U.N. Authorizes Military Strikes on Libya

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...

Again - the initial post, prior to moving the goalposts.

Clear goalpost move. Nothing in here about threat. Nothing about Afghanistan being "different."

If you support one invasion, but not another, it's pure hypocrisy. Your words.
 
Onceler said:
Again - the initial post, prior to moving the goalposts.

Clear goalpost move. Nothing in here about threat. Nothing about Afghanistan being "different."

If you support one invasion, but not another, it's pure hypocrisy. Your words.
Click to expand...

you brought up afghanistan you dishonest shit.
 
Yurt said:
you brought up afghanistan you dishonest shit.
Click to expand...

And you said it was "different."

This is like the end of Braveheart, where the torturer is saying to Mel Gibson..."this can all end."

But instead of yelling "freeeedom," you're persisting with your pathology, and standing by your initial statement....
 
Do you pinheads think the US is governed by the UN....?

Is Obama just a figurehead ?

Actually, thats an unfair question, because Obama actually is a figurehead, and useless as a leader of a superpower.....so lets just concentrate on the first question.
 
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...

Once again - the post I knew Yurt would run from, and the post he is definitely running from....
 
my first post in this thread and subsequent posts dealing with the same topic as the first:

Yurt said:
so you support this military action, but not military action against saddam?

huh?
Click to expand...

tom's response deals directly iraq vs. libya
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. 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.
Click to expand...

again, dealing with iraq
Yurt said:
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.
Click to expand...

again, the "one kind of invasion" is iraq vs. libya

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...

but according to onceler, i wasn't talking about iraq

its funny how he constantly talks about pathological, given his blatent lies today and in this thread.
 
Onceler said:
Again - the initial post, prior to moving the goalposts.

Clear goalpost move. Nothing in here about threat. Nothing about Afghanistan being "different."

If you support one invasion, but not another, it's pure hypocrisy. Your words.
Click to expand...
Ah hell...I completely missed that goal post move....but then my reading comprehension is light years ahead of yours....

Show us that move....
 
bravo said:
Ah hell...I completely missed that goal post move....but then my reading comprehension is light years ahead of yours....

Show us that move....
Click to expand...

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

Followed by:

"Afghanistan is different."

That was easy. You shouldn't be so quick to try to ride to Yurtsie's rescue because I embarass you on other threads....
 
Yurt said:
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.
Click to expand...

Have you forgotten that Iraq was about WMD, not removing a dictator?
 
Schadenfreude said:
iraq was a personal thing for bush - sh tried to kill poppy

there was no good reason to invade iraq
Click to expand...
Saddam was invading his neighbors,
Saddam was killing his own people to the tune of 100's of thousands over the years.....

We bombed the shit out of Yugoslavia for less.....but because the UN approved, that was ok with you.....

I hate to break it to you, but the UN doesn't govern the United States....and never will.....

Maybe you need to move somewhere that the UN can give you orders directly instead of getting them form your own duly elected President.
 
bravo said:
Are you under the impression that we take orders from the UN ?

Have you read the Iraqi War Resolution ?

Do you know what the Iraq Liberation Act is about ?
Click to expand...

I haven't read the "Iraqi War Resolution."

I'd sure like to see a copy of that one.
 
Onceler said:
I haven't read the "Iraqi War Resolution."

I'd sure like to see a copy of that one.
Click to expand...
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq/a/jt_resolution.htm

It should be required reading if you want to discuss the issue and especially WHO voted for and against .......

Then a google search on Saddams years as murderer-in-chief of the Iraqi people would be in order....

Also a through understanding of the Bill Clinton's thoughts and speeches on Saddam and Iraq, especially his thoughts(and his entire administration) on WMD and what world wide intelligence said about it....

all very interesting stuff, especially if kept in chronological order....so as to not to confuse what was believed from 1995 through 2003 compared to what we actually found out as the truth in later years....

Also the Congressional hearings on Iraq and 9/11.....lots of overlapping data available.....the NRI's of 2001 and 2003....all good stuff....

It should keep you busy for hours and hours....
 
No, no - I was looking for the "Iraqi War Resolution," since that's what you mentioned.

Do you have a link to that?
 
Perhaps someone can help me out here.

My understanding of Libya was the protesters should be allowed to peacefully protest which is what occurred. Then the situation escalated and the protesters decided to actually take over areas of the country such as towns and certain oil fields. They disrupted oil production and traffic into and out of towns.

So, my question is why is the UN interfering on the side of the protesters now when they didn't before?

The protest is no longer peaceful. Is International Law such that should a protest occur in any country and the government tries to maintain order the government is condemned? Does it matter what the government does or has done or are uprisings automatically sanctioned by the UN?

What has Gaddafi done since the protest other than try to bring order to society? The point being if he was a naughty leader why didn't the UN jump in the moment the protests started? Is the MO to wait and see if enough people protest, if the protests sufficiently disrupt society, then support the protesters?

How does that work?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top