  Obama and Carter are the same.  The difference is that no one attacked the US before Carter became president, so he did not have to maintain anything.  Obama did (Carter of course refused to defend America, but see comment about Obama above).

Clinton threw our military weight around just as freely as Reagan or Bush 41,

Nice spin, but no dice.  He threw bombs around - at empty training camps, Chinese Embassies and aspirin factories.  But yes, Clinton is no Obama or Carter.

Perhaps if you want to debate a comment, you should debate the comment, not the strawman you choose to create from the comment.  You are universally wrong and if you believe what you wrote, ignorant as well.

Meta
Views
» 13362
Comments
» 82
Category
Sponsored Links