U.N. Authorizes Military Strikes on Libya

This isn't really big news to me.

Why don't the media talk about how the republicans funded Obama/Bainercare?

That's news.

Bunch of crap foxnews don't even bring it up.

This is why the reps are really no different than the dems. The reps want Obama/Bainercare.
 
Yurt said:
so you support this military action, but not military action against saddam?

huh?
Click to expand...

The difference is extraordinarily simple, the action has been sanctioned by the UN and is supported by the Arab League. That's why the 1991 intervention against Saddam has never been disputed as well. The 2003 war was illegal under international law and therefore there is no comparison. In addition, there will not be any boots on the ground so it is comparable with the no fly zones operated by the Clinton admin.
 
Yurt said:
seriously, why don't you SFTU and stop you constant petulant whining. its a valid question. but of course you just want to derail yet another thread with your constant hard on for me.

grow the fuck up chachi
Click to expand...

It's hardly surprising that you see no difference between limited airstrikes authorized by the UN, and unilateral invasion & 7-year occupation.

On the day Congress voted on authorization, guys as diverse as Kerry & Armey said they thought that force - if necessary - would be in the form of limited airstrikes.

All the same in Yurtsie-land, though.

Btw, you sound frustrated...

:)
 
tom prendergast said:
The difference is extraordinarily simple, the action has been sanctioned by the UN and is supported by the Arab League. That's why the 1991 intervention against Saddam has never been disputed as well. The 2003 war was illegal under international law and therefore there is no comparison.
Click to expand...

wait a minute, please find me the so called international law that says a country has to have UN approval to remove someone like saddam or declare war. and show me how arab league approval makes it legal.

that is against the US constitution. we broke no laws, international or national. just because you want to subvert your country's independence to the UN or arab league, doesn't mean any other country has to.
 
Onceler said:
It's hardly surprising that you see no difference between limited airstrikes authorized by the UN, and unilateral invasion & 7-year occupation.

On the day Congress voted on authorization, guys as diverse as Kerry & Armey said they thought that force - if necessary - would be in the form of limited airstrikes.
Click to expand...

it doesn't just say airstrikes only...it says military action and other security measures. its hilarious that you feel airstrike military INVASION is ok, but "unilateral" invasion is not. you, like tom, want to subvert our country's constitution to the UN. it doesn't matter what they thought, they believed FORCE, MILITARY force, if needed, was ok. they supported it. they funded it.

i can't believe you guys support one kind of invasion but not the other. thats pure hypocrisy.
 
Yurt said:
seriously, why don't you SFTU and stop you constant petulant whining. its a valid question. but of course you just want to derail yet another thread with your constant hard on for me.

grow the fuck up chachi
Click to expand...
I think he's in love, Yurt....Don't you feel the love...????:palm:
 
Yurt said:
it doesn't just say airstrikes only...it says military action and other security measures. its hilarious that you feel airstrike military INVASION is ok, but "unilateral" invasion is not. you, like tom, want to subvert our country's constitution to the UN. it doesn't matter what they thought, they believed FORCE, MILITARY force, if needed, was ok. they supported it. they funded it.

i can't believe you guys support one kind of invasion but not the other. thats pure hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Evidently you have no time for international law, which is strange coming from a lawyer!!
 
Yurt said:
it doesn't just say airstrikes only...it says military action and other security measures. its hilarious that you feel airstrike military INVASION is ok, but "unilateral" invasion is not. you, like tom, want to subvert our country's constitution to the UN. it doesn't matter what they thought, they believed FORCE, MILITARY force, if needed, was ok. they supported it. they funded it.

i can't believe you guys support one kind of invasion but not the other. thats pure hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

First, I'd be hard-pressed to call this an "invasion." If you want to call it that, it certainly isn't the scale of Iraq.

Second, I supported Afghanistan, but not Iraq. Is that "pure hypocrisy"? Do the circumstances not matter at all?
 
Onceler said:
It's hardly surprising that you see no difference between limited airstrikes authorized by the UN, and unilateral invasion & 7-year occupation.

On the day Congress voted on authorization, guys as diverse as Kerry & Armey said they thought that force - if necessary - would be in the form of limited airstrikes.

All the same in Yurtsie-land, though.

Btw, you sound frustrated...

:)
Click to expand...
Whats really surprising is you don't see the difference in the US following the lead of the UN, and sticking our noses into a civil war that don't concern us (Libya), and actually leading the world into ridding a nation of a dictator (Saddam) responsible for invading another country and slaughtering his own population numbering over 150,000 dead.......
and all because of your political party bias.....
 
bravo said:
Whats really surprising is you don't see the difference in the US following the lead of the UN, and sticking our nosesr into a civil war that don't concern us, and actually leading the world into ridding a nation of a dictator responsible for invading another country and slaughtering his own population numbering over 150,000 dead.......
and all because of your political party bias.....
Click to expand...

Ladies & gentlemen...I give you history, as told by someone immersed in Bush-regurgitated koolaid!!!
 
tom prendergast said:
Evidently you have no time for international law, which is strange coming from a lawyer!!
Click to expand...
Whats strange is you think its OK to kill people from the air with missiles and bombs but not from the sights of a rifle.....

what a pinhead view of reality....
 
Onceler said:
First, I'd be hard-pressed to call this an "invasion." If you want to call it that, it certainly isn't the scale of Iraq.

Second, I supported Afghanistan, but not Iraq. Is that "pure hypocrisy"? Do the circumstances not matter at all?
Click to expand...

how is it not an invasion? we are invading their soveriegn terrority. that is textbook definion of invasion. good lord.

i don't care about afghanistan. that is different than libya. libya isn't a threat to us. that was a huge reason you were against iraq. yet here you are in support of invading libya. yeah, that is also textbook hypocrisy.
 
Yurt said:
how is it not an invasion? we are invading their soveriegn terrority. that is textbook definion of invasion. good lord.

i don't care about afghanistan. that is different than libya. libya isn't a threat to us. that was a huge reason you were against iraq. yet here you are in support of invading libya. yeah, that is also textbook hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Classic pathology, again.

Your statement about supporting one kind of invasion & not another was a real "step in it" kind of statement, as I'm sure you realize by now. Clearly, there are different circumstances for every military action; if you support one military effort, it doesn't mean you support every other one.

Afghanistan was not a threat to us, but it doesn't matter. Neither was Iraq, and neither is Libya. All 3 represent 3 extremely different sets of circumstances.

But not in Yurtsie-land. I was wondering how you'd weasel out....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top