rob Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Plenty of fighter jets in Euroland. Don't worry, we can bomb those too, while we're over there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 OUR COUNTRY NEEDS TO GET OUR OUT OF CONTROL GAS USAGE DOWN AND BALANCE OUR BUDGET! My opinion is that we don't need to be the worlds policeman and we sure as hell don’t need to stick our nose into Libya. Gadaffi and Libya are not in our national interest outside of the 2% of the worlds petroleum that they pump. Before we get into potential costs of that kind of intervention, look at almost any war we get into. Invariably we underestimate both the time and the costs that we will experience there. Both sides of the US civil war, for instance, thought they were looking at a week or two to get up there into enemy territory, kick some ass and get back home for dinner. Both sides! Both France and German thought the same going into the great war. Even our boys heading over to the trenches of Belgium and France in WWI had no clue what that was going to be. It was stench and rats daily chewing your best buddies flesh in ditch water that was more sewage than water. Periods of extreme boredom were punctuated by moments of extreme terror. Our current wars should be cautionary tale enough. Asscrackistan is looking to be an extremely long war and that is just a bunch of simple villagers with usually antiquated or underpowered weapons including antique .303 Enfields that they took off of the British when they kicked them out hundred years ago. Iraq cost so much more than anyone ever guessed that the shock should be enough to remind us to never ever get involved in any kind of imperial militarism. Spend a moment to look at paying for this stuff. Research what the cost of a single Jdam is. This country is broke my friends. We are pitching into the shit hole right now as I type this and there doesn't appear to be the political will to do the right thing. On another thread one of the left wing wing nut denzions who repeated plays a one note samba about the "regressives" suggested that the “ONLY” way to fix the issue is to increase taxes on the rich. It was too stupid and simplistic of a post to respond to as obviously that idiot never looked at our burgeoning and increasing budget deficit and increasing government spending. We MUST GET OUR OUT OF CONTROL FEDERAL EXPENDITURES UNDER CONTROL. AND we need to raise taxes, especially on the rich. Both things. That Obama doesn’t get this was clearly indicated by “allowing” us to keep an extra 2% of SS payments this year, all the time knowing that will create even more havoc on that program down the road which has already been criminally and habitually underfunded. We need to re-introduce the word “conserve” , gone with Jimmy Carter, into the political lexicon. A recent Pentagon sponsored report suggests that we might have been attacked economically with the intent on destroying us. At the time the study was posted, 2 of the 3 things had occurred to economically destroy this country. The 3rd is occurring right now. China has stopped buying US debt and is a net seller. Underlying this trip to bankruptcy court, we are borrowing that money from the Fed, a group of rapacious private bankers. They own more of our debt than any other country right now. And the oil crisis, whereby we continue to use more than every year, while reserves decline, will be hitting at some point right in the middle of this. That a perfect storm has arisen is not in doubt except to all but the most oblivious. It’s here...knocking on the door, you just haven't read it in the mainstream news cause the feds don’t want any one alarmed. We are fast running out of other people money to borrow and waste and the bankers now literally own this country's debt and our future. Jig is up, the Ponzi scheme that is the government's slight of hand budget is about to be found out. We don’t have the money to start firing missiles at Libya and we need to wind down the wars we’ve been engaged in and get stupid and wasteful expenditures down ....real real soon. We can prioritize and spend some of that military waste that we keep in our pocket on schools or energy research - or just let people keep it in their pockets, they’ll find a way to invest it that is better than anything the Pentagon will do with the $. Our deficit and borrowing is a national security issue of the utmost importance. If we can do that we have a chance of getting some of the increased government oversight and control off of our backs. Living in a police state is costly both in real money and in psychic costs. We don’t need either. We need to do everything we can as fast as we can to get our expenditures down and the budget balanced. Spend a moment examining the costs of our overgrown military: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/03/01-7 Best bumper sticker to keep in mind on this kind of bullshit: “I even oppose the NEXT war”....LOL. Stay strong my brobahams..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 A bloggerz op ed that calls the Saudis a bunch of assholes. Ground breaking! For someone who regularly extols the virtues of the internet, you don't seem to be using it much. Has your Democrat Party membership crippled your critical faculties? I'll be the first to admit I don't use it nearly as much as you do, but that's hardly a vote of confidence for my side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 (edited) I wouldn't go so far as to call that "proof", but it's pretty strong circumstantial evidence. You could file a FOIA request but by the time it's granted I'm betting things will have become quite clear. OMG, a FOIA? That's WAY TOO MUCH WORK. Verify? Hell, we'd have never gone into EYEraq had we done that! No...I'll take this bloggerz word for it. Hopefully I can buy gold on the same site and save even more time. Edited March 17, 2011 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Stay strong my brobahams..... Am I a brovary from another ovary? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I don't think they do gold, but you could certainly do worse in terms of timely analysis. Here's the link: http://www.atimes.com/ You're welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Sorry. Got my sources lined up already. Thanks anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 That's weird. But please, do tell... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 My neighbor used to work for the Illuminati, and he told me Prole was right -- it's all part of the PLAN. Don't tell anyone, though -- it's a secret. I think Larry knows, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 (edited) That's hilarious. The notion that Saudi Arabia moving soldiers and tanks into Bahrain without US sanction, much less that it was a surprise, is ludicrous on its face. But hey, yuk it up... Edited March 17, 2011 by prole Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 If you repeat this wee bit of blogospherical wisdom enough it actually becomes true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 (edited) and don't forget to remind those who require at least some verification how stupid they are. That's the most important part of being Fair and Balanced . Edited March 17, 2011 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I don't think you're stupid but if you're buying Hillary's "hey guys, uh stop that, okay really...uh...restraint...condemn...really, I mean it...seriously...oh, fuck it" schtick, then your Obamalove has overtaken your critical thinking skills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 The only difference here is that a GOP administration would be breathlessly describing Saudi troops as liberators. At least the Obamas have the couth to keep shit on the DL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 +1 for using "couth." Well done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I don't think you're stupid but if you're buying Hillary's "hey guys, uh stop that, okay really...uh...restraint...condemn...really, I mean it...seriously...oh, fuck it" schtick, then your Obamalove has overtaken your critical thinking skills. out of curiosity, what would you do to really bring them saudi boys to heel? they do pretty clearly have us by the balls, so long as they're friendly on oil and keep the fuck-israel thing on the low-down Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I don't take anything those guys say at face value, but when they say they were surprised by an event like the Saudi incursion, I do take that at face value. It's believable - more believable than the Saudis risking being denied the U.S.s 'permission' - why would they do that? Short answer: they wouldn't. They got us, not the other way around. They don't have to. So the gobmints story, in this case, sounds the most probable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choada_Boy Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 As long as no bolts are placed to "murder the impossible", who gives a fuck what happens? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I'm not sure a GOP presidency would be doing that much different, given the severe constraints that US is under. There would likely be more bellowing, as is the habit of the blowhard, the half wit, and the socially malformed, all aflame with one righteous grievance or another against the sins of sloth, sluttery, and suckling the apple from the fisting baby. The GOP verbal response would, of course, exhibit a certain well marbled bullying that would make the likes of Ike stab himself in the eye with his own campaign pin. The kind of punctuated, on camera jacking off that instantly identifies the loudest, fattest guy in the room. Of action, however, that song has long lost its royalties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 (edited) I don't take anything those guys say at face value, but when they say they were surprised by an event like the Saudi incursion, I do take that at face value. It's believable - more believable than the Saudis risking being denied the U.S.s 'permission' - why would they do that? Short answer: they wouldn't. They got us, not the other way around. They don't have to. So the gobmints story, in this case, sounds the most probable. That this crucial ally in this crucial and increasingly volatile region would undertake such an act without, at the very least, informing Washington of its intentions strains credulity. And why on earth would Washington deny such a Saudi request? In the case of a Sunni/Shiite-divided Bahrain (and Saudi Arabia, for that matter) where Washington's primary concern is Iran gaining influence in the region, Washington and Saudi's interests are perfectly aligned! There is no "they got us/we got them" necessary here. No "permission" required. We already know that by and large the US's geopolitical interests in the region are defined by the preservation of these regimes. Any downside to such a strategy is actually its strength: send a message to would-be revolutionaries that the US will neither help you or lift a finger to prevent your being squashed (see also: Libyan no-fly zone footdragging). There is of course a moral hazard in that any successful uprisers are not likely to forget that, but they'll need to sell us their oil and import our technology and advisors anyway. Perhaps it's a stretch, but one might go as far as to wonder if the US didn't come up with it in the first place. I'm guessing that Manhattan call girls and poppin' Cristal wasn't all the Bahrainis, Saudis, and US personnel were talking about in the days leading up to the invasion... Edited March 17, 2011 by prole Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I don't take anything those guys say at face value, but when they say they were surprised by an event like the Saudi incursion, I do take that at face value. It's believable - more believable than the Saudis risking being denied the U.S.s 'permission' - why would they do that? Short answer: they wouldn't. They got us, not the other way around. They don't have to. So the gobmints story, in this case, sounds the most probable. That this crucial ally in this crucial and increasingly volatile region would undertake such an act without, at the very least, informing Washington of its intentions strains credulity. And why on earth would Washington deny such a Saudi request? In the case of a Sunni/Shiite-divided Bahrain (and Saudi Arabia, for that matter) where Washington's primary concern is Iran gaining influence in the region, Washington and Saudi's interests are perfectly aligned! There is no "they got us/we got them" necessary here. No "permission" required. We already know that by and large the US's geopolitical interests in the region are defined by the preservation of these regimes. Any downside to such a strategy is actually its strength: send a message to would-be revolutionaries that the US will neither help you or lift a finger to prevent your being squashed. There is of course a moral hazard in that any successful uprisers are not likely to forget that, but they'll need to sell us their oil and import our technology and advisors anyway. Perhaps it's a stretch, but one might go as far as to wonder if the US didn't come up with it in the first place. I'm guessing that Manhattan call girls and poppin' Cristal wasn't all the Bahrainis, Saudis, and US personnel were talking about in the days leading up to the invasion... it's so cute when you two disagree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 On the list of competing influences, regional Sunnis seem to play a more important role, family ties and all, than we do. We only eat at the restaurant. They own it. Sunnis would not...ever...ask our permission to help their kin next door during what they perceived as a regional deal breaker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 (edited) Well we'll let that whateveritis float on by, but remember, I'm not suggesting the Saudis did ask for permission. I think the Bahrainis asked for some assistance from the US and the Saudis. Finding itself in a delicate diplomatic context (global sympathy and support for democratic Arab movements and all that) the US did what it could and brokered the deal or at the very least looked the other way. By the way, Hillary's none too stoked it seems. For fuck's sake Tvash, it's the home of the 5th Fleet. Get real. Edited March 18, 2011 by prole Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Bring on zee Meeerage Vihtor Zhjets! Allez! "The United Nations Security Council voted Thursday to authorize military action, including airstrikes against Libyan tanks and heavy artillery and a no-fly zone, a risky foreign intervention aimed at averting a bloody rout of rebels by forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/world/africa/18nations.html?_r=1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil K Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Oh, sorry; we were having a serious discussion here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.