Obama Reaching Too FAR!!

phobicsquirrel

So, I always find it interesting how before one becomes president they appose conflict or war, especially without congressional approval (for democrats mostly btw), however Obama seems to think a bit different now. An article taken from the huffingtonpost

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/20/obama-libya-involvement-limited-congress_n_865035.html

For most of us "liberals" we think armed conflict should and can be avoided however we usually do agree that sometimes it needs to be done. However there needs to be a good reason. Now since we already have such a debt problem, thanks in part of recklessness from both parties and which still seems to be happening; we or should I say our president spends billions of dollars in lybia. While we do that, spend money in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have millions of people out of work, out of unemployment, out of healthcare, teachers being fired, schools being closed, police and firefighters being laid off, state employees being fired, social services being targeted, and the list can go on. BUT we must spend money on bombs. I for one am sick of it. I mean wtf!

Thankfully NATO is taking control of most of this crap but still, we shouldn't even be involved. I personally think that since "WE" as a country are not even close to being united, or have even fixed some of our most critical issues, and have corporations running and ruining our so called democracy; we have no right in telling others how to do things. It's insulting as an American and a human. It's like being murderer and then tell people not to kill. It makes no friggin sense.

xmacro

So because America isn't perfect and we don't have all the progressive social programs you want, we shouldn't be telling dictators not to slaughter their people?

Gotta love progressive moral relativism.

Hays

xmacro:

So because America isn't perfect and we don't have all the progressive social programs you want, we shouldn't be telling dictators not to slaughter their people?

Gotta love progressive moral relativism.

I'm not one for these political conversations regularly, but in this case I believe this comment was far more personally-motivated than actually relevant to the topic.

Aside from that, I think I am actually with Pheebs on this one in that our President has gone too far. At this point, it just feels like he wants to stick his hand into every single pie out there in hopes that he'll snag another victory and more attention. While I fully believe that, at times, swift and decisive action is called for and political wrangling be damned, this does not appear to be one of those times and his attitude about it is entirely arrogant.

Vulchor

Agreed with Pheebs and Hays on most all accounts, did seem personal too........That said Macro, I dont think he isnt saying we shouldnt tell dictators not to slaughter their people-----I think he is saying maybe we should TELL them and leave our men and women (and our money) out of it.

phobicsquirrel

Vulchor:

Agreed with Pheebs and Hays on most all accounts, did seem personal too........That said Macro, I dont think he isnt saying we shouldnt tell dictators not to slaughter their people-----I think he is saying maybe we should TELL them and leave our men and women (and our money) out of it.

Pretty much what I was getting at. And Macro, you seem to be just ... well I can't think of the word but I mean even when I attack obama you still have to pick a fight. Very one sided buddy. I challenge you to look at what happens when there is no check or control of your precious private entities. Look at the just released report on Messa (massi) Mines, seems as though they, if they actually cared for their employees could have avoided the deaths of their employees, however they chose not too to save a few bucks. This is so very consistent with corporations. Look at Behr, the pharmaceutical company, they have killed hundreds if not thousands of people and their still around. No care in the world. And the protections that are in place to stop it aren't being used, thus the gutting of our govt to protect us. Sure some regulations go to far but we as common people with no massive lobbying interest need govt protection, but it's more or less turned on us.

alienmisprint

Vulchor:

Agreed with Pheebs and Hays on most all accounts, did seem personal too........That said Macro, I dont think he isnt saying we shouldnt tell dictators not to slaughter their people-----I think he is saying maybe we should TELL them and leave our men and women (and our money) out of it.

If we had continued the course of action as described above for WWII, more or less just let the outside world be, we would probably be typing this in German right now. That is, if we had internet access and the right to publicly proclaim our opinions. Just sayin'.

phobicsquirrel

alienmisprint:

Vulchor:

Agreed with Pheebs and Hays on most all accounts, did seem personal too........That said Macro, I dont think he isnt saying we shouldnt tell dictators not to slaughter their people-----I think he is saying maybe we should TELL them and leave our men and women (and our money) out of it.

If we had continued the course of action as described above for WWII, more or less just let the outside world be, we would probably be typing this in German right now. That is, if we had internet access and the right to publicly proclaim our opinions. Just sayin'.

I dunno, I mean it's one thing to actually go to war to protect this country but to instill dictators, govt's and then to dictate to other countries how to act is not right. I mean we blasted communism for decades, however we basically didn't say crap about China and do most of our business with them, but cuba or Soviet Union, oh hell no. Our military is not being used to protect this country, it's being used to protect private interests. I mean the middle east conflicts are because of oil rights. Even WW2 for us started because of the US crippling Japan from OIL. Also rumor is FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen though he and the DOD thought the attack was going to happen some other place than Pearl. This country has more blood on its hands than any other.

cabinetmaker

phobicsquirrel:

alienmisprint:

Vulchor:

Agreed with Pheebs and Hays on most all accounts, did seem personal too........That said Macro, I dont think he isnt saying we shouldnt tell dictators not to slaughter their people-----I think he is saying maybe we should TELL them and leave our men and women (and our money) out of it.

If we had continued the course of action as described above for WWII, more or less just let the outside world be, we would probably be typing this in German right now. That is, if we had internet access and the right to publicly proclaim our opinions. Just sayin'.

I dunno, I mean it's one thing to actually go to war to protect this country but to instill dictators, govt's and then to dictate to other countries how to act is not right. I mean we blasted communism for decades, however we basically didn't say crap about China and do most of our business with them, but cuba or Soviet Union, oh hell no. Our military is not being used to protect this country, it's being used to protect private interests. I mean the middle east conflicts are because of oil rights. Even WW2 for us started because of the US crippling Japan from OIL. Also rumor is FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen though he and the DOD thought the attack was going to happen some other place than Pearl. This country has more blood on its hands than any other.

Wrong, that was Winston Churchill. FDR was busy setting policies in place that we still suffer for today.

xmacro

Hays:

xmacro:

So because America isn't perfect and we don't have all the progressive social programs you want, we shouldn't be telling dictators not to slaughter their people?

Gotta love progressive moral relativism.

I'm not one for these political conversations regularly, but in this case I believe this comment was far more personally-motivated than actually relevant to the topic.

Not personal, political. It's the typical progressive view of moral equivalency - since America isn't perfect, we don't have any business interfering with the rest of the world, regardless of how brutal the regime is.

Under this view, America is not morally superior to Libya's Ghaddafi who was about to purge a city of 700,000 people; and America isn't any better than Syria, who's cleansing entire towns of dissidents. Under this view, since America isn't seen as morally superior, we have no business telling these regimes to stop or doing anything to bring about their fall.

This type of political view is really only found with progressives, and it's typically called moral equivalency or relativism since the USA is being compared or related, morally, to regimes that kill by the thousands.

phobicsquirrel:

Thankfully NATO is taking control of most of this crap but still, we shouldn't even be involved. I personally think that since "WE" as a country are not even close to being united, or have even fixed some of our most critical issues, and have corporations running and ruining our so called democracy; we have no right in telling others how to do things. It's insulting as an American and a human. It's like being murderer and then tell people not to kill. It makes no friggin sense.

Pheebs, in his posts, is essentially saying America has no business doing or saying anything to stop the slaughter because Congress hasn't implemented his preferred social programs.

phobicsquirrel:

This country has more blood on its hands than any other.

Because "America has more blood on its hands than any other", we have no business telling any country, even Libya, Iran, or Syria, what to do or stop doing. That's moral equivalancy/relativism and it's only found among progressives; the view that, morally, the US stands on equal ground, if not lower, than other countries.

phobicsquirrel

cabinetmaker:

phobicsquirrel:

alienmisprint:

Vulchor:

Agreed with Pheebs and Hays on most all accounts, did seem personal too........That said Macro, I dont think he isnt saying we shouldnt tell dictators not to slaughter their people-----I think he is saying maybe we should TELL them and leave our men and women (and our money) out of it.

If we had continued the course of action as described above for WWII, more or less just let the outside world be, we would probably be typing this in German right now. That is, if we had internet access and the right to publicly proclaim our opinions. Just sayin'.

I dunno, I mean it's one thing to actually go to war to protect this country but to instill dictators, govt's and then to dictate to other countries how to act is not right. I mean we blasted communism for decades, however we basically didn't say crap about China and do most of our business with them, but cuba or Soviet Union, oh hell no. Our military is not being used to protect this country, it's being used to protect private interests. I mean the middle east conflicts are because of oil rights. Even WW2 for us started because of the US crippling Japan from OIL. Also rumor is FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen though he and the DOD thought the attack was going to happen some other place than Pearl. This country has more blood on its hands than any other.

Wrong, that was Winston Churchill. FDR was busy setting policies in place that we still suffer for today.

Hmm, well I wasn't aware that Churchill was in charge of our country, nor did I know he had time on his hands to meddle with our country... Well I guess FDR was busy trying to get people work and get our country out of dirt roads and such.. FDR seems to have doomed our future then, I mean the WPA didn't help, nor did our highways and other things... Oh and here is some links on the possiblity that FDR was aware of an attack....

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html

http://truth11.com/2010/10/17/pearl-harbor-was-an-inside-job-fdr-not-only-knew-about-the-attack-in-advance-but-that-his-administration-did-everything-it-could-to-cause-a-japanese-attack-on-americ/

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1889/did-roosevelt-know-in-advance-about-the-attack-on-pearl-harbor-yet-say-nothing

History may be a bit hazy there cabi...

zoom6zoom

Thankfully NATO is taking control of most of this crap

and just who supplies most of the men, equipment and money where "NATO" is involved?

Betcha can guess it in one.

bige1371

So if you agree with attacking Gadaffi's forces then why not KimJungIl? He is a far worse dictator than Gadaffi. He actualy has a Camp for political prisoners much like that of **** Germany. They test chemicals on the prisoners and even have a glass gas chamber. Google camp 22. Oh that's right we would not benifit finacially from a war with North Korea like we will with a victory against Gadaffi. You could make an argument to go to war with many countries. How about we finish the two we are in first. Obama needs to stop trophy hunting and just shoot a doe.

Knoxca1

Kim Jong Il does not have any oil.

sdloco30

Knoxca1:

Kim Jong Il does not have any oil.

Not to mention he doesn't have an ally with a population in the billions and makes most of our goods...

Luko

xmacro:

So because America isn't perfect and we don't have all the progressive social programs you want, we shouldn't be telling dictators not to slaughter their people?

Gotta love progressive moral relativism.

I could be wrong, but I don't think our intervention has much to do with preventing or stoping the slaughter of citizens in foreign lands, I think it has more to do with picking those fights which most direclt benefit the U.S., whether it be through more stability, oil, etc. It's not very humanitarian, but it's practical as hell.