French jets protecting Libyan rebels

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Genocide is generally applied to the systematic destruction/killing of a certain group of people, Gadhafi has repeated said he will show no mercy to those who oppose his rule. There is evidence that his goon squads have fired into groups of civilians and this would surely be a slaughter were they to gain control of areas of Libya under control of rebels. Also, to be clear, this started as a peaceful movement on the part of Libyan citizens seeking basic human rights, it was Gadhafi who initiated the violence, those referred to as "rebels" are mostly innocent civilians forced to defend themselves, most are not trained in even the use of firearms etc. They are not "rebels" as we often think of them.

I don't know if they are as clueless as you think they are. They do have anti-aircraft guns. Not too many people have them hooked up on the old pickup incase a crazy dictator decided to bomb your hometown. I have no idea what has been happening in Libya before the uprisings. It appears that there was some organizing forces that wanted Gadhafi out and was actively working towards that which is probably why the reaction has been so harsh. Didn't they have a plane shot down the other day?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

What does qualify for international support? I don't think the US needs to be in the business of nation building and there is really no justification for US intervention.

So we should let England and France have all the fun?

This is a golden opportunity to get rid of a despot which the leaders of the free world have decided to take. I guess I could use the Riot tactic on you...

You obviously support Gaddafi. How can you support a brutal, oppressive dictator that not only sponsors terrorism but kills his own people?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Many of us care deeply about the horrors in places like the Sudan and throughout Africa, the US has spoken out against these crimes but without support from the rest of the world, any attempts by us to stop them is seen as aggression. It is confusing when on the one hand people are critical of the President for taking part in this UN resolution and at the same time are critical of the US failure to act in other places...it seems only fair to ask, do you want us to get involved everywhere, nowhere or what??

A difference between the Sudan and Libya is that one has a fairly modern army/air force, the other is killing people with machetes. No fly zones dont work well when there are no planes to ground.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I don't know if they are as clueless as you think they are. They do have anti-aircraft guns. Not too many people have them hooked up on the old pickup incase a crazy dictator decided to bomb your hometown. I have no idea what has been happening in Libya before the uprisings. It appears that there was some organizing forces that wanted Gadhafi out and was actively working towards that which is probably why the reaction has been so harsh. Didn't they have a plane shot down the other day?

OK, I cannot speak to exactly what they have or don't have or how long the discontent has been growing. My point is there is ample evidence that Gadhafi was planning on exacting violent revenge on his civilian population. His planes bombed towns and cities without regard for the civilian population, I'm not sure that any anti-aircraft weapons weren't confiscated from his forces. It is reported that the "rebels" had one aircraft that was shot down but the details of that are rather unclear at present.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

A difference between the Sudan and Libya is that one has a fairly modern army/air force, the other is killing people with machetes. No fly zones dont work well when there are no planes to ground.

This is true, to intervene in the Sudan would take "boots on the ground" and that's a whole other can of worms.

[Danzig]

i like explosions and almost wish i'd gone into that type of career, but to what end are we engaged in libya? what's the aim, what's the point? what are we trying to accomplish with this action? i'm no fan of qaddafi, and don't care if he shuffles off this mortal coil tomorrow. but i'm not sure exactly what we're trying to do, or who we're trying to aid.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i like explosions and almost wish i'd gone into that type of career, but to what end are we engaged in libya? what's the aim, what's the point? what are we trying to accomplish with this action? i'm no fan of qaddafi, and don't care if he shuffles off this mortal coil tomorrow. but i'm not sure exactly what we're trying to do, or who we're trying to aid.

the prevailing theory is that we're saving his people from him! Rumors of WMDs used against his own people are starting to hit the airwaves.....and he's nutty enuf to go up in a ball of flames at the end anyway!

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

the prevailing theory is that we're saving his people from him! Rumors of WMDs used against his own people are starting to hit the airwaves.....and he's nutty enuf to go up in a ball of flames at the end anyway!

I don't know why, but that sounds vaguely familiar...

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I don't know why, but that sounds vaguely familiar...

the Arab papers are saying it not Americans....smartass!

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

the Arab papers are saying it not Americans....smartass!

my local paper suggests his droopy melting wax face and dangerous facial hair were about to be used against his people.

i admit i just phoned this one in.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i like explosions and almost wish i'd gone into that type of career, but to what end are we engaged in libya? what's the aim, what's the point? what are we trying to accomplish with this action? i'm no fan of qaddafi, and don't care if he shuffles off this mortal coil tomorrow. but i'm not sure exactly what we're trying to do, or who we're trying to aid.

well, we have this crazy ruthless dictator who has repeatedly threatened to kill thousands (or more) of his own people and has unleashed his military on them, we have the power to neutralize his military's ability to carry out this genocide. What ultimately happens to him and what course his nation eventually takes is not our immediate concern.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

well, we have this crazy ruthless dictator who has repeatedly threatened to kill thousands (or more) of his own people and has unleashed his military on them, we have the power to neutralize his military's ability to carry out this genocide. What ultimately happens to him and what course his nation eventually takes is not our immediate concern.

i don't know why but this sounds vaguely familiar.

[jms62]

Obama needs to focus on the Genocide going on in his own country. Genocide against the middle class.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

Obama needs to focus on the Genocide going on in his own country. Genocide against the taxpayer.

Fixed that for you.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Fixed that for you.

No need to fix it joey but if that is what you gather from the sound bite on the conservative radio station you listen to for 5 minutes a day than it's cool.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...l-since-truman

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

No need to fix it joey but if that is what you gather from the sound bite on the conservative radio station you listen to for 5 minutes a day than it's cool.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...l-since-truman

Keep in mind that state and local taxes have exploded, so the overall burden on the taxpayer has actually gone up.

In addition, a statistic often cited is that 47% of individuals filling out a tax return do not pay a net tax, (i.e. people getting a "refund" that exceeds their withheld tax over the year). Therefore, a distinction needs to be made between taxpayers and tax return filers.

Those of us in the other 53%, getting taxed to death, are the suckers.

Also throw in the record deficits ($1.6 trillion per year) and debt ($14 trillion and counting), both of which must ultimately be paid by those same suckers, and you get an idea of how the taxpayer is the new permanent underclass and how the recipient class is the new nobility. We, the people who pay the bills, work for them. The government, the social program recipients (welfare, social security, SSI, etc) all get paid first, due to the withholding mechanism, and the "net" pay, ours, is the last to be paid. And according to every crying liberal, their confiscated share of our gross income is never enough and never will be.

[joeydb]

In the interest of being fair, here's one place (of many) where that 47% is cited.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly....html?x=0&.v=1

The associated press, not exactly a right wing source, is where the article comes from.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Keep in mind that state and local taxes have exploded, so the overall burden on the taxpayer has actually gone up.

In addition, a statistic often cited is that 47% of individuals filling out a tax return do not pay a net tax, (i.e. people getting a "refund" that exceeds their withheld tax over the year). Therefore, a distinction needs to be made between taxpayers and tax return filers.

Those of us in the other 53%, getting taxed to death, are the suckers.

Also throw in the record deficits ($1.6 trillion per year) and debt ($14 trillion and counting), both of which must ultimately be paid by those same suckers, and you get an idea of how the taxpayer is the new permanent underclass and how the recipient class is the new nobility. We, the people who pay the bills, work for them. The government, the social program recipients (welfare, social security, SSI, etc) all get paid first, due to the withholding mechanism, and the "net" pay, ours, is the last to be paid. And according to every crying liberal, their confiscated share of our gross income is never enough and never will be.

Funny you mention local taxes as mine went up 8 consecutive years under GWB. Funny how the tax cut shell game works. Fed taxes are cut so States dont get enough dough so they cant give it to the local towns and the local towns come to us. Joey, from the tone of your original post it made me feel like you are specifically blaming Obama for the current tax situation and the link I provided clearly pointed out that wasn't true. What you are talking about now is something different and has been in place and yes it sucks. Now you realize that in the early 80's Social Security was fixed and had a surplus of cash.. It's broke now because every thieving president from Regan on borrowed from the pool. Now we are left with a bunch of IOU's. Liberate yourself and be like me. Republicans and Democrats, Teabaggers and any other party are ****ing theives that have been bought by special interests. They only are looking out for themselves period. I hate all equally.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

Funny you mention local taxes as mine went up 8 consecutive years under GWB. Funny how the tax cut shell game works. Fed taxes are cut so States dont get enough dough so they cant give it to the local towns and the local towns come to us. Joey, from the tone of your original post it made me feel like you are specifically blaming Obama for the current tax situation and the link I provided clearly pointed out that wasn't true. What you are talking about now is something different and has been in place and yes it sucks. Now you realize that in the early 80's Social Security was fixed and had a surplus of cash.. It's broke now because every thieving president from Regan on borrowed from the pool. Now we are left with a bunch of IOU's. Liberate yourself and be like me. Republicans and Democrats, Teabaggers and any other party are ****ing theives that have been bought by special interests. They only are looking out for themselves period. I hate all equally.

Not trying to split hairs, but I actually did not blame Obama for the current state of affairs, which we both agree sucks. But I do think that he should put his energy toward improving the life of the taxpayers (by reducing rates and/or simplifying the tax code).

The Republicans are absolutely culpable also. In fact, the budget was balanced only twice in the last 100 years right? 1969 under Nixon and 1996? under Clinton. That leaves 98 years of accumulating deficits. The problem is systemic. Congress doesn't stop spending until they surpass the revenue brought in. Far from a concern, that's the goal. And most presidents sign those budgets into law.

I wouldn't. I'd tell them to send me a budget that spends LESS than the revenue brought in, with the remainder going to paying down the debt. That, as I said in other posts on other occasions, should not be a controversial stand to take.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Keep in mind that state and local taxes have exploded, so the overall burden on the taxpayer has actually gone up.

In addition, a statistic often cited is that 47% of individuals filling out a tax return do not pay a net tax, (i.e. people getting a "refund" that exceeds their withheld tax over the year). Therefore, a distinction needs to be made between taxpayers and tax return filers.

Those of us in the other 53%, getting taxed to death, are the suckers.

Also throw in the record deficits ($1.6 trillion per year) and debt ($14 trillion and counting), both of which must ultimately be paid by those same suckers, and you get an idea of how the taxpayer is the new permanent underclass and how the recipient class is the new nobility. We, the people who pay the bills, work for them. The government, the social program recipients (welfare, social security, SSI, etc) all get paid first, due to the withholding mechanism, and the "net" pay, ours, is the last to be paid. And according to every crying liberal, their confiscated share of our gross income is never enough and never will be

Joey, if you believe all of the above, then why in the world do you come on here supporting the very people that do that? Look back over the past 60 years. Stop listening to what politicos say, and watch what they do.

And no, there is no "recipient class" that's a new nobility. That's absurd (it goes back to Reagan's "cadillac welfare queen" lie) How can you make any cogent argument that is true? A seventy-year-old on social security and medicare barely staying alive? Choosing between buying food and paying their drug copay? A bare existence?

Half the wealth of this country is owned by 400 people. That is new. That is what has changed over the past 60 years. This country is wealthier than ever. Where is that money? Who has it? That is your "new nobility".

And some of those folks have just made kindergarten teachers out to be wealthy freeloaders living off the public and stealing your money. That's a good distraction, that story, something to get you riled and angry about, while behind your back they give themselves another tax cut and cut our revenue even further, while they scream the kindergarten teachers are the cause of making us go broke, and those teachers and starving 70-year-olds have to make up that deficit and stop stealing from us all!

I'd look closely at those "facts".

I wouldn't. I'd tell them to send me a budget that spends LESS than the revenue brought in, with the remainder going to paying down the debt. That, as I said in other posts on other occasions, should not be a controversial stand to take.

But it gets to the point when your revenue goes down, that you can cut expenses all you want, but now you are cutting into your food and shelter. You can't cut your way to financial health when your income is too small. Our revenues have been slashed in the past 15 -40 years. We need that revenue back.

So think, and look: where, in the past 60 years, has that revenue gone? Who has the money? Why, as our countries population and wealth has grown, has our revenue gone down, and our debt gone up? We should be rolling in money without having changed a thing over the years - we have millions more taxpayers and billions more in corporate wealth. Hint: it wasn't to the poor in government programs, nor to the middle class in tax cuts.