What's new
By:

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

I agree that the Nobel Prize for Obama was unwarranted, and with Millsapa's observation that the current military action is outside the authority of the Constitutional powers of the Presidency. I am a little concerned about the people who have taken up their cause for relief from their government. We have been told virtually nothing about them. It seems they have no actual "leader" and that this is a purely popular mass uprising. I am concerned with Obama's lack of decisive and effective actions too. If somebody does not go in there and actually take physical custody of the key clique personnel who are slaughtering the mobs. . . . it'll go on being a massive slaughter of the dissidents.

I think our claims about setting up representative government in Iraq look just credible enough some poor folks elsewhere have assumed we are genuinely interested in helping people.

I have massive doubts about our abilities as nation-builders, and I fully recognize it's out of the range of authorized powers granted by our Constitution, but if Obama could just secure the dictator in some prison quarters somehow, and stop this bloodshed, and arrange for a government and constitution that could be chosen by these people under peaceful elections, I think he would deserve the Nobel Prize.
 
franklin said:
A walking contradiction complaining about consistency.



Pay attention to the key word. This went through NATO. Either way, it's kind of dumb IMO that a president has power under NATO but not unilaterally. That's an argument for and against sovereignty all in one.
Click to expand...

I was merely playing Devil's Advocate.

I am against Imperialism. I am against intervening in other countries. If they want to kill themselves off then that's their choice. As a dictator of a sovereign nation, Gaddafhi has the power to kill off his country's population. If people want change, REAL CHANGE, then it needs to come within itself. No country has won freedom or independence or unity because of an imperial power intervening. If Libyans want to rid themselves of Gaddafhi, then they need to do it themselves. They can start by their military refusing to carry out his orders for killing off their own population.

If obama decided to kill off all lawyers in California who wear Fess jerseys, should we expect Libya to intervene? What sort of result could we expect if Americans just stand by and allow this to happen? What will stop him from choosing other victims?

However, i just find it hilarious how hypocritical the right is acting...

They blast Obama for not doing enough... Now they blast him for intervening.... Chuckie Krauthammer 2 weeks ago wrote a scathing article on how Obama wasn't doing enough to help the Libyans... And just this Sunday wrote on article on how our country is broke.

So which is it repubs?

One last point, isn't it funny how repubs rip Obama and label him people like Nero and Stalin when in reality, Obama has been nothing less than a 3rd Bush term? He hasn't stopped any of the wars (began a 3rd), hasn't fixed the tax code, hasn't done anything to enhance regulations on banks or wall street, extended the tax cuts for the rich, has made little progress in advancing the green agenda, hasn't axed the Patriot Act, hasn't constructed abortion and marijuana clinics across the nation, hasn't passed amnesty, hasn't done anything to protect unions, hasn't made any cuts to defense, and the health care reform that was passed was exactly what repubs were suggesting just a decade before.

Truly, the only "liberal" thing Obama has done was do away with DADT. Which, honestly, was probably coming anyway.

If anything, McCain would have been more liberal than Obama. Repubs should be enjoying this... Which probably, they really are inside. They get their tax cuts, defense, and wars, continued agenda, yet the Demos take all the blame.
 
LogGrad98 said:
But Bush the Spawn of Hitler and Satan himself for taking out the 3rd worse mass murderer in history, ...
Click to expand...

Which, out of Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler, rank behind Hussein?

By the way, From what I recall Bush's invasion passed overwhelmingly in the House and had exactly one dissenter in the Senate. So, where's the supposed flip-flop?
 
The Thriller said:
However, i just find it hilarious how hypocritical the right is acting...

They blast Obama for not doing enough... Now they blast him for intervening.... Chuckie Krauthammer 2 weeks ago wrote a scathing article on how Obama wasn't doing enough to help the Libyans... And just this Sunday wrote on article on how our country is broke.

So which is it repubs?

One last point, isn't it funny how repubs rip Obama and label him people like Nero and Stalin when in reality, Obama has been nothing less than a 3rd Bush term? He hasn't stopped any of the wars (began a 3rd), hasn't fixed the tax code, hasn't done anything to enhance regulations on banks or wall street, extended the tax cuts for the rich, has made little progress in advancing the green agenda, hasn't axed the Patriot Act, hasn't constructed abortion and marijuana clinics across the nation, hasn't passed amnesty, hasn't done anything to protect unions, hasn't made any cuts to defense, and the health care reform that was passed was exactly what repubs were suggesting just a decade before.

Truly, the only "liberal" thing Obama has done was do away with DADT. Which, honestly, was probably coming anyway.

If anything, McCain would have been more liberal than Obama. Repubs should be enjoying this... Which probably, they really are inside. They get their tax cuts, defense, and wars, continued agenda, yet the Demos take all the blame.
Click to expand...

And you can't see the same hypocrisy from the left? The years they blasted Bush for very similar issues, tried to portay him as a moron that couldn't put together a coherent sentence, and villified him for starting a war that they themselves in Congress voted for. Bush was practically the anti-christ to follow dem invectives for the 8 years of his presidency, but now they fully support Obama in similar if not the same policy decisions, and in starting a war on foreign soil that in essence will have the same effect as the Iraqi war for which Bush was universally panned by the left. You really cannot see the hyprocrisy there?

Does it really surprise you that our severely partisan politics act, well...partisanly (is that a word?)?
 
LOL @ almost all of you. "Obama started another war"... surely you can't be serious???? "Its not like Libya was an actual threat"... LOL. Maybe you're all right and we should have left that psycho-dictator in Libya kill as many of his people as he wanted to unfettered... rain bullets down on protestors.

How is this even at all analagous to what Bush did with Iraq??? You all aren't even making sense anymore.
 
Lance-A-Million said:
LOL @ almost all of you. "Obama started another war"... surely you can't be serious???? "Its not like Libya was an actual threat"... LOL. Maybe you're all right and we should have left that psycho-dictator in Libya kill as many of his people as he wanted to unfettered... rain bullets down on protestors.

How is this even at all analagous to what Bush did with Iraq??? You all aren't even making sense anymore.
Click to expand...

You ever heard of the Kurds, mass graves, paying the families of Muslim homicide bombers to kill Jews, and Hussein's rape rooms?
 
Lance-A-Million said:
Are any of those the reasons we invaded Iraq? Are we "invading" Libya?
Click to expand...

Yes, Bush said we were liberating Iraqis from a dictator.

Obama: "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

Why are you defending Obama's hypocrisy?
 
Millsapa said:
You ever heard of the Kurds, mass graves, paying the families of Muslim homicide bombers to kill Jews, and Hussein's rape rooms?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Just look it up. Not that taking any human life is acceptable, but if you want to compare atrocities, estimates of the dead under Ghadaffi are in the 10's of thousands, the highest estimate being in the neighborhood of nearly 100k killed. Saddam killed well over 800,000 with high estimates over 2 million since many that he killed were never accounted for. This puts him above the Khmer Rouge and just below Hitler, Stalin and Mao for mass murders (the last 3 were all in the 10's of millions). It even puts his total above the ethnic cleansing in Rawanda (800k dead there). Pretty sure Saddam was first in line to go down in terms of deadly dictators in that part of the world.

Both of them needed to be put down, it is just funny to hear the rhetoric about the "why" making any difference. If we can find a good enough excuse then Obama is the hero, if we can come up with a crappy enough excuse we can say that Bush was really a villain who just happened to take out Saddam as a by-product of his nefarious scheme.
 
Millsapa said:
Yes, Bush said we were liberating Iraqis from a dictator.
Obama: "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
Click to expand...

Ok, so which is it? We invaded Iraq because they were a threat or because we're the good guys just helping out the Iraqis? No doubt there is hypocrisy on both sides. Both parties sound like a bunch of little kids who just want to go against the other side, no matter what they do. You want to defend Iraq while criticizing Libya? There's a few slight differences. If the majority of our allies were against it, and we were making a major commitment of our military that could last for years and years, then I'd be right there with you. Then again, if all we do is help level the playing field and then back off to let things play out, it's kind of silly to start making comparisons. Maybe it's just me.

Also, I think your rationalization about the reasons for/against are a little naive. The US is going to look out for their best interests, and you can bet that the real reasons for our involvement in both Iraq and Libya have to less to do with helping others as much as helping ourselves.
 
freakazoid said:
Ok, so which is it? We invaded Iraq because they were a threat or because we're the good guys just helping out the Iraqis? No doubt there is hypocrisy on both sides. Both parties sound like a bunch of little kids who just want to go against the other side, no matter what they do. You want to defend Iraq while criticizing Libya? There's a few slight differences. If the majority of our allies were against it, and we were making a major commitment of our military that could last for years and years, then I'd be right there with you. Then again, if all we do is help level the playing field and then back off to let things play out, it's kind of silly to start making comparisons. Maybe it's just me.

Also, I think your rationalization about the reasons for/against are a little naive. The US is going to look out for their best interests, and you can bet that the real reasons for our involvement in both Iraq and Libya have to less to do with helping others as much as helping ourselves.
Click to expand...

Bush claimed both.

Who was criticizing Libya? I'm criticizing the incompetent hypocritical flipflopping commander in chief.

I think the main reason we are attacking in Libya is for Billary's 2012 campaign.
 
You people need to be educated on the Iraqi War. School is in session tools.

We invaded Iraq because of the "War on Terror." They were an imminent threat with all their scary WMDs. Remember Cheney? The first sign we might see is a Mushroom cloud. Colin Powell went to the UN not to "disarm a dictator" but to invade Iraq to take over their country and destroy WMDs.

We had stopped mass genocide with our no fly zones and daily air patrols years before the invasion had begun. So this is completely different than Iraq.

Lastly, the left IS criticizing Obama over this Libyan operation.

The hypocrisy comes from the right, who supported Bush and is now hating Obama. The right for years now has been calling our country broke, yet demanded Obama's intervention. Hell, Chuck Krauthammer and Glenn Beck have suggested we invade Iran too.

So which is it? We wage war against everyone we disagree with and spend money we don't have? Or do we cut back the biggest entitlement program (defense spending) and balance the budget?

To me, I say get the hell out of most countries. Of course, big corporations would never allow that. Nor the bought off senators who need those military jobs and factories in their states.
 
The Thriller said:
You people need to be educated on the Iraqi War. School is in session tools.

We invaded Iraq because of the "War on Terror." They were an imminent threat with all their scary WMDs. Remember Cheney? The first sign we might see is a Mushroom cloud. Colin Powell went to the UN not to "disarm a dictator" but to invade Iraq to take over their country and destroy WMDs.

We had stopped mass genocide with our no fly zones and daily air patrols years before the invasion had begun. So this is completely different than Iraq.

Lastly, the left IS criticizing Obama over this Libyan operation.

The hypocrisy comes from the right, who supported Bush and is now hating Obama. The right for years now has been calling our country broke, yet demanded Obama's intervention. Hell, Chuck Krauthammer and Glenn Beck have suggested we invade Iran too.

So which is it? We wage war against everyone we disagree with and spend money we don't have? Or do we cut back the biggest entitlement program (defense spending) and balance the budget?

To me, I say get the hell out of most countries. Of course, big corporations would never allow that. Nor the bought off senators who need those military jobs and factories in their states.
Click to expand...

Please die while school is in session!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top