Libyan war map

[Hoosier]

This is cool enough to share:

http://www.twitpic.com/66cdqg/full

H.

[Bailey Guns]

I still have no clue why we're involved there.

Liberal/Democrat View of War:

War in Iraq/Bush Lied, People Died/No War for Oil = Bad War
War in Afghanistan = Bad War
War in Libya/Action Initiated by Liberal/Democrat President for Unknown Reasons = Good WarWTF???

[palepainter]

It is good to see where our money is going.

[Hoosier]

Liberal/Democrat View of War:
War in Iraq/Bush Lied, People Died/No War for Oil = Bad War
War in Afghanistan = Bad War
War in Libya/Action Initiated by Liberal/Democrat President for Unknown Reasons = Good War

Erm no, that is not the liberal view of war. The liberals are against the wars, all of them. You see an increasing amount of anti-war rhetoric from the far-left, and they are very disappointed in Obama -- turns out he's a moderate after all.

You're also forgetting that Obama doubled down on Afghanistan. It's his war now too. The Democrats (the party) of course can't afford to be anti-war, because it's too easy to paint them cowards if they were. It's all about the politics. Democrats are OK with some wars, but not with others -- more based on how the wars poll than anything else. They have to appear to be seen as strong, yadda yadda.

There's also the dramatic increase in Drone strikes in Pakistan by Obama, a substantial increase over what Bush was doing -- Not to mention our involvement in Yemen.

I would be surprised the anti-war demonstrations stopped, but no more surprised than I'll be that the tea party evaporates after the GOP gets it's turn in the oval office next. They're all just astroturf campaigns by a few zealots and a lot of cash from the high rolling backers -- be it Soros or Koch.

Who, me, jaded?

H.

[Zundfolge]

Erm no, that is not the liberal view of war. The liberals are against the wars, all of them.
The problem is that the "street level" liberal view of war is one thing and the "DC Elite" view is something else.

Same problem with conservatives (that's why there's a Tea Party).

While I disagree with the "street level liberal" and what I see as their foolish pacifism, I have a lot more respect for them than the elites because at least they're honest.

[RMAC757]

I'd say a big reason this isn't get much coverage is because we don't have troops on the ground getting shot at.

[Delfuego]

How does posting a map of Libya become a liberal / Obama bashing thread in 1.5 posts?[ROFL1]

[sniper7]

I read a great article in todays wallstreet journal about the crackdown of illegals employed by businesses. apparently ICE is cracking down huge on companies all under obamas hand. what I didn't like is the people found to be illegal weren't being deported, just left with nothing...maybe better that way so they have to figure their own way back? but I would rather see the companies fines pay for tickets for their illegal employees to head home.

either way, this is one of the first things I was glad to see obama's hand in.

[tmleadr03]

How does posting a map of Libya become a liberal / Obama bashing thread in 1.5 posts?[ROFL1]

Hell nynco didn't even show up!


That said it is a map of the war in Lybia which we are involved in, at the behest of our liberal president, so I do see some connection.

[roberth]

I still have no clue why we're involved there.

Liberal/Democrat View of War:
War in Iraq/Bush Lied, People Died/No War for Oil = Bad War
War in Afghanistan = Bad War
War in Libya/Action Initiated by Liberal/Democrat President for Unknown Reasons = Good WarWTF???

I can't figure out why either.

[Delfuego]

This is cool enough to share:

http://www.twitpic.com/66cdqg/full

H.

Its a map... I think the foil is a little tight...[Wow2]

[Drilldov2.0]

How does posting a map of Libya become a liberal / Obama bashing thread in 1.5 posts?[ROFL1]

I know huh? People are slow today.

[Delfuego]

I know huh? People are slow today.[Coffee]
Good one. Thanks, I needed a chuckle [Beer]

[Hoosier]

Its a map... I think the foil is a little tight...[Wow2]

Huh?

I posted it because it's a map of an ongoing war. An interesting war at that, since it's essentially two ground based combatants, one of one has nominal access to call in strikes.

H.

[Elhuero]

he photo is gone.

what was on it?

[Delfuego]

Sorry, not you Hoosier. I was referring to the way the thread quickly got off topic. I appreciated the map.

Link worked for me http://www.twitpic.com/66cdqg/full

[Elhuero]

one minute it was gone, next minute it was back. weird.

neat map.

[Bailey Guns]

Erm no, that is not the liberal view of war. The liberals are against the wars, all of them. You see an increasing amount of anti-war rhetoric from the far-left, and they are very disappointed in Obama -- turns out he's a moderate after all.

OK...that right there is just funny. Wrong, but funny.


You're also forgetting that Obama doubled down on Afghanistan. It's his war now too. The Democrats (the party) of course can't afford to be anti-war, because it's too easy to paint them cowards if they were. It's all about the politics. Democrats are OK with some wars, but not with others -- more based on how the wars poll than anything else. They have to appear to be seen as strong, yadda yadda.

OK...I'll buy that. Political expediency is a powerful aphrodisiac. They try to appear to be strong but those attempts are veiled in the equivalent of Saran Wrap...pretty easy to see through. Democrats, in general, are big-league pussies and everyone pretty much knows it despite their protestations to the contrary.


There's also the dramatic increase in Drone strikes in Pakistan by Obama, a substantial increase over what Bush was doing -- Not to mention our involvement in Yemen.

I would be surprised the anti-war demonstrations stopped, but no more surprised than I'll be that the tea party evaporates after the GOP gets it's turn in the oval office next. They're all just astroturf campaigns by a few zealots and a lot of cash from the high rolling backers -- be it Soros or Koch.

Who, me, jaded?

H.

Obama went out of his way to reiterate to Americans in 2002 (and beyond) what a bad man Hussein was. He even called the Iraq war a "dumb war". He said he could be contained in the way of all petty dictators until he falls into the "dustbin of history". He said Hussein/Iraq posed no direct threat to the United States thus there was no need to depose him or go to war in Iraq.

But now, President Obama sings a different tune in regards to Qaddafi. He describes Qaddafi as a brutal dictator, murderous, etc... Pretty much the same terms he used to describe Hussein. Yet we go to war in Libya because it's our duty. Doing the same thing in Iraq was dumb.

Sure, the far/radical leftists have been critical of him. But the run of the mill Obama supporter doesn't see the hypocrisy in this.

Obama hasn't changed his opinions because he's a moderate. He's the same far left socialist he's always been. However, the office he holds has forced reality to take a big bite out of his ass. He now knows it's one thing to talk about how "dumb" a war is when you're watching from the sidelines, but when the responsibility of prosecuting the war falls on his plate it's an entirely different matter.

[Bailey Guns]

How does posting a map of Libya become a liberal / Obama bashing thread in 1.5 posts?[ROFL1]

Do I need to draw you a picture of how this war relates to Obama?

OK...I didn't draw it but here it is anyway:

http://static.powerwall.com/Photos/Original/39139_Original.jpg

http://static.powerwall.com/Photos/Original/39143_Original.jpg