If Americans Don't Get Hurt, War Is No Longer War

lucky8

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Posts
3,623
Media
0
Likes
187
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
If I recall, Bush did get the votes in Congress to go to war although it was discovered later that it was under false pretenses.

No, Bush did not get Congressional approval for Iraq...Congress asked him to get a UN mandate, and once Iraq ignored it, they were going to authorize it. But Bush never went back to Congress, and declared he didn't need Congressional approval. I remember the speech. Was in Costa Rica at the time
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
No, Bush did not get Congressional approval for Iraq...Congress asked him to get a UN mandate, and once Iraq ignored it, they were going to authorize it. But Bush never went back to Congress, and declared he didn't need Congressional approval. I remember the speech. Was in Costa Rica at the time

The votes say a different story. Again, for Iraq, the vote was taken on October 11, 2002. It passed the Senate by a vote of 77 to 23, and the House of Representatives by a vote of 297 to 133. If the House & Senate voted in favor of it, then it really doesn't matter the lip service that comes afterwards unless they were the ones that said no from the very beginning.
 

cruztbone

Experimental Member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Posts
1,284
Media
0
Likes
11
Points
258
Age
70
Location
Capitola CA USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
most of the 750million spent was on one aircraft that hit the ground in Libya. if you remember , the pilot safely bailed out and was welcomed by the Libyan rebels. we are NOT in charge of this mission, and havent been for weeks. NATO is in charge and the commander of the mission is a Canadian air force general. where have YOU been? oh, and lets not forget the fact that A. khadhafi admits to helping plan the bombing of the British airways jetliner over Lockerbie , Scotland in 1983, killing hundreds of Brits and Americans. and, B. the fact that this rebellion began WITHOUT our help in Tunisia and then spread to Egypt and Libya and beyond as part of the "Arab spring".
isnt it a bit bizarre that the GOP house of reps voted against supporting this move to support the Libyan rebels and then voted NOT to stop funding the effort? once again the schizoid zombies running the house, led by the orange Boner (john Boehner) just cant quite get a handle on running government. NO WONDER THEY HATE IT SO MUCH. its just so hard!!! SO much easirer to leave to Obama and then blame him while the GOP does NOTHING to help, even though they now control one half of one branch of the national legislature , aka the congress of the US.
 

Fiasco21

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Posts
91
Media
84
Likes
1,913
Points
268
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
All ya have to do is read for yourself..I ain't ranting, It's no conspiracy..no theory either..It's simply a "fraud free zone" called unregulated free market capitalism..For your ranting nonsense and conspiracy theories, keep going to church and reading that Holy Bible, yesss sir..unh-hunh, don't ya know..


Not saying I disagree with a lot of your points... but if you think we have anything close to unregulated free market capitalism you are mistaken.... I personally would advocate for more regulation in some places and less in others... but thats just me
 
Last edited:

Boobalaa

Legendary Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Posts
5,535
Media
0
Likes
1,185
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Not saying I disagree with a lot of your points... but if you think we have anything close to unregulated free market capitalism you are mistaken.... I personally would advocate for more regulation in some places and less in others... but thats just me
not talking about the usa..but it's "corporatist', that's for sure..I'm mostly talking about,..all the "lil countries", that the USA goes to invade to "protect the citizens of that country from their despotic, dictatorial leaders"..
 
Last edited:

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Dont know if anyone in the US is still interested in Libya since it isnt their war? In the Uk people are getting interested since the rebels have reached tripoli. It is curious since this war has been run by actual Libyans merely with advice and external support, but seems to be going quite well. Strikes as a contrast to that 'real' war in Iraq which the US worked very hard to lose. I seem to recall that when the kurds wanted to rebel, the US left them to hang in the wind.

Anyway, does the US want to own this war now?
 

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,674
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Just in case anyone was wondering why the "European Powers" and the USA were so willing to go the extra mile for the Rebels and spend how many millions/billions of €€€'s we'll never know doing so, here you go!-

ENI leads Libya oil race; Russia, China may lose out | Business | Reuters


"Italian oil company Eni led the charge back into Libya on Monday as rebels hailing the end of Muammar Gaddafi's rule warned Russian and Chinese firms that they may lose out on lucrative oil contracts for failing to support the rebellion."
 

Bbucko

Cherished Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Posts
7,232
Media
8
Likes
322
Points
208
Location
Sunny SoFla
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Dont know if anyone in the US is still interested in Libya since it isnt their war? In the Uk people are getting interested since the rebels have reached tripoli. It is curious since this war has been run by actual Libyans merely with advice and external support, but seems to be going quite well. Strikes as a contrast to that 'real' war in Iraq which the US worked very hard to lose. I seem to recall that when the kurds wanted to rebel, the US left them to hang in the wind.

Anyway, does the US want to own this war now?

Qadaffi's in custody after having turned himself in voluntarily; this is yet another example of the Arab Spring of 2011, and so far the only one in which Western forces engaged themselves militarily.

Interestingly enough, the conservative voices here are willing to give credit (and congratulate) everyone except Obama. Predictably, voices of progress or moderation aren't so circumspect. So the great fault-line in American politics goes on unabated.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
News here says the man himself is whereabouts unknown, but several sons seem to have been arrested.

The question is not so much why western powers are wiling to intervene, but the nature of that intervention. In this case a little more of asking the locals first what they want rather than just doing it? I recall a lot of talk at the time this started that it was unwise to provide some support if we were unable to provide a full invasion army. Ok, no one want s to be on the losing side especially if it lost because you made a half hearted effort, but perhaps this also smacks of refusing to assist unless you can sure of securing the result your way, not as the locals might have intended.
 
Last edited:

Bbucko

Cherished Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Posts
7,232
Media
8
Likes
322
Points
208
Location
Sunny SoFla
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
News here says the man himself is whereabouts unknown, but several sons seem to have been arrested.

The question is not so much why western powers are wiling to intervene, but the nature of that intervention. In this case a little more of asking the locals first what they want rather than just doing it? I recall a lot of talk at the time this started that it was unwise to provide some support if we were unable to provide a full invasion army. Ok, no one want s to be on the losing side especially if it lost because you made a half hearted effort, but perhaps this also smacks of refusing to assist unless you can sure of securing the result your way, not as the locals might have intended.

You're right, I stand corrected. I read this and misinterpreted it: my bad.
 

cruztbone

Experimental Member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Posts
1,284
Media
0
Likes
11
Points
258
Age
70
Location
Capitola CA USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
the Libyan war was a full scale civil war. it was necessary because the LIBYAN PEOPLE wanted to rid themselves of a monster. and they did, with the help of NATO. god bless them both. and god bless our president whose policy not only was wise but probably saved the lives of many Libyans and ALL AMERICANS. and yes, that is a good policy !!!
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
wise is a big word to give to politicians. But it was a much more traditionally british empire response to foreign policy needs. Get the locals to do it. Much better all round. The british empire ran on using the minimum intervention necessary, as indeed did the roman empire.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
wise is a big word to give to politicians. But it was a much more traditionally british empire response to foreign policy needs. Get the locals to do it. Much better all round. The british empire ran on using the minimum intervention necessary, as indeed did the roman empire.

Sometimes, apparently, as with the American Revolution, it was *less* than the minimum necessary. :smile:
 
Last edited: