Libya offensive

[S&W645]

That be the question of the day. Who's paying NATO for fuel/ordinance for these missions? You know none of these "supporting Countries" have any money. My bets are MaoBama has guaranteed to fund this whole dam thing. Ought to be out of his pocket, not the American People.

Just cutoff his fuel credit card for Air Force 1. That might cut his travel a bit.

[mappow]

Just cutoff his fuel credit card for Air Force 1. That might cut his travel a bit.

Well ya know it ain't his wife spending any money on her cloths. My God.......never seen such butt ugly attire on a First Lady. You know he's no-good if he lets his wife go out like that. Also looks like she used to mold seats for John Deere Tractor. And I though Amy Carter was ugly, WOW!!!

(I'm sure I'll get a warning from Luke, but damm, someone had to say it)

[Grognard Gunny]

Well ya know it ain't his wife spending any money on her cloths. My God.......never seen such butt ugly attire on a First Lady. You know he's no-good if he lets his wife go out like that. Also looks like she used to mold seats for John Deere Tractor. And I though Amy Carter was ugly, WOW!!!

(I'm sure I'll get a warning from Luke, but damm, someone had to say it)

Truth hurts. An unfortunate fact of life from which a whole evolution of Politically Correct speech has sprung. Which, in turn, only serves to obscure the "truth".

Sometimes you simply have to "calls 'em as you sees 'em".

GG

[Grognard Gunny]

As for Libya..... our "excuse" has been forwarded as "saving innocent civilian lives versus an opressive Government". Fine. Weak.... but fine. (Very "noble" sounding.)

Now, just how is it that the US has suddenly found itself a task as "champion" of the innocents in THIS case, when there have been ever so many other "cases" from which we might have offered the same "excuse" to get involved over the past couple of generations? How does that happen? "Selective" use of the "noble" gambit?

Not only that, but the premise is a false one. i.e. Protect civilians from the legitimate armed forces of their own Country. OK. But to do so, requires the destruction of the anti-air capabilities, so we can put our air power in a position to do the protecting in the first place. This serves the purpose of the "rebellion" much more than the avowed purpose of protecting "civilians". (In a civil rebellion, who is so sage and wise as to be able to decide who are the innocents anyway? Apparently our understanding of indiginous humans and their associations has improved much since Viet Nam..... NOT!)

But, this is just another blunder of International Diplomacy we have gotten outselves into over the past decade or so.

I have been a long time believer that there existed other courses of action that would have been more succinct, to the point, and appropriate to punish the actual perpetrators of 9/11 than the lame, inefficient and wasteful approach we DID take. I.e. "Destroy two of our buildings, eh? Well, we'll just invade two of your Countries to get our payback." (Can you hear it? It is the sound of the "Mad Mullahs" laughing in their beards at their success at goading us into knee jerk reactions.)

Now I ask you, does it make sence to swat flies with a large skillet? No. The "collateral damage" is not worth the number of flies destroyed. One uses a fly swatter. Think about it.

GG