Getting involved in Libya

[The Storyteller]

Sorry, Loose, really have to disagree with you on the Brilliance of BHO in the foreign policy realm, he only acts from a poliitcal perspective - will it cost him votes in the re-election bid? that's his primary concern.

Yeah, that's a load of hooey. I don't believe any president, now or in the past, has ever been that callous. Even the worst of them only go to war because they believe it is the right thing to do. Whether they are correct in their belief, or whether we agree with them... whole different animal.

[loosechickens]

"Sorry, Loose, really have to disagree with you on the Brilliance of BHO in the foreign policy realm, he only acts from a poliitcal perspective - will it cost him votes in the re-election bid? that's his primary concern." (catwoman)
-------------------------------------------------------------------

I couldn't disagree more, but that doesn't surprise you, does it?

I tend to agree with Storyteller, myself. I'm even willing to give George W. Bush the benefit of the doubt in that after the horrors of 9/11, he may have lost his head and overreacted, but I don't doubt that he made his decisions in the sincere belief that he was doing the right thing. I might not have agreed, (and I might have little patience for his little "flyboy" theatrics on the aircraft carrier), but I don't doubt his sincerity in caring about his country, and I don't think that President Obama makes his important decisions involving the lives of Americans based on his own political fortunes.

But, believe as you like. He's the President and in charge, and he'll make the decisions he'll make, and you will hate pretty much every one and believe the worst of him in the process. What is new?

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion.

This was in another thread, but seems worthwhile for practically every subject we discuss here and always good to keep in mind, no matter which side we find ourselves on in any given situation:

http://www.systems-thinking.org/loi/loi.htm

[IshbelRobertson]

Whilst I am ambivalent about my country's role in assisting the Libyan 'no-fly' zone - I am bemused by the American stance over riots and disorder in Yemen and Bahrain.. both countries with major human rights issues, but both great allies of the USA... hmmmmmmmmm

[Gina]

No, I don't think you do 'got-me'. But carry on.

No, not 'got-cha' in that sense, but in the sense that I understand where you are coming from - you want military action, but are not willing to pay for it.

[Alan]

No, not 'got-cha' in that sense, but in the sense that I understand where you are coming from - you want military action, but are not willing to pay for it.

Of course what I actually said was that we should prioritize our spending, giving preference to life and liberty. But please continue misrepresenting my clearly written words. It's mildly amusing.

[Gina]

edit: my reply below is to your original post which you have significantly edited, but I won't take the time to change what I said. Wish now I had quoted your first reply. Respond or not as you wish.
~~~~~~~~~~

LOL, glad to be able to introduce a bit humor into your dreary life.

If you are unwilling to raise taxes, how do you propose we pay for this latest military adventure? Cutting medicare, social security, the military (opps, guess not), subsidies to the oil companies? If not these, what?

I know it's a tough one, but if attacking Lybia is so righteous, you failed to explain why we also shouldn't take action against N.Korea, Iran, and China since they too are bullies and have a history of killing their own people. Of course you don't have to answer if it's too tough for you to come up with something rational.

[Alan]

edit: my reply below is to your original post which you have significantly edited, but I won't take the time to change what I said. Wish now I had quoted your first reply. Respond or not as you wish.
~~~~~~~~~~

LOL, glad to be able to introduce a bit humor into your dreary life.

If you are unwilling to raise taxes, how do you propose we pay for this latest military adventure? Cutting medicare, social security, the military (opps, guess not), subsidies to the oil companies? If not these, what?

I know it's a tough one, but if attacking Lybia is so righteous, you failed to explain why we also shouldn't take action against N.Korea, Iran, and China since they too are bullies and have a history of killing their own people. Of course you don't have to answer if it's too tough for you to come up with something rational.

I'll repeat, you pay for necessary expenditures by prioritizing your spending, and if you have to borrow (as we currently do), at least mortgage our countries future on the preservation of life and liberty rather than on discretionary programs designed to buy votes. After you've done that, let's talk about raising taxes because it's necessary, not because we simply want more and more and more.

I don't know that attacking "Lybia" or even Libya is "righteous" (I'm not even sure what that means), although I do believe that preventing despots from bombing their citizens should be a major focus of our foreign policy as well as a proper role for our military outside our own borders. That same belief applies in North Korea, Iran and China, although none of them are currently bombing their cities and strafing their citizens from helicopter gunships. If they were, then I think we should be doing everything possible to prevent that as well.

If you disagree with any of that, please elaborate so that we can discuss it in a rational manner. Or, if you'd rather to continue being confrontational and condescending, while misrepresenting my words, that's OK too.

[Gina]

If you disagree with any of that, please elaborate so that we can discuss it in a rational manner. Or, if you'd rather to continue being confrontational and condescending, while misrepresenting my words, that's OK too.

My apologies that my words are condescending or confrontational - as you know, that is a reflection of the original tone of your now-edited 'intended to insult' reply.

As to further discussions with you on this matter, no thanks. At least not today.

[Alan]

My apologies that my words are condescending or confrontational - as you know, that is a reflection of the original tone of your now-edited 'intended to insult' reply.

For anyone who may be wondering, I believe my unedited response was along the lines of "Of course, that's not what I said and you are wrong. But if you'd rather speak for me so that you can apply your prejudices to my words, feel free." The post was intended to reflect the self-satisfied "got-cha" reply to my earlier post.

Upon reflection, I edited it to better reflect what I actually said as well as taking out the reference to anyone else's prejudices. I also added "clarity" to the "reason for edit". I should have also added "scale back on snark" as well. Perhaps next time.

[Gina]

Whatever. It's been a long day and I'm looking for something lighter right now.

If you enjoy better political discussions, you might enjoy FrumForum.com. It's run by an old neocon who says he is trying to bring sanity back to the Republican party, though I'm not sure about that - or if that's even possible. The best part of it however is not the pieces which usually are right-leaning, but the comments sections (open to everyone) with a full array of mostly reasonable, bright participants including many 'fallen away' Republicans as well as left-leaners. It's the best political discussion site I've found. Not well organized, and slower on the weekends, but worth the hassle.

Much better than most one-sided deeply partisan sites like HuffPoo or the Brietbart Big sites with endless steams of one-liner trolls and partisan hacks, though there are a few there too. Depending on the day, there are many good discussions, and some great humor.