Itinerant Air-Cooled

Oh yeah? What about the humanitarian mission in Libya? See, HWB there is no arguing with the gallery. "It" has it both ways and anyone who tries to make sense is given the "love" and "peace" therapeutic massage (double-tapped to the cranium).

And someday when you rot alone, a disease ridden bag unable to stand or take a clear breath, you may ponder the real meaning of love and compassion as the last dried bit of Tuesday's shit stubbornly clings to your searing ass, with no one to roll over or scratch. Where will the significance of America's military might be at that vital moment? Alone, alone, that is your destiny.
It's "off putting" when a moderator of a forum I hold dear refers to others as "the gallery" when their views differ.

A paradox is what's seemingly contradictory yet true. It could be the operative word on several levels in Libya. hippiewannabe , vdubyah73 and a few others seem to get the concept. Others can't seem to grasp the nuance of it beyond trite opposition for the sake of arguing. I didn't vote in the poll. I don't know what the best policy regarding Libya is. hippiewannabe's point is solid. Meaning, if it's purely humanitarian, what about Rwanda? So, it isn't really just humanitarian is it? The E.U. wanted NATO, wanted Obama, to get involved for the E.U.'s self-interests. As I recall, it would be a matter of "days, not weeks" that the U.S. was engaged, "leading from behind" the E.U.. Whatever precipitated the rebellion aside for now, Quadaffy is a dictator, and not a friend of ours; but if Libya and other Mid-East countries want to overthrow their dictators, I'm not sure our involvement is a good thing. It's a tough call. I guess the "humanitarian" label is a nice way to put it regardless. I'm not in the know as to what reasons there are, but to claim there is now a better reason to be involved in Libya, than there was to be involved in Iraq in the first place seems shallow to me - going back to post Desert Storm. Saddam was more of a threat to the region, not to mention Iraqis, than Quadaffy is, to his region, if I'm not mistaken. The only way out I see now, (and again, I'm not in the know) is a land invasion of Libya.

Never mind.

hippiewannabe wrote:Never mind.

Great time to mind ... we need to place in our collective knowledge how things work out. We need to review those who guessed right the first time. Here, some had opposing opinions about what to do with Libya, now we can review and see that we remember the outcome, and how we got there.
I wonder if anyone remembers who said, "the Iraq conflict will pay for itself", or who suggested that the housing market was a big fluffy bubble all the way back in 2006? We forget so quickly both the things that worked and the things that did not.
Colin

Amskeptic wrote:

hippiewannabe wrote:Never mind.

Great time to mind ... we need to place in our collective knowledge how things work out. We need to review those who guessed right the first time.

This is where Ron Paul shines. You can find vid's of him predicting the war and economy stuff going back 15 years.

steve74baywin wrote:

Amskeptic wrote:

hippiewannabe wrote:Never mind.

Great time to mind ... we need to place in our collective knowledge how things work out. We need to review those who guessed right the first time.

This is where Ron Paul shines. You can find vid's of him predicting the war and economy stuff going back 15 years.

Ron Paul is a player, I think Colins suggestion is a citizen observer.
Apples and Bannanas.

My point would be emphasized in thinking, the free market will regulate itself, Quote Ron Paul

The 'free market' is an illusion, a delusion..it doesnt exist and never has....

dingo wrote:The 'free market' is an illusion, a delusion..it doesnt exist and never has....

Not true, we had a free market since the tea party!
Then a bunch of snake oil salesmen screwed it up.