The U.S. military is spending upward of $1 billion in libya

Onceler said:
Oh - I get it; you don't know what "pre-emptive" means.

Libya was an immediate effort to prevent further slaughter of rebels, which is ongoing. SF understands this, btw, as do most. I don't agree with it, but that's what it is.

Iraq was based on the Bush Doctrine - you're not like Palin, are you? I assume you know what that is. We went to Iraq because of WMD's and the threat they MIGHT pose to us, not to stop any immediate threat.

That's a big, big difference, Yurtsie. Seriously, if you can't see that - just get help....
Click to expand...

wow...i've seen stupid, but this out of the park....btw dunceler....SF agrees with my position....oooops!

libya was in fact preemptive, they were not a threat to us, we took preemptive action against them based on NO threat they posed to us. so you hang your dunce cap on "its the bush doctrine"....there is no difference onceler.....but i wouldn't expect an apologists like you to see it
 
Onceler said:
SF - in your opinion, is Libya a pre-emptive war like Iraq was...an exercise of what we now know as the Bush Doctrine?

Honestly, I'm praying that you say "yes" on that....
Click to expand...

Libya is 100% for certain a pre-emptive action. But it is not for the same reasons as Iraq. You are smart enough to know the difference, you just are pissed that Yurt is correct in calling it a preemptive War.

Now, quit being an Obama apologist and learn the definition of preemptive.
 
Yurt said:
wow...i've seen stupid, but this out of the park....btw dunceler....SF agrees with my position....oooops!

libya was in fact preemptive, they were not a threat to us, we took preemptive action against them based on NO threat they posed to us. so you hang your dunce cap on "its the bush doctrine"....there is no difference onceler.....but i wouldn't expect an apologists like you to see it
Click to expand...

SF - would you agree with this sentiment? That there is "no difference" between Libya & Iraq in terms of the Bush Doctrine?

I'd like everyone on record here.
 
Onceler said:
SF - would you agree with this sentiment? That there is "no difference" between Libya & Iraq in terms of the Bush Doctrine?

I'd like everyone on record here.
Click to expand...

I am on record. The question is.... will YOU go on record. Are you still going to claim that this isn't a preemptive action based solely on the fact that it doesn't fall under what has come to be known as 'the Bush Doctrine'????
 
Superfreak said:
Libya is 100% for certain a pre-emptive action. But it is not for the same reasons as Iraq. You are smart enough to know the difference, you just are pissed that Yurt is correct in calling it a preemptive War.

Now, quit being an Obama apologist and learn the definition of preemptive.
Click to expand...

1) Wouldn't you agree that the spirit of "pre-emptive" is BEFORE, as in PRE. Wouldn't you also agree that the main reason the US got involved was because of the slaughter that was occurring NOW.
2) If you agree on those points, do you really not see much difference between a PRE-emptive war, like Iraq, where there is nothing immediate going on, and an action like we're doing in Libya, which was time sensitive due to the continuing slaughter?

I'm not even trying to be cute here; this is serious, and I wouldn't mind a serious answer. I'm a little concerned about you today....
 
Superfreak said:
I am on record. The question is.... will YOU go on record. Are you still going to claim that this isn't a preemptive action based solely on the fact that it doesn't fall under what has come to be known as 'the Bush Doctrine'????
Click to expand...

Honestly, that's not my understanding of what we're doing in Libya. My main understanding of it is that we are trying to protect the rebels now, and prevent further slaughter. If I have that wrong, I'm open to new ideas.

And, once again, I am against our military intervention in Libya.
 
Onceler said:
1) Wouldn't you agree that the spirit of "pre-emptive" is BEFORE, as in PRE. Wouldn't you also agree that the main reason the US got involved was because of the slaughter that was occurring NOW.
2) If you agree on those points, do you really not see much difference between a PRE-emptive war, like Iraq, where there is nothing immediate going on, and an action like we're doing in Libya, which was time sensitive due to the continuing slaughter?

I'm not even trying to be cute here; this is serious, and I wouldn't mind a serious answer. I'm a little concerned about you today....
Click to expand...

Yes, it is before..... before we started the PREEMPTIVE action, there was not a wholesale slaughter of civilians. There was fighting between the government and the rebels. It was the anticipation of what Gaddafi was about to do that led Obama and the UN to act quickly and PREEMPT the slaughter of civilians.

If you want to get technical, the slaughter of innocents in Iraq was ongoing for decades. While this was certainly not the prime reason Bush gave for going in, nor was it anywhere close to the most vocalized, it was there.

Yes, you ARE trying to be cute here. you are desperately trying to twist the facts to make it look like what Obama did isn't preemptive.
 
Superfreak said:
Yes, it is before..... before we started the PREEMPTIVE action, there was not a wholesale slaughter of civilians. There was fighting between the government and the rebels. It was the anticipation of what Gaddafi was about to do that led Obama and the UN to act quickly and PREEMPT the slaughter of civilians.

If you want to get technical, the slaughter of innocents in Iraq was ongoing for decades. While this was certainly not the prime reason Bush gave for going in, nor was it anywhere close to the most vocalized, it was there.

Yes, you ARE trying to be cute here. you are desperately trying to twist the facts to make it look like what Obama did isn't preemptive.
Click to expand...

Bull. You're the one trying to be "cute" here, and since the crisis started, with your Jarod-esque, hyperbolic threads on topic.

This ain't "pre-emptive" in the way Iraq was, and you know it; and it SURE ain't the "Bush Doctrine."

What a completely intellectually dishonest line of reasoning you are engaging in on this one. You lose a notch on the respect-o-meter today...no soup for you!
 
Onceler said:
SF - would you agree with this sentiment? That there is "no difference" between Libya & Iraq in terms of the Bush Doctrine?

I'd like everyone on record here.
Click to expand...

LOL...on record...whats up with the demands? are you feeling ok today?

its preemptive action as to the US, period. we preemptively engage libya despite the were not a threat to us. if we use your logic, then saddam was not preemptive as he was a tyrant to his citizens and we stopped him from harming those opposed to his rule....

funny how onceler logic works
 
Yurt said:
LOL...on record...whats up with the demands? are you feeling ok today?

its preemptive action as to the US, period. we preemptively engage libya despite the were not a threat to us. if we use your logic, then saddam was not preemptive as he was a tyrant to his citizens and we stopped him from harming those opposed to his rule....

funny how onceler logic works
Click to expand...

I'm surprised you jumped back in. SF is just being cutesy & dishonest, but you're in WAY over your head. It's pretty clear you have no idea what the Bush Doctrine is or any of that...
 
Onceler said:
And no word on my comments regarding scale?

Did the left & the world protest Grenada as they did Iraq?
Click to expand...

LMAO.... I did address the scale issue. It is IRRELEVANT.

Scale does not change:

1) this was a PREEMPTIVE action
2) That Obama brought the US into a WAR (against brown people OMG!!)

As for Grenada the other factors that you are not considering is this.... we now have this thing called the internet, we now have these things called 24/7 NEWS channels, most of the country now has access to hundreds of TV stations. We as a country are FAR more informed than we were in 1983. The technology today that exists allows for protests to be formed in multiple cities in multiple locations throughout the country at a moments notice. No such organizational capabilities existed then. So again, you are making an IRRELEVANT point in a desperate attempt to apologize for your messiah.
 
Onceler said:
I'm surprised you jumped back in. SF is just being cutesy & dishonest, but you're in WAY over your head. It's pretty clear you have no idea what the Bush Doctrine is or any of that...
Click to expand...

You are full of shit. In what way have I been dishonest? The only one here being dishonest is YOU. It is YOU who fails to understand the definition of PREEMPTIVE. It is YOU who continues to pretend that Libya wasn't preemptive. Do tell us where it is you think I have been dishonest.
 
Onceler said:
I'm surprised you jumped back in. SF is just being cutesy & dishonest, but you're in WAY over your head. It's pretty clear you have no idea what the Bush Doctrine is or any of that...
Click to expand...

LOL....now comes the retreat into attack zone and ignoring actual substance...funny how you always calling people dishonest....according to you, that means you're pathological

the debate about the bush doctrine...what about it? you tried to claim that is one reason iraq is preemptive....that is such nonsense that i figured it didn't merit a rational response, because anyone stupid enough to claim that wouldn't understand anything in response....

this textbook definition preemptive action, you can howl about the bush doctrine all day, it doesn't change obama's actions and his actions resemble bush's preemptive stance....we preemptively entered a civil war, there was no threat to us or to any other ally. in fact, it appears so far that everything we've done has accomplished nothing....except cause gaddafi to ESCALATE his attacks on the "rebels" immediately after we invaded his country
 
Superfreak said:
You are full of shit. In what way have I been dishonest? The only one here being dishonest is YOU. It is YOU who fails to understand the definition of PREEMPTIVE. It is YOU who continues to pretend that Libya wasn't preemptive. Do tell us where it is you think I have been dishonest.
Click to expand...

You've been dishonest throughout this, actually. You're on a scale w/ Yurt & bravo now. You guys are upset because the left isn't as loud as they were with Bush, and you hated having to endure that. But you're ignoring the fact that the left is, by & large, against this action, and that the dissent is getting louder & angrier by the day. If this goes on much longer, you'll hear even more; if we put actual troops on the ground, look out. Anti- war people are, for the most part, anti-war. I know - I'm one of them, and I hang with them. You probably don't know many.

Scale absolutely matters; for you to tell me with a straight face that the left & the world should display the same outrage about this as Iraq when there were 250,000 troops on the ground in Iraq is laughable. Like I said, watch what happens if we do commit troops to this. With Iraq, the entire world was protesting at the start of '03...and no, it's not just because no one liked Bush.

As for the Bush Doctrine & the pre-emptive nature of the conflicts, just give it up. You said JUST YESTERDAY that there was an immediacy to this action due to the ongoing slaughter AND threat of continued slaughter. You know that's why we & the other countries involved acted so fast; death was occurring and would continue to occur. You also know that we invaded Iraq because of WMD's...a genuine pre-emptive war under the Bush doctrine.

Frankly, I'm embarassed for you. You have stooped pretty low w/ this situation, and displayed much more intellectual dishonesty & hypocrisy than anyone you're mocking on the left. As I have said, your threads and comments remind me more of what Jarod would post than anything....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top