What's new
By:
Filters

"Obama has now fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined."

LogGrad98 said:
OK let's see what ousting really is:

1a : to remove from or dispossess of property or position by legal action, by force, or by the compulsion of necessity

So I supposed there are three ways they can accomplish this: kill Ghadaffi, force him out of office and the country (either one of which would fit the term "oust") and lastly "convince" him that he should play nice and step down as the leader and let them all vote from now on. Of course this convincing is being handled through violence, and as we see from the definition above, this still fits the definition of "oust" (by legal action, by force, or by the compulsion of necessity).
Click to expand...

I agree we are using force. however, we are not going "to remove from or dispossess of property or position". Obama has not called for us to oust Ghadaffi, and it is irresponsible to say he has.
 
franklin said:
I agree with you in principal and in this situation specifically. However, I don't think we can use this ideal as dogmatic justification for across the board application as is being insinuated in the pro-Libyan/anti-Iraq stance herein.
Click to expand...

I certaily hope no one is naive enough to think Obama, or any other US Preseident, will be universally applying the principles used to justify the Libyan action, as opposed to basing such decisions on strategic and political considerations.

franklin said:
Also, jaw-boning hasn't exactly proved to be best policy (which is where I see Millsapa headed with all this).
Click to expand...

There are levels of action between jawboning and invasion, and they do not always escalate.

franklin said:
J(and no, Big Fundy, this is not to be turned into a "let's go invade Iran proposition,
Click to expand...

The signature strikes again!
 
Millsapa said:
It doesn't matter where they are flying in from. The point is that Obama is putting their lives on the line...a couple of them already had to be rescued after ejecting.
Click to expand...

So, you saying you want to put young girls in an Air Force aircraft? Wouldn't that interfere with the pilots ability to perform their duties?
 
The Thriller said:
No seriously, politicians need incentives to end these never ending nation building exercises.

Taking their kids away and docking their pay should help them to consider really the true cost of military action.

I'm all for them having to dedicate a child for the cause (actually in the war. Not on some stupid reserve unit in California). And having their pay docked/stopped for as long as the war lasts.

had we had this type of system in place 10 years ago, we wouldn't have ever invaded Iraq without first finishing the job in Afghanistan.

If politicians had risk involved, then perhaps they'd only send us to war when we're truly threatened. Not to secure oil in Iraq/cater to one political party for fear of being called french/coward. Not to bend to weak UN officials (like Libya).

We'd get in and get out. None of this occupying a country because it "helps" us secure other countries. I truly wonder if we've avoided capturing Osama so we can have a stronger presence in the middle east. An excuse to stay there. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to The Thriller again
Click to expand...


I appreciate the seriousness of the actual issue. What can we do to "bring our representatives home" is central to "binging our boys home" from useless foreign wars.

The cost of getting elected has degraded the value of the voters because politicians listen more to the few with the most.

Our oil cartels are using our national resources to run games around the world beneficial to their interests.
 
I've been gone awhile but it appears this thread and the other original libya thread are the same conversation. Merged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top