What's new
By:

"Obama has now fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined."

I say, before we can ever commit troops to a war, all politicians in Wash must commit one family member for the cause (cannot be the wife). Perhaps then we'll stop this useless warmongering.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Go back 6 years and simply replace "democrat" with "republican" and "Obama" with "Bush" and you have the same thing. And really Obama has done a good job of making himself the bad guy. I am a staunch moderate, I think both sides have something to offer and only when we get past partisan politics will we really make progress, but it is obvious Obama is very little filler in an attractive, politically correct package. He talks the part, he looks the part, he has good sound-bites, but the invasion of Libya should be enough to convince even the staunchest democrats that Obama does not care one whit about the constitution. It is not the only time he has done an end-run around due process.
Click to expand...


Keep calling it the invasion of Libya. Doesn't make it really what's happening. and no, Obama is nowhere near Bush level yet, not even close.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Looks like you got all of your liberal talking points covered:

(1) Conservatives hate the environment [check]
(2) Conservatives all want the rich and powerful to get richer and powerfuller [check]
(3) Coservatives don't want any regulation or taxation of business in order to bring about #2 [check]
(4) Conservatives drive away jobs [check]
(5) Conservatives are the only ones holding up congress from solving every world problem (hunger, environment, sock lost in dryers, etc.) [check]

You only missed abortion, separation of church and state (religious nut-jobs), only taxing the poor while never taxing the rich, unjust wars, and big oil to round out your talking points. I am glad you have been paying attention to Maher, Moore and Franken. They have indoctrinated you well.
Click to expand...


Actually I'm just starting to throw my hat in the ring. And no I'm not referring to the last election you can swing idiots votes by pumping garbage propaganda down their throats everyday like the propaganada machine Fox New.

https://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-24-2011/exclusive---bret-baier-extended-interview-pt--1

Fox News admits over and over again that they are an mostly opinion news network and yet conservative suckle it like is milk from heaven.
 
Lance-A-Million said:
Keep calling it the invasion of Libya. Doesn't make it really what's happening. and no, Obama is nowhere near Bush level yet, not even close.
Click to expand...

Keep those blinders on. Make sure to repeat the mantra "Bush lied, people died" before you go to bed at night. I am sure Obama has a great excuse for not seeking a congressional resolution and just acting on his own, as well as breaking his promise to sit down in diplomatic meetings before engaging in any action against another nation. Not to mention his statement that he would not engage in regime change just for the sake of regime change. But was it really to afffect regime change since Ghadaffi threatened to turn off his oil productionm, upon which Europe heavily relies (along with the US to a lesser extent)? Ghadaffi had changed his behavior on the world stage when we invaded Iraq so we would leave him alone, but we attacked anyway, presumably to halt the killing of civilians. Apparenlty that is good enough to pre-emptively attack Lybia, but was not good enough to invade Iraq, while Iraq's attrocities against their civilian population trail only dictators like Mao, Stalin and Hitler. Obama also never met with Ghadaffi as he said he would do with any foreign leader "without preconditions" before taking hostile action. The White House is also insinuating the possibility of "weapons of mass distruction" even while Ghadaffi has made it clear he is open to inspection by the UN, something Iraq avoided, and something that the UN did not do, and Obama did not require, before attacking Lybia. Bush made it clear at the beginning that if Saddam allowed inspectors into the country in a timely fashion it would be good enough, but Saddam would not allow it. Ghadaffi offered, but that was not good enough for Obama and the UN. In addition, we had past experience with Saddam and WMD's to bolster the intelligence that said he was stockpiling. He had famously used chemical andother weapons to exterminate large groups of Kurds (civilians). Ghadaffi has been rumored to have WMDs, but has not used them.

This can go on and on. The comparison is scary.

But go ahead and keep your blinders on. Keep repeating your mantra "Bush lied, people died" and "Obama's awesome" every night before going to bed. Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion.
 
The Thriller said:
I say, before we can ever commit troops to a war, all politicians in Wash must commit one family member for the cause (cannot be the wife). Perhaps then we'll stop this useless warmongering.
Click to expand...

Actually not a bad idea.
 
Lets take the conservatives ways of dealing with the Middle East v. the Obama way. Conservatives especially the Bushes used the turmoil in the Middle East to get $$$$ rich at the expense of the tax payers (which by the way is one great way to get us out of debt if we weren't still fighting to put out the Bush small wildfires.) Trying to force those in the Middle East into regime change and forcing Democracy by way of the fist. While Obama who respected their traditions and cultures gave a stirring speech in Egypt invoke a yearning for those who are under oppression to demand regime change.

The reason why Libya is different is the US didn't demand this no-fly-zone France lead the call for a UN intervention and the US acting with a coalition of nations are performing these military operations. But, why this is so critical is after Egypt didn't use violence to stop nonviolent protests. Gadhafi instead began to slaughter his own people. Now Bush would have turned a blind eye to this because Libya doesn't have the oil or money that he is worried about. But, thank God that Obama is a man who hasn't sold his soul to the corporate America.
 
KOC BEGONE said:
Lets take the conservatives ways of dealing with the Middle East v. the Obama way. Conservatives especially the Bushes used the turmoil in the Middle East to get $$$$ rich at the expense of the tax payers (which by the way is one great way to get us out of debt if we weren't still fighting to put out the Bush small wildfires.) Trying to force those in the Middle East into regime change and forcing Democracy by way of the fist. While Obama who respected their traditions and cultures gave a stirring speech in Egypt invoke a yearning for those who are under oppression to demand regime change.

The reason why Libya is different is the US didn't demand this no-fly-zone France lead the call for a UN intervention and the US acting with a coalition of nations are performing these military operations. But, why this is so critical is after Egypt didn't use violence to stop nonviolent protests. Gadhafi instead began to slaughter his own people. Now Bush would have turned a blind eye to this because Libya doesn't have the oil or money that he is worried about. But, thank God that Obama is a man who hasn't sold his soul to the corporate America.
Click to expand...

1) Who exactly was forced into regime change besides Iraq? "Middle East" is a pretty broad statement. Iraq violated UN-ratified restrictions. Iraq killed far more of their own citizenry than Lybia has. Saddam was among the top 5 worst dictator the world has ever seen. Can you argue that Iraq did not need regime change? That Saddam killing millions of his own people testing WMD's was ok? If all that is not enough reason to invade Iraq, then what exactly did Lybia do to warrant this intervention?

2) Why did France lead the call for intervention in Lybia? What did Lybia do to France? The only plausible answer was the effect it would have on France for Lybia to turn off their oil, which Ghadafi threatened to do as part of his attempts to restrict uprisings in his own country. Lybia provides a substantial amount of oil to France and other european countries. If it isn't about oil, then what is it about?

3) Pure speculation. Also do you really think Obama gets no kickbacks or lobby money at all funded by corporations? Are you really that naive to ascribe veritable sainthood to a politician?

Apparently the Obama way is to cloud the issue, deflect blame/accountability, not involve congress before committing US resources, and use shaky evidence if any at all.

As a final point, please list the "conservatives" who got rich, and exactly what they benefited from invading Iraq. How much money did they make? Can you prove that not a single liberal benefited in the same way? Also can you successfully argue that no one in any previous military conflict in the history of American benefited financially?

All of these blanket statements are ways of glossing over the facts and details so you don't have to face the possibility that your opinion of the infallibility of the democratic party may be wrong.

Don't worry, you are not alone. Plenty of other democrats think the same way, as do plenty of republicans. That is actually why I do not always get involved in these debates here. Hard to discuss issues with someone who has fully been indoctrinated by the left or the right and cannot accept that maybe they don't have all the answers.
 
The Thriller said:
I say, before we can ever commit troops to a war, all politicians in Wash must commit one family member for the cause (cannot be the wife). Perhaps then we'll stop this useless warmongering.
Click to expand...

Actually, to be truly "equal" maybe we should say "cannot be the spouse". And call me misanthropic if you want, but my father wouldn't have skipped a beat to put me on the point of a bomb squad. I'd have to hold out for just making the politicians pay for the wars out of their own wealth, and carry the guns and take the heat of battle themselves.
 
babe said:
Actually, to be truly "equal" maybe we should say "cannot be the spouse". And call me misanthropic if you want, but my father wouldn't have skipped a beat to put me on the point of a bomb squad. I'd have to hold out for just making the politicians pay for the wars out of their own wealth, and carry the guns and take the heat of battle themselves.
Click to expand...

You could just have them pay bit by bit. For every million we spend on the war, their pay drops by 10k per year. For every life lost, they lose an appendage, chosen at random.
 
Invasion:the act of invading; the act of an army that invades for conquest or plunder

How exactly has the US "invaded" Libya again?

When we stormed into Iraq we had every intention of taking their capital city, gaining control of the country and its resources. We "invaded" Iraq.

Intervention:the act of intervening (as to mediate a dispute, etc.); "it occurs without human intervention"

Does the US even have a single ground soldier in Libya right now?? ...No! We are bombing them, collectively with several other nations, in an attempt to aid the rebels in over-turning their dictator Ghadafi who was in the process of slaughtering innocent civilians while they peacefully protested his dictatorship. How is this an "invasion" again, exactly?
 
LogGrad98 said:
1) Who exactly was forced into regime change besides Iraq? "Middle East" is a pretty broad statement. Iraq violated UN-ratified restrictions. Iraq killed far more of their own citizenry than Lybia has. Saddam was among the top 5 worst dictator the world has ever seen. Can you argue that Iraq did not need regime change? That Saddam killing millions of his own people testing WMD's was ok? If all that is not enough reason to invade Iraq, then what exactly did Lybia do to warrant this intervention?

2) Why did France lead the call for intervention in Lybia? What did Lybia do to France? The only plausible answer was the effect it would have on France for Lybia to turn off their oil, which Ghadafi threatened to do as part of his attempts to restrict uprisings in his own country. Lybia provides a substantial amount of oil to France and other european countries. If it isn't about oil, then what is it about?

3) Pure speculation. Also do you really think Obama gets no kickbacks or lobby money at all funded by corporations? Are you really that naive to ascribe veritable sainthood to a politician?

Apparently the Obama way is to cloud the issue, deflect blame/accountability, not involve congress before committing US resources, and use shaky evidence if any at all.

As a final point, please list the "conservatives" who got rich, and exactly what they benefited from invading Iraq. How much money did they make? Can you prove that not a single liberal benefited in the same way? Also can you successfully argue that no one in any previous military conflict in the history of American benefited financially?

All of these blanket statements are ways of glossing over the facts and details so you don't have to face the possibility that your opinion of the infallibility of the democratic party may be wrong.

Don't worry, you are not alone. Plenty of other democrats think the same way, as do plenty of republicans. That is actually why I do not always get involved in these debates here. Hard to discuss issues with someone who has fully been indoctrinated by the left or the right and cannot accept that maybe they don't have all the answers.
Click to expand...

You seem to subscribe to far more speculation than anyone else is indulging in. Also, what WMDs??

Saddam was among the top 5 worst dictator the world has ever seen
Click to expand...

Not a history major, eh?
 
Lance-A-Million said:
You seem to subscribe to far more speculation than anyone else is indulging in. Also, what WMDs??

Not a history major, eh?
Click to expand...

1) You can't be serious. Saddam used mustard gas bombs to kill thousands of Kurds. It is in the historical record. Look it up. He tested other chemical weapons as well and was known to have been seeking sources of yellow-cake uranium. Just because he dismantled the operation before we got there does not mean he never had them or used them. This was actually verified during the first war in Iraq and subsequently by the UN inspectors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Just one source. Not hard to find others.

Here is another from a more liberal source:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/arsenal.html

At the end of the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein and his elite military units were still in power and in possession of huge stockpiles of deadly weapons. In April 1991, the U.N. Security Council created UNSCOM, a special commission to find and dismantle this arsenal. The U.N. imposed economic sanctions on Iraq that would be enforced until the country eliminated all nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons capability.

Two agencies were charged with the task. UNSCOM would uncover and destroy Iraq's biological- and chemical-weapons and ballistic-missile programs; the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was charged with uncovering and dismantling Iraq's clandestine nuclear program.

From 1991 to 1998 UNSCOM and IAEA carried out numerous inspections in Iraq, but with varying degrees of success.

For the first few years, Iraqi officials failed to disclose much of their special weapons programs to the inspectors. In 1995, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law Kamel Hussein defected. He had been in charge of the bioweapons program and revealed to UNSCOM that there was a vast arsenal of weapons they had failed to uncover, including biological weapons, and described how the Iraqis were hiding them. This was a breakthrough for the inspection teams, and they continued their work until 1998, when Iraq blocked further access and expelled UNSCOM.
Click to expand...

2) History? Well from #1 we see that you limit your history to the democratic rhetoric. Care to see what history really said about Saddam?

https://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_deathsundersaddamhussein42503.html

Excerpt from the article cited here.

"Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power."
Click to expand...

From this source alone that would be 560k to 1 mill deaths under Saddam.

Saddams death toll is verifiable. I just clicked on one of the first links that came up when I googled it that was from a decent source. Largely the estimates fall between 800k and 2.5 mill dead under his regime. That is squarely on the list that includes Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin and Mao. It is also more than died during the Rawandan ethnic cleansing.

I guess you need a history lesson or 2.




Care to try again to convince us that Ghadaffi is somehow worse than Saddam and warranted intervention where Saddam did not? Next time, try bringing facts.
 
I've never understood why the act of aerial bombing is considered morally superior to having troops on the ground. Boggles my mind to no end.
 
Gameface said:
I've never understood why the act of aerial bombing is considered morally superior to having troops on the ground. Boggles my mind to no end.
Click to expand...

Who is saying it is morally superior? But a lack of ground troops is hardly characteristic of a so-called "invasion". Don't believe the hype.
 
LogGrad98 said:
1) You can't be serious. Saddam used mustard gas bombs to kill thousands of Kurds. It is in the historical record. Look it up. He tested other chemical weapons as well and was known to have been seeking sources of yellow-cake uranium. Just because he dismantled the operation before we got there does not mean he never had them or used them. This was actually verified during the first war in Iraq and subsequently by the UN inspectors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Just one source. Not hard to find others.

Here is another from a more liberal source:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/arsenal.html



2) History? Well from #1 we see that you limit your history to the democratic rhetoric. Care to see what history really said about Saddam?

https://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_deathsundersaddamhussein42503.html

Excerpt from the article cited here.



From this source alone that would be 560k to 1 mill deaths under Saddam.

Saddams death toll is verifiable. I just clicked on one of the first links that came up when I googled it that was from a decent source. Largely the estimates fall between 800k and 2.5 mill dead under his regime. That is squarely on the list that includes Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin and Mao. It is also more than died during the Rawandan ethnic cleansing.

I guess you need a history lesson or 2.




Care to try again to convince us that Ghadaffi is somehow worse than Saddam and warranted intervention where Saddam did not? Next time, try bringing facts.
Click to expand...

Democratic rhetoric?? I don't listen to talk shows, I couldn't even name a liberal talk show or website. I'm just processing the information and orating how it makes me feel. If I'm somehow the magical touchstone of Democratic rhetoric then damn, I'm a lot more special than I thought I was.

I like that your so called "facts" include Wikipedia as a source too.

Saddam as a top 5 "all-time" dictator truly is a whole other debate... I'm no history expert either but I'm also not foolish enough to believe that top 5 dictatorships of all-freakin-time are strictly ones that occurred during the 20th and 21th centuries.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top