Cost of "Barack's War"

i'm not one to tote fox as any kind of credible news source. but this link i think is relevant to the thread. http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/transcript/are-us-troops-already-ground-libya
speaking with 2 military officials about protocol in any kind of american campaign. it requires ground forces to support the air forces, draw up targets and gather intelligence. it is SAFER for our guys in the air and for our allies if we have them there. they are special forces highly trained and not wearing american uniforms. that doesn't mean we don't have a ground presence but i think what your sons intel was, was this not the relocation of thousands of american soldiers or any large scale invasion. i don't think we ever should have gone to libya in the first place as well as iraq or afganistan for that matter but we're there already now all we can really do is hope to try to get something out of it. weather that be american monitary or politcal intersts, or if its the legimate hope to help the libyian people. whatever we have to do so we're not constantly going back every decade to dispose of a new dictator or terrorist threat. if we leave the libyan revolution hanging after committing this far we are shooting ourselves in the foot for any future regime that comes out of it. you can say "to hell with them we won't gain anything" but at this point its wasted money if we leave without overthrowing the present government. if we don't the present goverment will assert control and it will be a haven for anything anti-american much the same way yemen is. not that libya has ever viewed us favorably but to be sure gaddafi and libya would do their best after this conflict to set themselves against our interests much the same way iran or north korea do. pretty much the same rational for staying in iraq or afganistan isn't it? "we could lose all the gains we've made over the last 10 years" "the taliban will take control" even though we didn't have congress's approval in this war at least we had the UN's (unlike iraq) and we are doing our best to not take the lead and to get out while we can. if congress didn't want to keep funding it they'd shut it off. i don't think america has had a real legitimate reason to go to war since WWII. hell technically we're still at war with korea.

 

I understand what you're saying....my issue is with the fact that obama LIED to us again. And i could care less if we got an ok from the UN to go into Iraq, we got the go ahead from Congress and that's all we need to do. Obama didn't even do that! He thinks he can do whatever he wants...and it looks like he can because he keeps getting away with it.

 

This page of the thread demonstrates how many conservatives cannot comprehend sarcasm (post at the top of the page).

 

You Understand?
No...You do not understand.
Allow me to clarify for you...

"He's got 'em" - Bush
“I truly am not that concerned about him.” - Bush

"We've never let up on Osama bin Laden from day one." - Dick Cheyney
"As I've watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war," - Dick Cheyney

That took about 2 minutes to find. Seems to me that Republicans should not be commenting on anything that smacks of lies and half-truths...since they happen to be the undisputed masters of the art of deception.

Oh and if you respond...remember...saying you never believed Bush and Cheyney...would most probably also be a LIE!

 

I won't say i never believed them, because i did believe them and still do...
I'm not sure what "He's got 'em" refers to....

And of course he wasn't concerned at the time, he had our military hunting for him, why should he be concerned until he was found?? He couldn't go out and hunt for him himself!

And the last 2 statements from Cheyney was true...i don't see anything wrong with them.

Obama came right out and said we have no boots on the ground....you don't call that lying????

 

This topic isn't about BUSH or BIN LADEN. It's about Barack's War in Libya. Please try to stay on-topic.

*cha ching*

There goes another $4 million, folks. Anybody know what's happening in Libya today that's worth our spending $4 million?

 

Excellent response!

 

Hmmmm....no response from Buzz

 

Barrack Hussein O'Bama is a directionless autocrat with mindless devotion to nothing American but to globalist UN goals which are more his clueless style.

 

We should wait until khadafi can recruit another Lockerbie bomber?

 

Who's to say he's not busily training one right now? Exactly how is our spending $4 million a day doing anything about that problem?

 

If you can figure out a cheaper way to blow him up then I'm all ears

 

How 'bout we do our own fighting instead of handing $4 million over to NATO everyday and trusting them to do the right thing?

 

How about a MOAB on his home. That should do it quite nicely. Ka-boom, bye bye Kadafly.

 

Thyats not the O'Bama way, why do yourself what you can pay others to do, I'm sure thats how he got through college. I know he is not smart enough to do it on his own. Which is painfully obvious.

 

1) Because we're already involved in 2 full-scale occupations.
2) Because he didn't really want to engage Libya but our allies called in some chips
3) Because he didn't want to listen to the right wingers (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about spending a few trillion on another military blunder like Bush got us into.

 

Notice she didn't (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about the Iraq War and that war cost way more than Libya

 

Yeah, you're right. Same reason he didn't bother to ask for congress' approval before getting us involved. He's not used to people saying NO to him and will avoid seeking approval every chance he gets.

After all, it's good to be king.

 

sorry-i thought this was about Obummer's war on the American middle-class.

 

Translation: Its Bush's fault.

 

Its good to be king if you are a good king. Obama is not a good anything.

 

It's OK, Mikey... I can see how somebody might misconstrue the title. Shoulda said Barack's Foreign War so folks could tell the difference.

 

He has czars for that one making decisions that we will never know about. Thats what congress gets for subordinating themselves to FDR in the thirties, we are still paying for that disasterous presidency, and we will be paying for the current disasterous presidency for a long time too.

 

Bush had approval from the majority of congress. What approval does Barack have for Libya?

 

I'm waiting for somebody to chuck a shoe at Obama.....bet he dont duck it like Bush...