Tuesday, March 8, 2011

Should We Go Again?

It seems the talking heads of the Left are pushing the Marxist-in-Chief to get involved in Libya, not simply with words, but with action. And by action they mean sending more of our warriors to fight someone else's battles, a very odd (and rare) position for the Left to take. But, there are anti-government protesters in the streets, and that always excites the Left. I actually heard some of the cretins on MSNBC saying, "well, not military action, just enforcing a no-fly zone." Apparently, they think enforcing a no-fly zone in a hostile, foreign country is done by civilians. They also don't seem to realize that enforcing that zone would require dropping bombs on air fields and anti-aircraft sites, and firing missiles at planes and radar sites. Of course, what they're not talking about is, what will happen to the first pilot who happens to kill a few civilians, something that is impossible to avoid in combat. Also not mentioned is the fact that doing so, is an act of war.

Personally, as someone who was/is very much against our warriors going to, and continuing to be in Iraq, and someone who believes Afghanistan could have been dealt with via air-power alone, i am totally against sending any part of our military into Libya. It's none of our business! We have no special interest there. They supply 2% of the worlds oil, with almost all of it going to the ChiComs. Let them send their planes. As for what's going on there, it's now a civil war. It's their problem! Let them handle it! No matter what action we take, or for that matter, don't take, we'll end up being the bad guys, as usual. In that case, let's be the bad guys who were smart enough (this time) to save our money and young men, and stay out of it!

What say you...

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

I agree. The reason oil is skyrocketing I believe has very little to do with Lybia and more to do with unrest in the whole of the middle east. Why didn't we go into Eygpt? We continue to be unable to learn from history-It never works out when we back the lesser or two evils. If either choice is evil we should stay away from both of them. When we back the lesser of two evils, then the lesser turns evil, we are expected to go in and clean up the mess.-CFC

Schteveo said...

Before your head explodes, I want to tell you we are already there. My son is 'parked' offshore, with a couple thousand grunts, watching it all unfold. And that means we are at danger of a "mistake" while Libyan jets and choppers are in the air. But I'm going back to a question, or several, I didn't get answered last week.

Aren't we better off supporting these fighters who are looking for LESS intrusion into their lives? People looking for less intrusion are NOT going to elect or accept Sharia after dealing with Gadaffi for 30 years. Same thing in Iran.

The protesters are trying to get RID of Sharia in Iran. Doesn't that moderate the jihadi efforts to lose support from Libya and Iran? Moreover, how could it NOT? Eliminating the two biggest supporters of Islamofascism can't be a bad thing, can it?

What you are saying about civil war (think Spain) and saying it's 'their' problem (think Austria, Alsace, Poland) is exactly the things said before Dec 7, 1941. EXCEPT we've already had our Pearl Harbor event. All we need is Hitlary to wave a Peace Treaty signed by Osama bin Laden, or some such, to bring us full circle (think Chamberlain).

Here's MY problem with the way we've done this "war". It's been too lean & clean and not mean & obscene enough. If we are going to send American Troops to foreign countries to fight wars, turn them loose to kill as many of the enemy as possible!. You reward anyone who helps you do that. I say turn them wide open with every weapon short of nukes.

All the troops sitting on their asses in Okinawa and Germany can build NEW bases in Libya, Iraq, Iran Afghanistan, etc. Pay those NEW governments for base leases like we did after WWII elsewhere.

Germany and Japan need us and our money like a fish needs a bicycle! I'm not a fan of nation building. But it's better to spend our money where it will get it's best return. Spoiling a generation of Muslim kids via Achmed's U.S. Base paycheck and keeping those boys out of Jihadi University is a better deal than giving it to countries that don't need it and don't want us there anymore.

In answer to your original query. No, we should not go again, unless we change the rules.

Unfortunately, changing the rules to kill the bad guys quicker and more efficiently doesn't really seem a possibility given who runs the military.

Kill. kill, megatons said...

Let them all kill each other. Then we'll kill the survivors, unless they prove themselve worthy.

Spider said...

Steve, i get your point but, anytime we get involved in the middle east, we end up the losers, and we get nothing for it.

As for the "fighters", i don't care what they want or what kind of govt/leader they end up with. Whoever it is won't be our friend. He'll take our money. He'll take our protection, but he won't be a friend. IMO, they are ALL our enemies to one degree or another, including (especially?) the Saudi's. And if they want our military help, they MUST pay us in oil.

We have been trying to make nice with these Mooselamb animals for decades and we haven't made an inch worth of real progress, except to show them over and over again how weak we are. And if there's anything they hate it's weakness. You can pet and feed a wild dog all you want. In the end, he'll still bite you.

Thanks to the lying crooks who rule us, the media that cons us, and a population of mindless sheep, we have become a nation that insists on learning things the hard way. You would think we would've learned from 9-11, but we learned nothing. There are hundreds-of-thousands more Mooselambs living here now than before 9-11. And every one of them describes himself as a "peaceful" Mooselamb. Once again, we'll find out the hard way.

Cowpill said...

I say we plant big mushrooms and be done with it.

Nuke of Earl said...

Nuke Nuke Nuke

BOW said...

All of those countries are more likely to be taken over by even more radical and fanatical crazies.

Schteveo said...

I guess I'm missing something here.

HOW will the radicals take over LATER, IF the people are willing to fight and die to get rid of a RADICAL nut NOW? The fact that Gaddaffi isn't an Imam doesn't change the fact that for 30 years he's been pushing that radical, jihadi, anti-western ideal. He didn't just allow Lockerby to happen, he paid those guys, bought the explosives and paid their families because they were such great Libyan, Muslim Warriors.

THAT shit is what his people are trying to get rid of. The uber-Muslim, jihadi, killer mentality. Libyans get a lot of Italian and Spanish TV. They are probably more western thinking than anyone in North Africa.

They are willing to fight and die to get out from under their leader's jihadi enforced BS. What makes you think they'd just roll over and allow the Muslim Brotherhood take over if they pitch Gaddafi out?