Libya: Obama Crafts the Anti-Bush Doctrine

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Have a crappy day.

Well aren't you just a little ray of sunshine? Oh well, I do feel sorry for you. And I still hope you have a nice day.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Pretty obvious that the relativism on display here is top notch. As long as enough people are willing to go along with starting a war it is OK. Tell me, who did Libya attack besides his own people? What threat did he pose to any other country? I just love liberals and the way they can rationalize anything.

Who started what war? The UN declared a no-fly zone over Libya and called for a cease fire. Gaddafi agreed to a ceasefire but continued firing on the rebels. Listen to what the Joint Chief of Staffs says about the objectives, which again are fully supported by the Arab League. That's no small matter. The objective is to cripple Gaddafi's ability to carry out any more attacks on the people of Libya. There is no plan to deploy ground troops. All this is suppose to be is helping the rebels have a fighting chance against Gaddafi's arsenal.

If this goes beyond that, and is not justified then I'll be joining those who are critical of any involvement. There's a good chance that Gaddafi will remain there in Libya for awhile longer, but hopefully with the no-fly zone, and air support, the rebels will be able to reach their objectives of transforming changes to the Libyan government.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

They loved a dictator. Right....

So why do you think the Freedom and Justice Center protested the war every day in Burlington until Obama was elected and then disappeared?

When was the last time you saw a body count in your local newspaper?

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Who started what war? The UN declared a no-fly zone over Libya and called for a cease fire. Gaddafi agreed to a ceasefire but continued firing on the rebels. Listen to what the Joint Chief of Staffs says about the objectives, which again are fully supported by the Arab League. That's no small matter. The objective is to cripple Gaddafi's ability to carry out any more attacks on the people of Libya. There is no plan to deploy ground troops. All this is suppose to be is helping the rebels have a fighting chance against Gaddafi's arsenal.

If this goes beyond that, and is not justified then I'll be joining those who are critical of any involvement. There's a good chance that Gaddafi will remain there in Libya for awhile longer, but hopefully with the no-fly zone, and air support, the rebels will be able to reach their objectives of transforming changes to the Libyan government.

So you do think it is OK to start a war if enough countries go along with it. Just as I thought. Libya did not attack any other country. If the reason for the attack on Libya was because he was killing his own people then why aren't we attacking a multitude of other countries that have bloodthirsty dictators? It seems that your rationalizations stem from who is in the WH rather than any good reasons for the attack.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well aren't you just a little ray of sunshine? Oh well, I do feel sorry for you. And I still hope you have a nice day.

I feel sorry that you're obsessed with party politics.

So why do you think the Freedom and Justice Center protested the war every day in Burlington until Obama was elected and then disappeared?

When was the last time you saw a body count in your local newspaper?

There the world is a little bigger than the usa

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So you do think it is OK to start a war if enough countries go along with it. Just as I thought. Libya did not attack any other country. If the reason for the attack on Libya was because he was killing his own people then why aren't we attacking a multitude of other countries that have bloodthirsty dictators? It seems that your rationalizations stem from who is in the WH rather than any good reasons for the attack.

Nope. My views are much more dimensional than that. Feel free to go back re-read what I said.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Nope. My views are much more dimensional than that. Feel free to go back re-read what I said.

But you are still in favor of attacking a country that is no threat to us. You feel a safety in numbers. That is the way a bully thinks. I ask again, why aren't you calling for attacks on other countries that are killing their own people?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Your dog doesnt hunt John

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Your dog doesnt hunt John

And your position is hypocritical.

[peejay 327]

There the world is a little bigger than the usa

I have to wonder if the "world" would have had the nads to go forward without the muscle of the USA?

How many of the "world" with fighter jets are doing the dirty deed?

Edited March 21, 2011 by peejay

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You want it to be hypocritical. I say 'want' but 'need' is nearer the mark.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

But you are still in favor of attacking a country that is no threat to us. You feel a safety in numbers. That is the way a bully thinks. I ask again, why aren't you calling for attacks on other countries that are killing their own people?

I've never endorsed the single qualifier of only taking military action when our country is directly attacked, but feel free to find a quote of me saying otherwise. You keep trying make this into being exactly what Bush did when the differences are quite obvious. For one, he tried to connect Iraq with 911 and he made the claim that Saddam had WMD that he could use against us. That is quite different from a U.N. resolution for a no-fly zone over a country and enforcing that resolution as necessary, which is what has happened in Libya.

I suppose this comes down to whether or not you recognize the legitimacy of the United Nations, which as I recall you don't. And neither did the hawkish neocons of the Bush Administration who boldly said that they didn't need the U.N.'s blessing to invade Iraq.

But by all indications of your troll-like merry-go-round posts in this thread, you see absolutely no difference between enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya and Bush's call to invading Iraq. Too bad for you.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I have to wonder if the "world" would have had the nads to go forward without the muscle of the USA.

How many of the "world" with fighter jets are doing the dirty deed?

Wonder away. I was pointing out that foreigners aren't obsessed by American party politics.

Some of you seem to think we are.

[peejay 327]

Wonder away. I was pointing out that foreigners aren't obsessed by American party politics.

Some of you seem to think we are.

No sh*t, huh? Boy...they sure jacked off when Obama got elected. They drooled over the Messiah.

You have a short memory or amnesia.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Who started what war? The UN declared a no-fly zone over Libya and called for a cease fire. Gaddafi agreed to a ceasefire but continued firing on the rebels. Listen to what the Joint Chief of Staffs says about the objectives, which again are fully supported by the Arab League. That's no small matter. The objective is to cripple Gaddafi's ability to carry out any more attacks on the people of Libya. There is no plan to deploy ground troops. All this is suppose to be is helping the rebels have a fighting chance against Gaddafi's arsenal.

If this goes beyond that, and is not justified then I'll be joining those who are critical of any involvement. There's a good chance that Gaddafi will remain there in Libya for awhile longer, but hopefully with the no-fly zone, and air support, the rebels will be able to reach their objectives of transforming changes to the Libyan government.

Obama started it.