US Intervenes in Libya
 

Obama said we won't be dropping ground troops, hopefully this will be quick and forces Gaddafi to step down.

Airstrikes begin on Libya targets - Africa - Al Jazeera English

Regardless if we say now we aren't dropping ground troops, why not let someone else handle it. We are in an awful economic state, but yet everyone expects our help. Why not help your people instead of running around playing fucking hero anytime there is unrest somewhere. Afgahnstan was one thing, but Iraq and then this, we are becoming the bully that everyone says we are. My personal opinion.

I don't think you realize how baller we are Shaw. We are still the worlds only superpower.

Super power that's dollar continues to lower, but yet we still put ourselves in position to spend as much money as we can. Why not focus on troubles here, so we can stay a super power? I'm asking this to try and find out facts, not just bull shit news coverage, or ridiculous opinions that Blonde will hit me with.

I understand this sentiment to a degree, the last fucking thing we need as a country is another ground war, and that's why i'm hoping this intervention will be almost entirely fought by air and very short-lived. But Gaddafi is crazy and has been massacring (sp?) his own people for a while now. I think it is the right move.

The economic problems in America are caused by our own government, our tax laws to be more specific. No amount of spending or saving will correct our problems. The trouble will continue until our government realizes that we are in a globally competitive market for everything. This includes goods, labor, and business investment. The government must create an environment that encourages businesses to invest within our country. Instead of squeezing every penny it can get from corporations, the government must nurture them.

In short, this will have no impact on any problems we have here other than pissing some people off. I say we invade some more countries while we're at it.

I'm curious to what the reaction will be in the U.S. Who do you think is most liable to be upset about this? Based on the situation I want to think that Republicans will support it, but they generally hate every decision Obama makes so i'm not sure. You think Liberals will be upset about it? I consider myself pretty liberal but still think it's a decent move.

I imagine that few individuals even knew Libya was a country before today, and even fewer are able to point it out on a map.

I agree with you that most people's reaction will be purely political. Extreme republicans will probably oppose it and extreme democrats will probably support it. I believe most moderates will probably support it. We can't let psychopaths rule countries and commit mass murder.

I'm of the, "I told you so" sentiment. I'm not at all a Bush fan, but I recognize that being the leader of a nation comes with having to make difficult decisions. Obama is having to make some now, and will probably lose some of his fans for it.

Saddam Hussein was a psychopath that killed his own people wasn't he? Regardless of this being the right or wrong move, we're gonna look bad. I think it's a good move though. We made it too late. Damn tsunami distracted us.

Ron Paul changed my mind.

Half or more of U.S. public supports Obama on Libya | Reuters

It seems as if "the American people" are always in favor of military action at the onset, but gradually oppose what they initially supported once they're either bored or realize the costs. I get the feeling these folks find entertainment value in conflict and military action, partly because of how the media portrays them, and partly because of how the majority of Americans are entertainment whores. I'm curious to see how much time passes before another poll indicates the "majority's" dissatisfaction with Obama's decision.

What's the over/under?

5 to 1, in 16 months from now.

I have no idea what I'm talking about.

I'll take under 12.

President's haven't sought congressional approval to wage war for decades.

My main bitch over this is the cost. I also have no problem with cutting funding for planned parenthood. But I'd also cut about 25 billion from the war on drugs. Could save a fuckload by removing civilian contractors from the middle east. Hell, pulling out of the middle east all together seems okay to me.

I agree that corporate taxes are out of whack. Let Ireland fight foreign wars. I'd just as soon save the expense.

I agree with this sentiment, but I think that, while sure, not absolutely necessary, the proactive benefits of organizations like Planned Parenthood are extremely valuable. I mean, the most obvious things that PP does is help prevent unwanted childbirths and helps to lessen/stop the spread of STD's. I'd say for the health of our citizens...current and future -- it's a pretty important thing to fund.

I think the problem is the seemingly faulty prioritization with what we're cutting and what we're not. Defense budget is where drastic cuts need to be made first IMO.

I enjoyed seeing this.

I'm not against planned parenthood by any stretch. If they keep one broke ass nigger from having another kid, I'm cool with that. I've heard they also provide stuff like cancer screening along with the benefits that blonde brought up. I imagine their funding is minisucle. I just hate a debt of 15 trillion dollars more than I like PLanned parenthood.

Agreed. But I would be much more for temporarily (hopefully?) cutting PP's budget as part of a whole package of other areas we're cutting drastically as well, rather than just singling out miniscule budgets like NPR and Planned Parenthood, which are clearly based more on Conservative ideology than actual financial benefit.

If you want to drastically cut spending, you'll need to get rid of medicare and medicade.

W did. He went to house AND senate.