6,419,924 dead in War Criminal Obama's massacre in Libya

Rana said:
Ahahahaha, you really miss Bush, don't you...
Click to expand...

It is truly scary that might actually be the case. Who would have thought we would have a WORSE President than Bush? Especially the very next one. Mr. Hope and Change has become more of the same and a LOT more of the same bad mistakes.

What is our deficit spending going to be this year? $1.7 TRILLION? $2 TRILLION?
 
Topspin said:
you riechwingers never met a military action you didn't like.
Click to expand...

Sorry toppy, but this military action is being undertaken by the LEFT... not the right. Sorry... no nazi rants for you today. Sorry that means you won't be able to insult the Jews today.
 
Superfreak said:
Also Mr. Integrity.... what is your solution to Libya since you are opposed to the actions taken by the UN and the messiah?

Another Rwanda?
Click to expand...

I'm not pretending these aren't extremely tough issues. You won't see me making light of them as you did with the OP.

But, philiosophically, you either think the US should be a global policeman, or you don't. I don't. In the post WWII-era, our attempts to meddle and solve with our military have - much more often than not - caused even more misery, and ended up being much more protracted engagements than anyone predicted. People talk about "exit strategy"...when have we ever had one? We certainly don't now. The suffering around the world is brutal, but we can't solve it with our military, and it's not right to ask the young men & women who sign up for service to do so. You open a can of worms whenever you engage with the miitary; it's like Woody Hayes used to say about football - 3 things can happen when you pass, and only one of them is good.

That's a long-winded way of saying that I don't really have a solution to Libya. But if anyone sees what's going on now & thinks "solution," they're kidding themselves.
 
Oh, you wish, but sorry, that is not going to be the case.

I warned at one time that the president Bush was setting would be followed by other administrators.

I warned that if the Bush administration was not prosecuted for its actions, what would stop future Democrats from doing the same.

Now, here we are, future Presidents doing the same. I object, but this is in no way close to what Bush did in Iraq.

Good luck trying, but no cigar.

What is funny is all the Republicans doing the twist on this. It seems the Democrats are consistent and yelling about the same things. Needing to go before Congress before taking action, the USA not being in command, but it being a UN or NATO response and having the Arab league in league. I do not like the wholesale slaughter of innocents, but I also so not like the idea that this is only happening in Libya, when Yeman and Baihran have the government firing on the citizens and we aren't doing a "no fly" there. The French are leading the charge on this one because they need the Libyan oil, they like the sweet crude. It makes me suspect of the reasons for taking this action against Libya. I am not happy about this at all.

It seems we pick and choose which innocents we help and I do not like this one little bit, plus I hope that the "no fly" doesn't lead to full boots on the ground.

I am deeply conflicted by all of this.

I do like Obama's posture in all of this, no guns blazing wild, west mentality.
 
Isn't that what you state about the liberals on a daily basis? I don't get it, are you stating you never do such a thing? I need a little clarity here, SF!
 
that's how strong the dem econ-nazi's are: limited oil drilling here at the price of slaughtering people is ok.
 
Onceler said:
I'm not pretending these aren't extremely tough issues. You won't see me making light of them as you did with the OP.

But, philiosophically, you either think the US should be a global policeman, or you don't. I don't. In the post WWII-era, our attempts to meddle and solve with our military have - much more often than not - caused even more misery, and ended up being much more protracted engagements than anyone predicted. People talk about "exit strategy"...when have we ever had one? We certainly don't now. The suffering around the world is brutal, but we can't solve it with our military, and it's not right to ask the young men & women who sign up for service to do so. You open a can of worms whenever you engage with the miitary; it's like Woody Hayes used to say about football - 3 things can happen when you pass, and only one of them is good.

That's a long-winded way of saying that I don't really have a solution to Libya. But if anyone sees what's going on now & thinks "solution," they're kidding themselves.
Click to expand...


Are you trying to say Obama's unjust war for oil isn't going well?
 
Onceler said:
I'm not pretending these aren't extremely tough issues. You won't see me making light of them as you did with the OP.

But, philiosophically, you either think the US should be a global policeman, or you don't. I don't. In the post WWII-era, our attempts to meddle and solve with our military have - much more often than not - caused even more misery, and ended up being much more protracted engagements than anyone predicted. People talk about "exit strategy"...when have we ever had one? We certainly don't now. The suffering around the world is brutal, but we can't solve it with our military, and it's not right to ask the young men & women who sign up for service to do so. You open a can of worms whenever you engage with the miitary; it's like Woody Hayes used to say about football - 3 things can happen when you pass, and only one of them is good.

That's a long-winded way of saying that I don't really have a solution to Libya. But if anyone sees what's going on now & thinks "solution," they're kidding themselves. I'd be all for unauthorized assasination, actually - and yeah, I know how that sounds.....
Click to expand...

I wasn't making light of the issue, I was mocking the left, there is a difference.

If we are going to stand for freedom, we have to support it. Can we do so in every situation? No. So how do we decide? When do we intercede? When mass murders are going to occur, that should be a clear signal that we should step in. Rwanda was an atrocity that didn't have to happen. The Sudan is another atrocity that continues to occur and we do nothing. Gadaffi would have butchered all who stood up against him. You know it. I know it. The world knows it. That is why everyone was so quick to go in.

What is going on now is not the answer. It is the stop gap. I seem to recall you being in favor of stop gap measures. The solution is as you stated... elimination via assassination. That is the quick way to it. Track the bastard down and eliminate him. Not a popular measure by any means, but it is the one that will result in the fewest lost lives (especially among civilians).

You stated you were against us being the policemen of the world... yet you also have in the past demonized Bush for 'losing respect/status in the world'. How much do you think we would lose if we constantly stood by and did nothing? Not talking about Iraq in 2003 as that was truly optional (but just after first Gulf War would apply), but rather talking about situations like Rwanda, Sudan, Bosnia/Serbia or Libya today. When the people rise up and try to overthrow a brutal dictator... how can we not stand with them?
 
Rana said:
Oh, you wish, but sorry, that is not going to be the case.
Click to expand...

It already is the case. We were in a hole thanks to Bush economically, Obama has promptly dug us in deeper. He trumped the monstrosity that was Bush's pill bill with his own moronic health care fiasco. As far as the left is concerned, he has kept Iraq going, increased Afghanistan presence, continued GITMO prison and now has us involved in another war.

I warned at one time that the president Bush was setting would be followed by other administrators.

I warned that if the Bush administration was not prosecuted for its actions, what would stop future Democrats from doing the same.

Now, here we are, future Presidents doing the same. I object, but this is in no way close to what Bush did in Iraq.
Click to expand...

I did not say it was the same as Bush in Iraq. I said Obama is a worse President at this time.



What is funny is all the Republicans doing the twist on this. It seems the Democrats are consistent and yelling about the same things. Needing to go before Congress before taking action, the USA not being in command, but it being a UN or NATO response and having the Arab league in league. I do not like the wholesale slaughter of innocents, but I also so not like the idea that this is only happening in Libya, when Yeman and Baihran have the government firing on the citizens and we aren't doing a "no fly" there. The French are leading the charge on this one because they need the Libyan oil, they like the sweet crude. It makes me suspect of the reasons for taking this action against Libya. I am not happy about this at all.
Click to expand...

The knee jerk reaction to state 'this is about oil' is nonsense. It isn't. Libya produces 1.5% of the worlds oil consumption. Saudi has already offset the lost production in Libya.

It seems we pick and choose which innocents we help and I do not like this one little bit, plus I hope that the "no fly" doesn't lead to full boots on the ground.
Click to expand...

Yes, we do. Bahrain and Yemen are no where near the level that Gaddafi was about to unleash. While firing shots at civilians should always be condemned and sanctioned if necessary, the actions in the countries are not the same. That said, in cases like Rwanda and the Sudan, we DO see great atrocities being committed, yet we do nothing. So those would be more apt comparisons.

I do like Obama's posture in all of this, no guns blazing wild, west mentality.
Click to expand...

yeah, just a 125 tomahawks blazing instead.... not to mention launching the B-2's from Missouri....
 
Superfreak said:
I wasn't making light of the issue, I was mocking the left, there is a difference.

If we are going to stand for freedom, we have to support it. Can we do so in every situation? No. So how do we decide? When do we intercede? When mass murders are going to occur, that should be a clear signal that we should step in. Rwanda was an atrocity that didn't have to happen. The Sudan is another atrocity that continues to occur and we do nothing. Gadaffi would have butchered all who stood up against him. You know it. I know it. The world knows it. That is why everyone was so quick to go in.

What is going on now is not the answer. It is the stop gap. I seem to recall you being in favor of stop gap measures. The solution is as you stated... elimination via assassination. That is the quick way to it. Track the bastard down and eliminate him. Not a popular measure by any means, but it is the one that will result in the fewest lost lives (especially among civilians).

You stated you were against us being the policemen of the world... yet you also have in the past demonized Bush for 'losing respect/status in the world'. How much do you think we would lose if we constantly stood by and did nothing? Not talking about Iraq in 2003 as that was truly optional (but just after first Gulf War would apply), but rather talking about situations like Rwanda, Sudan, Bosnia/Serbia or Libya today. When the people rise up and try to overthrow a brutal dictator... how can we not stand with them?
Click to expand...

I disagree with you on the last part. There is almost no instance I can think of where America can intervene with its military and enhance its reputation. NATO will be grateful, politicians like Blair might salute us - but by & large, the people of the world see us as a global bully, and the last thing they want to see is our military, anywhere. The America that liberated Europe to universal praise was a different country, in their eyes.

With Ghadaffi & Libya, I can't disagree with your sentiments about quick action. These are really not easy issues with me. There will always be a justification that appeals to my sense of humanity; but it's also a principal with me that we should NOT be a global policeman. It's not a role that I think is fair to our military, and frankly, it's not a role I would trust us to handle well. Our gov't would abuse that power, if our population was more accepting of it; they have already abused it, many times.

As for assassination, I actually edited that line out after I posted it. I'd certainly prefer it in an instance such as this, or with Iraq. But again - I think that one you willingly give that power to the gov't and accept it, abuse will follow.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think the current situation will show once again what a can of worms we open up when we use our military. Hillary talked Obama into this, from what I have read, and his caveat was that it had to be measured in days, and not weeks & months. Well, we're already close to a week, and NATO just punted on taking the lead from the U.S.....
 
Hard to tell which side you are on, seems you are doing a little twist and shout yourself!

The sweet crude of Libya is an issue, whether you will ever open your eyes and see the light! It isn't an issue for the USA, but it is for England and France! and they are our allies.

Violence is intensifying in Yemeni, I guess time will tell how many countries the UN and NATO are willing to get involved in when the time comes. The leaders in Yemeni are resigning, too, it makes for different circumstances at this point. Bahrain is arresting the leaders of the protest movement, what will the US do in support of these people? I still think we are two faced in these matters. I see us placating some oppressive governments.
 
Onceler said:
I disagree with you on the last part. There is almost no instance I can think of where America can intervene with its military and enhance its reputation. NATO will be grateful, politicians like Blair might salute us - but by & large, the people of the world see us as a global bully, and the last thing they want to see is our military, anywhere. The America that liberated Europe to universal praise was a different country, in their eyes.
Click to expand...

I think Rwanda is the perfect example of why you are wrong on the above. I also think Libya is one in which we will gain respect in the Arab world provided we play it right.... meaning we back the people rebelling, but try to remain in the background. (talking about the West in general, not just the US)

With Ghadaffi & Libya, I can't disagree with your sentiments about quick action. These are really not easy issues with me. There will always be a justification that appeals to my sense of humanity; but it's also a principal with me that we should NOT be a global policeman. It's not a role that I think is fair to our military, and frankly, it's not a role I would trust us to handle well. Our gov't would abuse that power, if our population was more accepting of it; they have already abused it, many times.
Click to expand...

Not to go all Spiderman on you, but with great power comes great responsibility. But you are correct in that power can most certainly corrupt. Hence the catch 22. Which is why you find it difficult as part of you sees both sides and hence are conflicted. Personally, my level of conflict is different. While I agree that we shouldn't send in troops for every incident regardless of scope, I think it an absolute that we go in when it is on the scale of Darfur, Rwanda and what most expected would happen in Libya.

As for assassination, I actually edited that line out after I posted it. I'd certainly prefer it in an instance such as this, or with Iraq. But again - I think that one you willingly give that power to the gov't and accept it, abuse will follow.
Click to expand...

I do agree again. With that power, the corruption would likely follow. Which is why it is forbidden at this time (at least when speaking of such in public).

I hope I'm wrong, but I think the current situation will show once again what a can of worms we open up when we use our military. Hillary talked Obama into this, from what I have read, and his caveat was that it had to be measured in days, and not weeks & months. Well, we're already close to a week, and NATO just punted on taking the lead from the U.S.....
Click to expand...

If that is the case, then he is naive beyond even what I imagined. If he thinks something like this can be resolved that quickly, then he needs to be removed and replaced with a competent CIC.
 
Rana said:
Hard to tell which side you are on, seems you are doing a little twist and shout yourself!
Click to expand...

Well, then ask questions if you are uncertain. I support the actions taken in Libya to this point. I support the West's support of the rebels. That said, I cannot help but want to mock those on the left just a little bit.

The sweet crude of Libya is an issue, whether you will ever open your eyes and see the light! It isn't an issue for the USA, but it is for England and France! and they are our allies.
Click to expand...

No, it is not an issue with regards to why we went in. As I stated, the production lost in Libya is inconsequential in that Saudi already increased production. Oil is fungible. At most it might cost a bit more to transport. But Libya is not a major player. They are only the third largest producer in Africa.

Also, if oil production WERE the issue... then Britain and France would have been OPPONENTS of taking action now. As the quickest resolution (not necessarily the best) would be to let Gaddafi run over the rebels and resume complete control. This would be the route that would get the oil flowing fastest from Libya.

Violence is intensifying in Yemeni, I guess time will tell how many countries the UN and NATO are willing to get involved in when the time comes. The leaders in Yemeni are resigning, too, it makes for different circumstances at this point. Bahrain is arresting the leaders of the protest movement, what will the US do in support of these people? I still think we are two faced in these matters. I see us placating some oppressive governments.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But again I think it comes down to the potential of mass casualties. I think that is one point where Obama is correct. This IS about a humanitarian response.
 
Onceler said:
All posts like the OP tell me - and this is your 2nd in 2 days, along with others from your rightie brethren - is the intense guilt that you live with in knowing how wrong you were about Iraq.

If it provides some measure of relief for you to try to pretend that the left is "just like you" now w/ Libya, I'm okay with that. I don't want you feeling too bad.
Click to expand...

Well I don't mind admitting that I was certainly wrong about Iraq.....I never thought is was going to be such a lopsided success....

Winning a war in about 21 days,
Toppling Saddam and
watching his own people bring him to justice
giving the Iraqi population a chance at a government of their own making

Both the US and and Iraqis paid a high price but it doing the right thing always has a cost.
 
bravo said:
Well I don't mind admitting that I was certainly wrong about Iraq.....I never thought is was going to be such a lopsided success....

Winning a war in about 21 days,
Toppling Saddam and
watching his own people bring him to justice
giving the Iraqi population a chance at a government of their own making

Both the US and and Iraqis paid a high price but it doing the right thing always has a cost.
Click to expand...

If the war was "won" in about 21 days, we wouldn't still be there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top