Libya: Obama Crafts the Anti-Bush Doctrine

[JohnSmith2007 353]

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

My wants or needs are not at issue here. Your ability to ignore the hypocrisy of your position is.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

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.

You are still endorsing an attack on a country that hasn't threatened us. You can call me a troll all you want, you cannot escape the complete hypocrisy of your position. You are in favor of bombing a country that is no threat to us. You are in favor of our military attempting to assassinate the leader of another country. You are willing to live with the collateral damage and the deaths of innocent bystanders in your bloodthirsty quest for regime change. You sir are a hypocrite.

[^_^ 5,021]

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.

Why is giving them a fighting chance America's problem?

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Why is giving them a fighting chance America's problem?

I wonder why he doesn't advocate bombing Saudi. They fired on protesters. I wonder why he doesn't want to bomb China. They run their protesters over with tanks. I wonder why he doesn't want to bomb N. Korea. The things the Dear Leader does to his people is unspeakable. There are dozens of countries in Africa that have been at civil war for years. Why don't we bomb them? I suspect the only reason he advocates the murder of Libyan people is because Obama wants it.

[^_^ 5,021]

I wonder why he doesn't advocate bombing Saudi. They fired on protesters. I wonder why he doesn't want to bomb China. They run their protesters over with tanks. I wonder why he doesn't want to bomb N. Korea. The things the Dear Leader does to his people is unspeakable. There are dozens of countries in Africa that have been at civil war for years. Why don't we bomb them? I suspect the only reason he advocates the murder of Libyan people is because Obama wants it.

Or because he thinks it would be funny to transform "pound sand" from a mere rhetorical saying to actual literal reality.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

My wants or needs are not at issue here. Your ability to ignore the hypocrisy of your position is.

Sorry John, you need to find something else to harp on because this "you're a hypocrite" because of the lack of posts deriding Obama is just lame.

I'd say your needs are very much the issue here. It's about how childish you're willing to be.

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

Why is giving them a fighting chance America's problem?

It's not America's problem, it's a world community problem, recognized by that community (via the U.N. and supported by the Arab League - Libya's neighbors).

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

I find it bizarre that you and John can't separate party politics from this.

The media has sure done a number on you...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You are still endorsing an attack on a country that hasn't threatened us. You can call me a troll all you want, you cannot escape the complete hypocrisy of your position. You are in favor of bombing a country that is no threat to us. You are in favor of our military attempting to assassinate the leader of another country. You are willing to live with the collateral damage and the deaths of innocent bystanders in your bloodthirsty quest for regime change. You sir are a hypocrite.

Yep. Very childish indeed. You're reducing the position of individuals to a type.

Brilliant. You're definitely trolling here and not very well. It's making you look like an idiot.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Yep. Very childish indeed. You're reducing the position of individuals to a type.

Brilliant. You're definitely trolling here and not very well. It's making you look like an idiot.

That is your opinion, and a poor one at that. I would say that your hypocrisy is on full display here and the only ones that thinks I look like an idiot are those that share you hypocrisy. I will ask you again, why bomb Libya? Why not bomb Saudi or Syria or N. Korea or any number of other countries that oppress and murder its own citizens? Just because some other countries think its a good idea? Hypocrite.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

It's not America's problem, it's a world community problem, recognized by that community (via the U.N. and supported by the Arab League - Libya's neighbors).

Why just Libya? Why not all the other countries that are killing its own people? If it is the job of the UN with the US as the enforcer then why not Syria or Saudi or N. Korea? You and fishy still haven't answered it.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

It's not America's problem, it's a world community problem, recognized by that community (via the U.N. and supported by the Arab League - Libya's neighbors).

It seems that we already lost the Arab League. So should we now stop the bombing?

"What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians."

--AMR MOUSSA, head of the Arab League, doubling back on the group's original support for the no-fly zone in Libya. Moussa says the current military action has gone beyond the wishes of the League.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/20/quotes-arab-league-condemns-libya-airstrikes/

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm not required to justify myself to you, given that your entire line of argument here is nothing more than bald assumptions and stereotypes that imply that you have no interest in anything that happened in the world prior to 2003.

In that regard, what you are doing here is nothing more than trolling and a poor attempt at that, seeing as you (rather than i) appear to be getting quite worked up about it.?

You aren't interested in a civil conversation, so why should I be?

[Teacher Mark 53]

Why just Libya? Why not all the other countries that are killing its own people? If it is the job of the UN with the US as the enforcer then why not Syria or Saudi or N. Korea? You and fishy still haven't answered it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Berlin_discotheque_bombing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_103

That's why and the Obama admin is screwing up when these two incidents aren't used as justification. "Oh, but that was so long ago!" Same chopfvck in charge, right? Is there a statute of limitations on terrorist acts?

Reagan would have obliterated this guy already and if Obama needs to look in the past for guidance I would suggest he look no further than 1980-88.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Berlin_discotheque_bombing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_103

That's why and the Obama admin is screwing up when these two incidents aren't used as justification. "Oh, but that was so long ago!" Same chopfvck in charge, right? Is there a statute of limitations on terrorist acts?

Reagan would have obliterated this guy already and if Obama needs to look in the past for guidance I would suggest he look no further than 1980-88.

Then lets attack Syria. They are violently putting down rebellion and they have a history of state sponsored terrorism.

Syria Terrorism: State Department 2006 Report on State Sponsors -Syria