Updated Title: World Revolution 2011

I'd rather we took that Mediterranean coast line than the oil. You could jet ski back and forth to Sicily.

I agree. If we are going to keep having illegal wars for oil like this at least lets get the price for gas down to a $1.

Angry, yes we spent the money for those 100, but by using them, we guarantee having to replace them far before their shelf life expires. (unless we budget buying 100 new tomahawks each year for miscellaneous usage)

Trust me, we have more in stock. We are not going to be firing up the old war machine anytime soon. We are still trying to let it cool off from the last decade. Besides we can just chalk it up to a "Live firing exercise". Hey they needed the training right?

I agree. If we are going to keep having illegal wars for oil like this at least lets get the price for gas down to a $1.

Haha yupp.

I think it's safe to say, as far as the U.S. is concerned, this is not about oil. Again, only about 2%-3% of the world's oil supply comes from Libya. If anything Europe has more strategic concerns over Libya's outcome than America.

As far as the legality of this "war" goes, I have no idea. But for Obama to wait for Congress to get it's act together after waiting weeks for the UN to pass a resolution would have been untenable, in my opinion. My guess is Congress will give Obama a pass as far as the constitutionality of this invasion goes, as long as he can clearly state our goals and mission.

Best case scenerio is for us to 'accidently' take Quadaffy out.

I think it's safe to say, as far as the U.S. is concerned, this is not about oil. Again, only about 2%-3% of the world's oil supply comes from Libya. If anything Europe has more strategic concerns over Libya's outcome than America.

As far as the legality of this "war" goes, I have no idea. But for Obama to wait for Congress to get it's act together after waiting weeks for the UN to pass a resolution would have been untenable, in my opinion. My guess is Congress will give Obama a pass as far as the constitutionality of this invasion goes, as long as he can clearly state our goals and mission.

Best case scenerio is for us to 'accidently' take Quadaffy out.


Seems like we would have a goal and mission before we start dropping bombs. If he was really set on the idea of getting congressional approval then maybe he should have not gone on vacation.


Your probably right that taking him out by accident would be the best thing but then Obama should not have stated that he is not a target. Makes him look like a weak leader when he says he is not a target but we bomb his home.

Man...seems like only yesterday

T5fOq9PYp8A

Seems like we would have a goal and mission before we start dropping bombs. If he was really set on the idea of getting congressional approval then maybe he should have not gone on vacation.


Your probably right that taking him out by accident would be the best thing but then Obama should not have stated that he is not a target. Makes him look like a weak leader when he says he is not a target but we bomb his home.

I won't go there on the vacation thing, because clearly you're just being silly. Or at least I hope so.

The current mission is outlined by the UN resolution to basically demobilize Quaddafi's military capibility and protect the civilians and rebel forces. This is a coalition effort led by France and Great Britian, so the U.S role, as I understand it, is pretty limited in scope right now. President Obama never said that Khadffy was or wasn't a target. His language is and should be consistent with the UN resolution. That's not weak, that's smart.

In the coming days, however, he'll have to brief congressional leaders, as he should, on how long and how much we're committed to the no fly zone and what's the end game. With the exception of a few liberal Dems, no one is questioning the 'why' or whether the president is projecting adequate leadership. Besides, how could a guy that just took out your compound where you live possibly be mistaken for weak? It's silly.

But the real reason I keep weighing in is to see how many different ways I can misspell Gadhafy's name.

To clarify, I think the government is saying he isn't a target but I don't remember those specific words coming from Obama's mouth. And even so, who cares what's being said the dude has a fat bullseye on his back and everyone knows it.

I won't go there on the vacation thing, because clearly you're just being silly. Or at least I hope so.

The current mission is outlined by the UN resolution to basically demobilize Quaddafi's military capibility and protect the civilians and rebel forces. This is a coalition effort led by France and Great Britian, so the U.S role, as I understand it, is pretty limited in scope right now. President Obama never said that Khadffy was or wasn't a target. His language is and should be consistent with the UN resolution. That's not weak, that's smart.

In the coming days, however, he'll have to brief congressional leaders, as he should, on how long and how much we're committed to the no fly zone and what's the end game. With the exception of a few liberal Dems, no one is questioning the 'why' or whether the president is projecting adequate leadership. Besides, how could a guy that just took out your compound where you live possibly be mistaken for weak? It's silly.

But the real reason I keep weighing in is to see how many different ways I can misspell Gadhafy's name.

Yes, I'm just trying to give the left a hard time because we had to hear those things for so long. If you notice I have also avoided trying to spell his name.