Glenn Beck: 10 Questions Regarding Libya

1)      When we had a vote to authorize military action on Iraq, it was wrong.   But when we don’t have a vote on it?  Or even a real debate on a war in Libya—it’s okay?

2)      Is this purely a war fought on humanitarian grounds?

3)      If no, what are the interests of the United States in Libya?

4)      If our interests are oil, okay…but are you suddenly okay with war for oil?

5)      If humanitarian reasons are enough by themselves, will you promise to never bring up WMD’s in Iraq again?

6)      Do you disagree with this quote:   “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”/ Or is Libya an “imminent threat” to us?  [By the way, that quote was from:  Barack Obama December 20, 2007]  

7)      If things go badly, and Gadhafi holds power for a while, do we escalate things?  Or are we allowing in our war plan for the real possibility of failure?

8)      If the idea is to stop the brutalization of civilians—why not Sudan? Congo? Syria? Fill in awful situation around the world…

9)      Is it okay for Gadhafi to remain in power as the administration has hinted?  And if so, and Gadhafi goes back to killing a few months after we leave—are we going back in?

10)   How does it feel to have elected a president who is now managing 50% more wars than George W. Bush?  A president who has launched a new war with a coalition half the size?

No Fly Enforcement means War in Beck's mind???

How many boots does the USA have on the ground in Libya???

goose a no fly zone is absolutely an act of war.

i think boots on the ground is the big distinction between the 2, but generally speaking there is a big level of hypocrisy here.  at least our ufo seeing, and possible alien love child, kucinich has maintained his same level of anti war sentiment.

So, 100+ tomahawk missiles is just a friendly act of love?

Get real.

You really can't be that fucking stupid can you?

 How many boots on the ground did Japan have when they bombed Pearl Harbor?

as much as i hate to admit it i have to defend goose on this one.  i think the main reason why americans are against getting involved in 'foreign wars' is bc they dont want americans to 'unnecessarily' lose their lives.

shooting missiles hardly puts any american lives at risk and performing bombing missions has a slight risk of a few casualties.

do you really think nam would have had the same backlash if no americans were dying?

now this isnt to excuse the debate on what constitutes war, just a commentary on the extent of it.

War is war. You can't be a little bit pregnant and you can't go to a little bit of war. The reason why poeple are aginst this is because of the loss of life you said, but also, this country is fucking broke. Fuck the Libyans. Let them take care of their own business. Those people didn't like us before, and they will not like us after this. Let them fight each other and sort out their own bullshit. That goes for Iraq and Afghanistan too. Bring the troops home. All of them. I'm sick of spending money on war. I'm sick of helping motherfuckers, who afterward still hate us. Let's mind our own fucking business, get our own house in order. Fuck everyone else.

I wonder if you believe it was a war, if the folks that crashed in the F-15 would have died. 

Are the people on the ships getting hazard duty pay associated with work in a war zone?
my guess is yes.

Now that our War in Afghanistan has turned to using more drones is it any less of a war?

We are intervening in a Civil war, which existed before we got there, we are entering into a civil war.

Warfare is tricky, and labeling something a war is a tricky thing,  Vietnam was never declared a war, and we are still in a war with N. Korea as the cease fire is the only thing that stopped that war. The war was never declared over. 

when we aid rebels against a sovereign nation with an established govt. it is war,  when we drop hundreds of missiles on soldiers and civilians that back the existing govt.  that is war.

100% completely wrong.

performing bombing missions is completely different than an invasion which is completely different than nuking the fuck out of someone.

The only one wrong is you. War is war. Case closed.

 Now go outside and play.

I asked in the other thread but in case you didn't see it...is it your assertion that every military involvement is war.

Does that mean, we have been at war over 100 times since 1973 (a key year on this issue, by the way)?

Beck's questions get to the heart of the matter.  If you support the prez, does it negate your criticism for prior issues.  Does it expose hypocrisy ?

if thats the case, why did ppl get all upset about Abu Ghraib or torture in general or the use of bio weapons?

i dont think anyone, besides you, thinks theres no difference in bombing some air defense systems and dropping a nuke on tripoli

Is "boots on the ground" how you determine we are at war?

If so, I guess Japan never was at war with us ( 12-7-41, Only bombs hit American soil )
ad WE werent at war with Japan until Okinawa and Iwo Jima

America "poilce's" the rest of the world.

We're the royal familys mafia.

The queen pulls the strings...america is the puppet.

Simply a Test Tube America is.

War is War reguardless, they can tell you what their fighting for, but in reality....are they really fighting for what they told you?

8) If the idea is to stop the brutalization of civilians—why not Sudan? Congo? Syria? Fill in awful situation around the world…

a LOT of people, left and right, asking THAT question. so it's OK to go after Kadhafi because he's a murdering asshole, terrorist and all around pain in the ass to the west BUT can't go after the dictators and "kings" that are our allies and trading partners?

damn good question!!!

My guess is that there is one reason and one reason only... With elections coming up in a hurry... and gas prices soaring to record highs on a daily basis... Barack Hussein Obama is feeling the pressure...

150-200 oil wont help re-election i guess.  neither will 17% real unemployment

i had a HS history teacher say, "ppl vote their pocketbooks".  now im not saying she coined it, but i still remember her saying it.

Then why do people support politicians that seek to give tax breaks to the wealthy knowing that they will have to take on more of the burden of those unpaid taxes with their pocket books...

because like me, many folks that make 200 -300 K get hosed a heck of a lot more% wise from those tax hikes than the uber wealthy and in my case the lower tax rates have allowed me to keep 1 extra employee around.

Exactly.  Plenty of incentive to just become nothing.  What is the point of paying for a 4 year undergraduate degree followed by medical school if you pay 40% tax?  You start out $300,000 in the hole... have to buy a car, house, bills, family... and the next thing you know you are back to even 15 years down the road.

Who would want to be in the higher tax bracket when they could work half as hard and pay half the taxes and essentially be earning the same thing.

it was 150K in debt.  state schools and i always worked. 

The answers are simple. No business pays 40% or even close because the tax breaks offered to 'S' and "C' corps are so vast.

Additionally, individual tax shelters are so replete that as long as one is earning less than one million, it is nearly impossible not to reduce ones income for tax purposes (and that is merely on credits. We haven't even broached reductions.

Anyone that suggests that taxes are preventing additional hiring or lack thereof is allowing for the same is bootstrapping the age old argument against taxes. Every employee creates an immense deduction.