Register

Welcome to the Political Forum - Debate Politics Forum.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Results 1 to 1 of 1
  1. #1
    Forum Owner Heir to the Throne
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,179

    Thumbs up Look who's a Dumbass: It's Dan Larson!

    theweek.com/bullpen/column/215990/the-gop-revolt-on-libya

    Major players in the reliably pro-war Republican Party fiercely oppose America's floundering war against Moammar Gadhafi, signaling a big shift in conservative politics
    ...
    The speaker then sponsored a resolution that allowed Republicans to vent their frustration with the lack of clarity in the U.S./NATO mission in Libya, and the lack of congressional authorization for U.S. military action there. Boehner's resolution passed 268-145, with 223 Republicans voting yes. Unlike Kucinich's resolution, which later failed to pass, Boehner's resolution has no effect on the ongoing war, and it effectively stymied the real effort to end U.S. involvement.
    ...
    Because the Libyan war is a poorly conceived humanitarian intervention in a country of no strategic importance, it has never been likely to win strong Republican backing.


    Dan Larson totally nailed the war in Libya! This guy should be awarded an honorary Ph.d from Harvard's Kennedy International School.

    He characterizes the war as "floundering." Recently a group of 5 defected Libyan generals claimed that 80% of Gaddafi's army has deserted or defected. NATO has said it has damaged or destroyed 1,700 military targets for the loss of 0 troops and 0 confirmed civilian casualties. We have absolutely no chance of winning this war with these kinds of losses being inflicted on us and Gaddafi's unwavering troops. Nailed it!

    He says there's a "lack of clarity" for the war. I cannot understand what "Gaddafi has to go" means. Like go where? Are we telling him to go to the moon? I'm confused. I don't understand what "preventing a massacre" means either. Is that like preventing a mass scare, massacre = mass scare. I don't get it. Help.

    He says Libya has no "strategic importance." He's right, if Gaddafi had been allowed to massacre (whatever that word means) his own people, then that would have DISCOURAGED other despots from killing their people. Anytime one despot gets away with massacre, then that discourages other despots from doing the same. The logic is seamless. Can we get a draft Dan Larson for President petition going?


    WEB
    Last edited by W.E.B. Du Bois; 06-08-2011 at 01:00 AM.
    Read the Forum Rules

    "When I entered Republican politics during an earlier period of malaise, in the late seventies and early eighties, the movement got most of the big questions -- crime, inflation, the Cold War -- right. This time, the party is getting the big questions disastrously wrong."

    "In the aftershock of 2008, large numbers of Americans feel exploited and abused. Rather than workable solutions, my party is offering low taxes for the currently rich and high spending for the currently old, to be followed by who-knows-what and who-the-hell-cares. This isn't conservatism; it's a going-out-of-business sale for the baby-boom generation."


    - David Frum, former speech writer for George W. Bush

    "This is just ridiculous. I never thought as an economist I would have to spend so much time doing political analysis."

    - Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Back to Top