Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Libyan No-Fly ZoneFollow

#202varusword75, Posted: Mar 23 2011 at 10:06 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Locked,
#203 Mar 23 2011 at 10:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
And yes I get that you have to laugh at what your opposition is saying so as not to have to face the reality of what they're saying.

Or laugh at it because it's not reality. You know, whichever.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#204varusword75, Posted: Mar 23 2011 at 10:21 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Joph,
#205 Mar 23 2011 at 10:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
Because Obama didn't really take a vacation to Brazil while ordering tomahawk missles fired into libya.

That's correct. He had a scheduled executive trip to several S. American nations which was planned well in advance. Is that the "reality" you talk about avoiding?

Quote:
Because Obama hasn't support drilling for south american companies while blocking US ones.

If no new permits were being issued, you might have a point. Might. Maybe.

Quote:
Because Obama hasn't lost the support of Egypt. Because Obama's so-called libya coalition isn't falling apart.

Germany was never part of the coalition. Italy is wanting NATO to take the command role although that seems somewhat unwise given that several NATO nations didn't want to be part of it to begin with. Although you now have Germany saying it will take on an expanded role in Afghanistan to free up US planes for Libya. Turkey was opposed to a NATO effort but is now saying it will send warships and submarines for a NATO-led arms embargo. Qatar is sending fighters. Jordan and Kuwait are sending support/aid aircraft. Egypt is offering bases. God only knows what the UAE is up to (fighters, no fighters, Crete saying they got word from UAE to expect fighters for refueling, etc) although they're more hung up about US/UK response to Bahrain than actually opposed to Libya.

More complicated than your sound bites, huh? The real world can be hard :(

Edited, Mar 23rd 2011 11:54am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#206 Mar 23 2011 at 11:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,071 posts
Jophiel wrote:
We're two or three weeks into Lent. I'm pretty sure Carnival is long over.

As for "Odyssey Dawn", according to the Al Jazeera live blog:
AJ wrote:
More on those operation names. US African Command says "Operation: Odyssey Dawn" has no meaning whatsoever.

Wired magazine reports that the people in charge of naming operations were given a limited option of words to choose from:

“These words begin between the letters JF-JZ, NS-NZ and OA-OF, and those three groups give about 60 some odd words,” explains Africom spokesman Eric Elliott. “So, the folks who were responsible for naming this went through and they had done recent activities with NS and they went to O.”

Using the O series of letters, Africom officials picked out “Odyssey” for the first word. The second word is picked “as random as possible because that’s the goal of these operational names,” says Elliot. Africom pulled out “Dawn” for its second word and the resulting combination, “Odyssey Dawn,” is devoid of any intended meaning, Elliott insists.


Edited, Mar 23rd 2011 10:45am by Jophiel


They really should have gone with Operation Odyssey, Space.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#207 Mar 23 2011 at 11:16 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
We're two or three weeks into Lent. I'm pretty sure Carnival is long over.

As for "Odyssey Dawn", according to the Al Jazeera live blog:
AJ wrote:
More on those operation names. US African Command says "Operation: Odyssey Dawn" has no meaning whatsoever.

Wired magazine reports that the people in charge of naming operations were given a limited option of words to choose from:

“These words begin between the letters JF-JZ, NS-NZ and OA-OF, and those three groups give about 60 some odd words,” explains Africom spokesman Eric Elliott. “So, the folks who were responsible for naming this went through and they had done recent activities with NS and they went to O.”

Using the O series of letters, Africom officials picked out “Odyssey” for the first word. The second word is picked “as random as possible because that’s the goal of these operational names,” says Elliot. Africom pulled out “Dawn” for its second word and the resulting combination, “Odyssey Dawn,” is devoid of any intended meaning, Elliott insists.


Edited, Mar 23rd 2011 10:45am by Jophiel


They really should have gone with Operation Odyssey, Space.


I think we should save that one for a special occasion.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#208varusword75, Posted: Mar 23 2011 at 1:44 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#209 Mar 23 2011 at 2:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
So you're pretending this wasn't a vacation...lol right.

Really? That's all you can muster? Might as well just say "You were right".

Quote:
And he just gave brazil 2 BILLION to further their capacity to increase their oil production.

Which is... what? 1/25th of what we give in US oil & gas subsidies? Well, maybe if I TYPE REAL BIG, it'll seem scarier without meaning anything.

Quote:
if you apply the same standards you applied to W.

You'd save a lot of time if you just wrote "My **** is still bleeding on account of you scary liberals from 2001-2009" as every post you made.

Edited, Mar 23rd 2011 3:18pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#210varusword75, Posted: Mar 23 2011 at 2:41 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#211 Mar 23 2011 at 2:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
Well that's 2 billion less for US oil companies.

That's fine. It should be 25x that less for US oil companies. They don't need the subsidies anyway.

Quote:
But then again considering he hasn't lifted the ban on drilling...

You only lose credibility (ha!) that way.

Quote:
So what you're saying is Obama acted unilaterally...

No, but then I never said Bush acted unilaterally either.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#212 Mar 23 2011 at 2:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Jophiel wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Well that's 2 billion less for US oil companies.

That's fine. It should be 25x that less for US oil companies. They don't need the subsidies anyway.


Fine. Remove the subsidies *and* the restrictive regulation and we'll call it even.

You get that those subsidies primarily exist as a means to control and limit the industry, right? It's not necessarily true to say that since we gave X dollars to an industry that this means that the government is encouraging more expansion of that industry. And in the case of oil and gas, it's quite apparently the opposite.

Honestly not sure what this has to do with the CF going on in Libya, but whatever. :)
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#213 Mar 23 2011 at 3:04 PM Rating: Default
****
4,158 posts
You could all make an effort to use a lot less energy in the first place. Then you wouldn't need to spend so much time and effort looking for new sources.


Just a thought........
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#214 Mar 23 2011 at 3:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Fine. Remove the subsidies *and* the restrictive regulation and we'll call it even.

Sorry, I weigh "Don't drill for oil in Roosevelt's head" higher than "Here's a bag of cash, feel free to give Inhofe giant contributions this season!"

Quote:
You get that those subsidies primarily exist as a means to control and limit the industry, right?

I'm happy sticking with regulation to control and limit, but thanks :)

Quote:
Honestly not sure what this has to do with the CF going on in Libya, but whatever. :)

Rush was whining about Obama in Brazil and Varus had to come here and start yipping about it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#215 Mar 23 2011 at 3:17 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
paulsol wrote:
You could all make an effort to use a lot less energy in the first place. Then you wouldn't need to spend so much time and effort looking for new sources.


Just a thought........


You forgot to /soapbox. Careful, or you'll get stuck in a preachy, sanctimonious loop.

Edited, Mar 23rd 2011 5:18pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#216varusword75, Posted: Mar 23 2011 at 3:20 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#217 Mar 23 2011 at 3:21 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Fine. Remove the subsidies *and* the restrictive regulation and we'll call it even.

Sorry, I weigh "Don't drill for oil in Roosevelt's head" higher than "Here's a bag of cash, feel free to give Inhofe giant contributions this season!"


Except it's more like "Oh. you found oil in that field? Well you can't drill there because it's a um... protected area! Yeah... That's the ticket. Um... There's got to be some rare animal or topography on that land which means you can't drill there. But here's some money so you can look in these other areas, but you have to let us know if you find anything there too. Good luck!".

That's basically how oil and gas subsidies work right now. Maybe exaggerated slightly, but not too far off the mark.

Quote:
Quote:
You get that those subsidies primarily exist as a means to control and limit the industry, right?

I'm happy sticking with regulation to control and limit, but thanks :)


Sure. So let's not pretend that since the government spends X amount on oil and gas subsidies that this actually means that they're helping those industries expand their operations and to produce more oil and gas, ok?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#218varusword75, Posted: Mar 23 2011 at 3:22 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#219 Mar 23 2011 at 3:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
That's basically how oil and gas subsidies work right now.

Except for when it's not.
CTJ.org wrote:
Oil and gas companies are allowed to write off many of their capital costs immediately, and many can take deductions for so-called "percentage depletion"--which has no connection with actual expenses. The purpose of these tax subsidies is to encourage domestic oil and gas production--and apparently consumption.

Having provided these subsidies, Congress then has recognized that it is not in the national interest to encourage oil and gas consumption. But rather than repealing the oil and gas tax breaks, it has instead provided additional, conflicting subsidies for alternative fuels and conservation. To make matters even more confusing, one of the largest alternative fuel subsidies is for gasohol, which some argue may use almost as much fuel to produce as it ostensibly saves. In total, the conflicting tax breaks for oil, gas and energy are expected to cost $21 billion over the next seven years.

That's only for the tax break portion of the hand-outs. Surely rather than giving money to encourage production followed by giving money to discourage production we can just give out zero tax breaks at all and call it a day?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#220 Mar 23 2011 at 4:36 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Hopefully not only will this avoid making America seem like the big bad interloper in other nations' affairs, but will also send a message to the developing world that the developed world at large won't stand for these injustices. It'd be nice if the perception goes from US= bully, to developed nations= better keep your sh*t straight.
It's still the West @#%^ing with the rest of the world. That's all the ME will see.


As long as it's "the West" and not specifically America, I call that progress.

LockeColeMA wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
3 pages later and not to many Dems jumping to defend Obama's current foreign policy blunder.



I'm still scratching my head at how you can be against Obama taking military action in Libya. Like Iraq, Libya's got oil. Like Iraq, they have a dictator. Unlike Iraq, the UN actually supports taking military action. Unlike Iraq, the people rose up before we started fighting there. Unlike Iraq, we hopefully won't see any casualties nor a dragged-out war.

It's pretty much all good and no bad. We act as the world police, are seen as heroes, and get to fire off some explosives costing tax-payers millions of dollars. Might even get a good oil deal out of it. From a Republican POV, it's pretty much the perfect fight.


Only if a Republican does it, unfortunately ;/ Hasn't the GOP made it pretty clear that Obama can do no good?

paulsol wrote:
You could all make an effort to use a lot less energy in the first place. Then you wouldn't need to spend so much time and effort looking for new sources.


Just a thought........


Well, we've been trying since 07 to ban incandescent light bulbs, but the GOP won't stop fighting about it.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#221 Mar 23 2011 at 5:35 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
That's basically how oil and gas subsidies work right now.

Except for when it's not.
CTJ.org wrote:
Oil and gas companies are allowed to write off many of their capital costs immediately, and many can take deductions for so-called "percentage depletion"--which has no connection with actual expenses. The purpose of these tax subsidies is to encourage domestic oil and gas production--and apparently consumption.

Having provided these subsidies, Congress then has recognized that it is not in the national interest to encourage oil and gas consumption. But rather than repealing the oil and gas tax breaks, it has instead provided additional, conflicting subsidies for alternative fuels and conservation. To make matters even more confusing, one of the largest alternative fuel subsidies is for gasohol, which some argue may use almost as much fuel to produce as it ostensibly saves. In total, the conflicting tax breaks for oil, gas and energy are expected to cost $21 billion over the next seven years.

That's only for the tax break portion of the hand-outs. Surely rather than giving money to encourage production followed by giving money to discourage production we can just give out zero tax breaks at all and call it a day?


First off, a "tax break" isn't the same as a subsidy. The tax breaks are industry wide and can certainly be said to encourage growth. But the subsidies, as you just quoted, are provided for "conflicting" purposes, which often have the effect of effectively wasting a **** of a lot of money in those industries on things which aren't as productive.

We really don't spend subsidies paying oil companies to drill for more oil. We spend that subsidy money encouraging oil companies to do things *other* than drilling for more oil.


Combine that with increased regulation and red tape related to oil exploration and heaven forbid actually starting up a new production area, and the net effect of government action does tend to have the effect of discouraging domestic oil production. At the end of the day, the proof is in the result. If our government was acting to make domestic oil production as cheap and easy as possible, then why do we do so little of it? Clearly, just pointing at the dollar amount of subsidies and tax breaks isn't telling even close to the whole picture. Thus, those things aren't a valid counter to the argument that domestic drilling is being discouraged.

It *should* be less expensive to drill and produce oil products locally than to buy it by the barrel from other parts of the world and ship it here. Yet in many cases, it isn't. That can only occur because some combination of government actions are making it less cost effective to produce locally instead of just buying from foreign markets. Feebly pointing at this subsidy or that tax break doesn't change the factual reality one bit.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#222 Mar 23 2011 at 6:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
But the subsidies, as you just quoted, are provided for "conflicting" purposes, which often have the effect of effectively wasting a **** of a lot of money in those industries on things which aren't as productive.

Excellent. No more breaks for production and no more breaks to slow production. Cut them out and money saved!

Quote:
We really don't spend subsidies paying oil companies to drill for more oil.

Oil and gas companies are allowed to write off many of their capital costs immediately, and many can take deductions for so-called "percentage depletion"--which has no connection with actual expenses. The purpose of these tax subsidies is to encourage domestic oil and gas production

You'll have to excuse me if I don't just take your usual blather at face value since you're so often wrong about so many things. By all means, show me some compelling evidence (note: compelling) and we can talk. Until then, not really interested in your ideologically driven apologies for the money we waste on the oil & gas industry.

Edit: Just for some additional reading, here's eleven gas/oil subsidies Obama wants to eliminate. That's not all of the gas/oil subsidies, just a select group. Your notion that...
You previously wrote:
Except it's more like "Oh. you found oil in that field? Well you can't drill there because it's a um... protected area! Yeah... That's the ticket. Um... There's got to be some rare animal or topography on that land which means you can't drill there. But here's some money so you can look in these other areas, but you have to let us know if you find anything there too. Good luck!".

That's basically how oil and gas subsidies work right now
...is more accurately expressed as...
ACP wrote:
6. Geological and geophysical expenditures. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created this tax subsidy, which allows companies to deduct the costs associated with searching for oil, recovering the costs over a two-year period. The administration expects that scaling back the amortization period to seven years would produce budget savings of about $1.1 billion over 10 years.

The actual cost per year for the subsidy is around $220mil per year according to The Friends of the Earth report who I doubt is making the numbers look smaller than they should be.

So out of $41 billion a year in gas/oil subsidies, something like 0.5% of it is in subsidies for the additional exploration you claim is "how oil and gas subsidies work right now". Heck, let's say they were way off and call it an even 1%. Yay.

Corrected numbers and sources

Edited, Mar 23rd 2011 8:21pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#223 Mar 23 2011 at 8:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Um... Joph? You do understand that when you provide very little money subsidizing actual exploration, much less drilling for oil, and tons of subsidies for generating "alternatives", the net effect is to discourage the exploration and drilling and to encourage them to do other things, right?


Let me give you a simple example: Let's say your company could produce donuts, or bagels. The government gives you a $1/bagel subsidy to make bagels, and a 10c/donut subsidy to make donuts. Which of those two things is your company going to focus its efforts on? Now, add to this regulations which make it incredibly expensive to buy a donut making machine, or to acquire donut making ingredients, how much fewer donuts are you going to make compared to bagels? Now, add in the fact that there are foreign donut makers from whom you can simply buy donuts and sell them for a profit. It's not hard to see that the collective effect of all of those things will dramatically reduce the number of donuts produced domestically.

That's what we're doing with our oil industry. That's why we don't produce much oil in this country, and haven't expanded oil production pretty much at all for a couple decades. At the risk of repeating myself, the proof is in the result. If all those government subsidies and tax breaks were so incredibly valuable compared to the cost of domestic drilling, we'd see a lot more domestic oil production. But we don't, do we?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#224 Mar 23 2011 at 8:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Oh. And just like the whole "we'll refund your nuclear power license" doesn't automatically result in more nuclear power plants being built, subsidizing the act of "looking for oil" doesn't automatically result in more oil actually being drilled. I freely acknowledge that the government pays oil companies to explore for oil. But then it makes the cost of drilling for oil in the locations it finds it so prohibitive that we rarely if ever take advantage of the oil we found.


That's what I was talking about with my earlier quote. It's not the subsidies which block the oil drilling, but a host of other environmentalist driven regulations which do. You want to only look at the tax breaks and subsidies, but that's only half of the picture.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#225 Mar 23 2011 at 8:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Um... Joph? You do understand that...

...you didn't have anything to back up your blather?

Yup, I noticed right away. Stopped reading right about then as well. Although I did get far enough to actually laugh out loud at the fact that you've suddenly shifted gears from "All that subsidy money is for exploration because they won't let them dig! That's what the subsidies REALLY are! You DO know this... right??" to "See?! They won't give them ANY money for exploration because they hate oil!! You DID know this... right??"

'Cause apparently it was news to you :D

Edited, Mar 23rd 2011 9:40pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#226varusword75, Posted: Mar 24 2011 at 9:31 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#227 Mar 24 2011 at 10:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
As opposed to you actually linking "friends of the earth" as though it were a credible source.

It's a credible source for an upper floor. I doubt that Friends of the Earth is understating the subsidies since that would go counter to their efforts to stop subsidizing oil companies. They might be overstating it but that would only strengthen my point that Gbaji is an idiot who has no idea where this money is going and therefore claims that "Oil subsidies are really money given for exploration since we won't let them dig!"

Either way, it's win-win for me. Their numbers sound reasonable though set against the potential savings for amortizing the payments further. If we were giving away $20bil in exploration subsidies, you'd see a **** of a lot larger savings for stretching the amortization to seven years than one billion dollars over a decade.

Not that any of this matters anyway since you're just making your usual pouty noises rather than trying to enrich your understanding. No big worries.

Edited, Mar 24th 2011 11:29am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#228varusword75, Posted: Mar 24 2011 at 11:22 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#229 Mar 24 2011 at 11:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
'Grats on parroting Rush from ten minutes ago?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#230varusword75, Posted: Mar 24 2011 at 12:08 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#231 Mar 24 2011 at 12:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Is that all I had to say? Because I thought it was more fun to notice that as soon as your masters give you your talking points, you rush over here to start reciting them.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#232varusword75, Posted: Mar 24 2011 at 12:44 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#233 Mar 24 2011 at 12:47 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,512 posts
I can tell you it isn't a real military term. I sure as **** have never heard it in my ten years.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#234varusword75, Posted: Mar 24 2011 at 12:53 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) lolgax,
#235 Mar 24 2011 at 12:55 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
varusword75 wrote:
What is a kinetic military action?


Sounds like the tagline for a G.I. Joe. Like karate-chop-action, y'know?


Buy Cobra Commander! Now with realistic kinetic military action!
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#236varusword75, Posted: Mar 24 2011 at 12:59 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#237 Mar 24 2011 at 1:05 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,512 posts
Why exactly are you hung up on a buzz phrase that doesn't have any place in reality?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#238 Mar 24 2011 at 1:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
What is a kinetic military action?

Whatever they want it to mean. Was I supposed to be worried? It's like "Police action" or "War on Terror" -- a pretty meaningless phrase used to define whatever you need it for.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#239 Mar 24 2011 at 1:21 PM Rating: Decent
****
6,470 posts
Jophiel wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
What is a kinetic military action?

Whatever they want it to mean. Was I supposed to be worried? It's like "Police action" or "War on Terror" -- a pretty meaningless phrase used to define whatever you need it for.


Oh, so it's like "rape" to gbaji.

Edited, Mar 24th 2011 3:22pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#240 Mar 24 2011 at 1:23 PM Rating: Decent
****
5,684 posts
Has gbaji ever enacted a kinetic military action?
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#241 Mar 24 2011 at 1:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Apparently the last administration defined Iraq and Afghanistan as a "Use of Force". According to international humanitarian law, what's happening in Libya is an "armed conflict". Both of those are per Politico.

Also from Politico:
Politico wrote:
As for the semantic argument: The Obama administration is borrowing words from its predecessor in the White House when it talks of "kinetic military action." Bush’s team used that construction in advance of the Iraq War, according to Bob Woodward and others.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#242 Mar 24 2011 at 1:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Bardalicious wrote:
Has gbaji ever enacted a kinetic military action?


Edit to Avoid Triple Post -- Turkey (after blocking the effort) has now decided to allow NATO to take operational command of the kinetic police military war action on terror by force in Libya. Command should be shifted within the next few days.


Edited, Mar 24th 2011 2:48pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#243varusword75, Posted: Mar 24 2011 at 1:49 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#244varusword75, Posted: Mar 24 2011 at 1:52 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) lolgaxe,
#245 Mar 24 2011 at 1:53 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,512 posts
So you admit Bush lied?

Not sure what that has to do with your persistence on a buzz phrase that has no meaning, but eh.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#246varusword75, Posted: Mar 24 2011 at 1:55 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) lolgax,
#247 Mar 24 2011 at 1:56 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,512 posts
Ahh, okay. I see. You were actually admitting "kinetic military action" has no meaning.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#248 Mar 24 2011 at 2:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
Still waiting on that definition from your master barry I see.

What definition? I already said there isn't one. It's another meaningless phrase in a long history of meaningless phrases to avoid having to get Congress to formally declare war.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#249varusword75, Posted: Mar 24 2011 at 2:20 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) lolgax,
#250varusword75, Posted: Mar 24 2011 at 2:21 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#251 Mar 24 2011 at 2:27 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,512 posts
varusword75 wrote:
I knew that...I was just trying to get you and jophed to realize it as well.
It was the first thing I said in this thread, Skippy. You going to try to convince me I have two arms next?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 41 All times are in CST
angrymnk, Demea, Kavekkk, Samira, stupidmonkey, Anonymous Guests (36)