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

Superfreak said:
Again moron.... I was MOCKING THOSE ON THE LEFT.... Hence the use of the entire population of Libya minus one survivor. It is you who got your panties all bunched up. You are so desperate to make sure that Obama is not lumped in the same category as Bush that you deny any similarities in the two. Hence your insane and pathetic attempts to pretend that his actions weren't preemptive. You are the one acting in an irrational manner on this topic. It was you who assured us there were protests against the actions in Libya... yet there are none.
Click to expand...

You're mocking people who opposed Iraq, and who also oppose Libya. Again, SuperYurt's problems w/ this are a matter of scale - you want to see the exact same outrage, and the exact same level of passion. I don't deny ANY similarities, but they are 2 VERY different conflicts.

If you can't see that, there just isn't much I can do for you. As I said, I would classify your ongoing hunt for leftie hypocrisy as a sort of bloodlust. It knows no rationality - it's like you guys have been waiting for years for something like this, and you're trying to fit a circle into a square to make it work for you....
 
Superfreak said:
Most of the mid east and northern Africa are 'artificial countries' as you call them. They are the remnants of the Ottoman Empire.

I doubt you will ever get Libya to split East vs. West given the bulk of their oil reserves are in the East. But I understand the sentiment. In an ideal world the mideast would have been split into Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish countries as well.
Click to expand...

I heard various pundits say that but it isn't true, as this map shows.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-oil.eps-20110312,0,618635.graphic
 
Onceler said:
You're mocking people who opposed Iraq, and who also oppose Libya. Again, SuperYurt's problems w/ this are a matter of scale - you want to see the exact same outrage, and the exact same level of passion. I don't deny ANY similarities, but they are 2 VERY different conflicts.

If you can't see that, there just isn't much I can do for you. As I said, I would classify your ongoing hunt for leftie hypocrisy as a sort of bloodlust. It knows no rationality - it's like you guys have been waiting for years for something like this, and you're trying to fit a circle into a square to make it work for you....
Click to expand...

No moron... I am mocking those people who were vocal and protesting who are NOT protesting now.... nor are they anywhere NEAR as vocal. Which is why you resort to the 'SuperYurt' crap because you are attempting to deflect away from your pathetic comments. Yes, they are two different countries, two different situations..... the point dumbass is that they are BOTH PREEMPTIVE WARS.... BOTH WARS OF CHOICE....NEITHER was a direct threat to the US.... those are undeniable similarities that YOU continue to try and deny.
 
tom prendergast said:
I heard various pundits say that but it isn't true, as this map shows.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-oil.eps-20110312,0,618635.graphic
Click to expand...

Just as an fyi... it would depend to an extent on where you draw the line between east and west, it you do it down the middle, then the bulk of the oil will be in the east. The Sirte Basin produces at least 75% of the countries oil currently. The main area of exploration right now is also in the east.
 
tom prendergast said:
PNAC was stuffed with people like William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Donald Rumsfeld. PNAC not only advocated war on Iraq it also wanted the US to invade eastern Saudi Arabia. They tried to persuade Clinton but he wisely showed them the door, they had to wait for 9/11 and a patsy like Bush to turn up to get their way. I can't really believe that any of this is unknown to you so I can only assume that you are playing your usual mindgames.
Click to expand...

Clinton did not "wisely show them the door". Clinton oversaw the creation of a plan to over-throw Saddam and set up a democray. Intel in 1999 shows Clinton's desire to over-throw Saddam and create a democracy in Iraq. Indeed one can glean from this interview the idea that because Clinton failed to realize regime change that the burden politically fell onto Bush...A burden that was not going to be allowed to fail...as, according to Ricciardone, no one was interested in a compliant Saddam! One can also glean that the intelligence community in 1999 still believed Saddam to have WMD.

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1999/439/intervw.htm
 
I have no doubt that Clinton wanted Saddam out of power.

PNAC was an over-idealistic group that saw a very different role for America in the world, and they never should have had a voice in any admin. Bush was a perfect patsy for their plans....
 
Onceler said:
I have no doubt that Clinton wanted Saddam out of power.

PNAC was an over-idealistic group that saw a very different role for America in the world, and they never should have had a voice in any admin. Bush was a perfect patsy for their plans....
Click to expand...

BS! The global community wanted Saddam out- One could more reasonably say PNAC was the perfect patsy for kool-aid drinkers like yourself so that you could have a partisan boogey-man to point your insipid little finger at.
 
Superfreak said:
Just as an fyi... it would depend to an extent on where you draw the line between east and west, it you do it down the middle, then the bulk of the oil will be in the east. The Sirte Basin produces at least 75% of the countries oil currently. The main area of exploration right now is also in the east.
Click to expand...

I would suggest that the border line would mirror that of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica, in other words between Misurata and Ras Lanuf.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Ottoman_Provinces_Of_Present_day_Libyapng.png
 
Ice Dancer said:
BS! The global community wanted Saddam out- One could more reasonably say PNAC was the perfect patsy for kool-aid drinkers like yourself so that you could have a partisan boogey-man to point your insipid little finger at.
Click to expand...

What did I say that was BS? A lot of people wanted Saddam out. PNAC isn't a bogeyman; without that group, Iraq doesn't happen.
 
Onceler said:
You're mocking people who opposed Iraq, and who also oppose Libya. Again, SuperYurt's problems w/ this are a matter of scale - you want to see the exact same outrage, and the exact same level of passion. I don't deny ANY similarities, but they are 2 VERY different conflicts.

If you can't see that, there just isn't much I can do for you. As I said, I would classify your ongoing hunt for leftie hypocrisy as a sort of bloodlust. It knows no rationality - it's like you guys have been waiting for years for something like this, and you're trying to fit a circle into a square to make it work for you....
Click to expand...

LOL...dunceler makes a funny
 
Onceler said:
Sorry, but it is dumb, or something. I'm really not sure what. What you're trying to do - putting things like "invasion" and "pre-emptive action" on an equal playing field as these concepts relate to both Iraq & Libya - it's really lacking in intelligence, or it's incredibly intellectually dishonest. You can choose which one, but the comparisons you're making are laughable to the extreme.

I figured there would be some instant tit-for-tat when Libya broke out, but I never would have predicted the brain-freeze I'm seeing out of the right. You guys are incredible on this - especially the pre-emptive nature of Iraq. It is hopelessly dishonest to say it's the same thing as Libya, or even essentially the same thing. It's pretty crazy. I think you believe it, though - which is why I'm questioning your intelligence...
Click to expand...

just because you're an obamabot apologist, doesn't mean other people are dumb. you need take off your bliinders and take an honest look at the situation. it is a preemptive invasion, at the least, it is a preemptive strike. to deny that means that, YOU, are actually the dishonest or stupid one. i know the truth hurts, but you need to hear it.
 
Onceler said:
You haven't addressed one argument I've made on this thread. Frankly, I don't think you can; you're kind of a lightweight intellectually.....
Click to expand...

i virtually positive i've addressed every single point and argument you've made. tell me, what argument of yours did i miss, if you can find it, i'll address it. but i highly doubt you will, because you often make false claims when you start to lose the debate. get the argument onceler, if you don't, you've proven yourself a liar.
 
Yurt said:
just because you're an obamabot apologist, doesn't mean other people are dumb. you need take off your bliinders and take an honest look at the situation. it is a preemptive invasion, at the least, it is a preemptive strike. to deny that means that, YOU, are actually the dishonest or stupid one. i know the truth hurts, but you need to hear it.
Click to expand...

When someone opposes what a politician is doing, are you in the general habit of calling that person an apologist for the politician in question?

Like I told SF, you guys don't really understand hackery, or apologism. With Iraq, people called me a traitor for opposing invasion; they asked why I hated America so much. One told me Iraq was the greatest military achievement of our generation.
 
tom prendergast said:
PNAC was stuffed with people like William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Donald Rumsfeld. PNAC not only advocated war on Iraq it also wanted the US to invade eastern Saudi Arabia. They tried to persuade Clinton but he wisely showed them the door, they had to wait for 9/11 and a patsy like Bush to turn up to get their way. I can't really believe that any of this is unknown to you so I can only assume that you are playing your usual mindgames.
Click to expand...

what is your point? you and christie somehow believe that because people were thinking about removing saddam from power years before bush did, that it makes libya less preemptive.....that doesn't even come close to making sense. there is no timeline in order to make something preemptive. how you think that planning makes something more preemptive is the dumbest assertion i've seen on this thread.
 
Onceler said:
What did I say that was BS? A lot of people wanted Saddam out. PNAC isn't a bogeyman; without that group, Iraq doesn't happen.
Click to expand...

You are a naive boob. PNAC were a group of persons, who like the many groups of persons involved in wanting Saddam out of power, had ideas. The BS you put forth is somehow PNAC controled Bush to invade Iraq. THE FACTS are that the intention of Saddam's removal and desire to implement a regime change in Iraq pre-existed PNAC and Bush.
 
Superfreak said:
Most of the mid east and northern Africa are 'artificial countries' as you call them. They are the remnants of the Ottoman Empire.

I doubt you will ever get Libya to split East vs. West given the bulk of their oil reserves are in the East. But I understand the sentiment. In an ideal world the mideast would have been split into Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish countries as well.
Click to expand...

Not to mention, WE'RE an "artificial country", as are MOST countries in the world today! The United States has not always been the United States, our borders have changed, we fought wars over territory, we took land from the natives, we bought land from other countries, we negotiated borders with other leaders, so by pinhead logic, we should just give all that back and move back to England.
 
Ice Dancer said:
You are a naive boob. PNAC were a group of persons, who like the many groups of persons involved in wanting Saddam out of power, had ideas. The BS you put forth is somehow PNAC controled Bush to invade Iraq. THE FACTS are that the intention of Saddam's removal and desire to implement a regime change in Iraq pre-existed PNAC and Bush.
Click to expand...

never mind...you already said it
 
Ice Dancer said:
You are a naive boob. PNAC were a group of persons, who like the many groups of persons involved in wanting Saddam out of power, had ideas. The BS you put forth is somehow PNAC controled Bush to invade Iraq. THE FACTS are that the intention of Saddam's removal and desire to implement a regime change in Iraq pre-existed PNAC and Bush.
Click to expand...

But the point is that no one did it before Bush. And that's not because Bush had more "courage". It's because people knew the cost would be too extreme.

You really need to read more about the lead-up to war. PNAC had Bush's ear, and they were a very persuasive group of guys. They had a true vision for not just Iraq, but the entire Mideast, and they believed in it 100%. Paul Wolfowicz even said that they decided that WMD's would be what they would use to sell the war to the public.

It was an over-idealistic vision. Like most believers, they downplayed the negatives & potential pitfalls. What any leader has to consider is the latter - what can go wrong? But they were way too optimistic; they thought our military could take care of it without real complication, and in a short timeframe.

Instead, Iraq is what it is - another historical example of why use of military is a last resort ONLY, and not something to be trifled with. You open a Pandora's box when you start a war. It should be avoided at all costs.

And that, more than anything, is my biggest problem with Bush on Iraq. I want a President who will bend over backwards to avoid committing our soldiers to battle - not one who will look for reasons to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top