Fact: Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Saying that the US can pack up and leave the UN without any consideration of the consequences (for the US and the rest of the world) isn't an attack. If you think it is, you're being incredibly oversensitive.

And now you're personalising yet another thread - because you can't separate your personal feelings from the subject at hand.

I understand what would happen if we just packed up and left. The truth is I don't care. We have been the worlds policemant for a long time and it is time to hand it over to someone else. We have our own problems that we need to solve without worring about Frances oil supply from Libya. I just don't want to pick up the tab in blood and treasure for them any more.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I understand what would happen if we just packed up and left. The truth is I don't care. We have been the worlds policemant for a long time and it is time to hand it over to someone else. We have our own problems that we need to solve without worring about Frances oil supply from Libya. I just don't want to pick up the tab in blood and treasure for them any more.

Luckily what you want isn't what the majority of people want. It's irresponsible and dangerous.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Luckily what you want isn't what the majority of people want. It's irresponsible and dangerous.

Really? You need to look at this then.

Polls Show Strong Opposition to US Intervention In Libya

John Ellis | Mar. 18, 2011, 11:52 AM | 1,186 | 7

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's handlers are busy telling the press that she was primarily responsible for getting the United States to commit to helping the "rebels" in Libya.

President Obama had been wary of the risks of intervention, given the already-strained resources of the US military and the prospect of war in a third Muslim country. But he finally agreed to commit the US to a UN resolution authorizing the use of force to stop the advancing forces loyal to Col. Qaddafi in their tracks.

Be that as it may, American voters continue to be dead-set against US intervention in Libyan affairs, according to a number of recent polls. Between two-thirds and three-quarters of Americans (depending on which poll you're reading) tell pollsters they would rather not see the US "involved."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/polls-show-strong-opposition-to-us-intervention-in-libya-2011-3#ixzz1HNSSUN2t

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No... you were talking about withdrawing from the UN and having the US become an isolationist enclave while its enemies and competitors carve up the rest of the world, presumably so that the Uncle Sam can spend his remaining years painting his house and reupholstering his furniture before being carted off to the funny farm

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

This is very simple John. Repeat after me...

"Bush Lied, People Died!"

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why not, its true.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Coalition Forces / Iraq vs. Libya

Coalition Countries - Iraq - 2003

Afghanistan,

Albania

Australia

Azerbaijan

Bulgaria

Colombia

Czech Republic

Denmark

El Salvador

Eritrea

Estonia

Ethiopia

Georgia

Hungary

Italy

Japan

South Korea

Latvia

Lithuania

Macedonia

Netherlands

Nicaragua

Philippines

Poland

Romania

Slovakia

Spain

Turkey

United Kingdom

Uzbekistan

[source: US State Department]

Coalition - Libya - 2011

United States

France

United Kingdom

Italy

Canada

Belgium

Denmark

Norway

Qatar

Spain

Greece

Germany

Poland

Jordan

Morocco

United Arab Emirate

Plus, Bush had two cogressional resolutions allowing the use of force.

So if we go by the numbers, then it is biased to say it is OK to make war with Libya and not Iraq. I get it!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Ok, I was wrong about Germany. Everything else though I stand behind. If France hadn't have been cheating on the oil for food program they would have voted for it. Russia and China would have abstained and Bush would have had his mandate.

Russia might have abstained but there was no sign of support from China for the invasion the US and UK wanted. At best, among the five permanent members you had 2 for (US/UK), 2 against (China/France) and one leaning against (Russia). As far as the 10 non-permanent members were concerned, there were 3 in favor of military action, 2 against and 5 had not stated position on the issue. All that doesn't matter much, however, as no resolution authorizing the invasion could ever have passed given the opposition to such action on the part of France and China.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I am tired of being the worlds police department.

Much of the world is, too. The world didn't ask us to invade Iraq. We did that all on our own the rest of the world be damned.

[Danno 1,228]

Much of the world is, too. The world didn't ask us to invade Iraq. We did that all on our own the rest of the world be damned.

Why would you say "The rest of the world be damned"..... when you know we had a long list of partners?

[웃 910]

The Bush Smear

Obama makes a revealing misstatement in Chile.

Speaking in Chile to defend his decision to launch Operation Odyssey Dawn,

President Obama couldn't resist taking a swipe at George Bush, in a clumsy attempt to make himself look superior.

As reported by Fox News, the President declared: "In the past there have been times when the United States acted unilaterally or did not have full international support, and as a consequence typically it was the United States military that ended up bearing the entire burden."

As the folks at Fox quickly pointed out, Bush actually had twice as many international allies for the invasion of Iraq as Obama has put together for his adventure in Libya. They even put together a list.

The thinking behind this latest Bush smear is extremely troubling. You might view Obama reflexively blaming or denigrating Bush as a dog-bites-man story, but consider the context.

Odyssey Dawn is only four days old. Unlike Bush, Obama made no effort to prepare the American people for the operation, and now that the initial surprise has worn off, significant questions are being asked about his authority to launch these attacks. The concept of taking executive action to counter an imminent threat was arguable in Bush's case – and people have been arguing about it for years – but utterly risible with respect to Libya. Indeed, the Administration hasn't even tried to advance such an argument.

Serious questions are being asked about the long-term objectives of Odyssey Dawn, how much of it we'll be expected to pay for, and whether promises to avoid the commitment of ground forces will be kept.

Against this backdrop, Obama decided to throw out an offhanded smear of his predecessor… a slander so transparently false that it was debunked within minutes?

That's a disconnect with reality so profound that it verges on mental illness. It also highlights just how half-hearted and poorly thought out this decision was. The President has a massive staff and an enormous political team, but apparently no effort was made to put together a comprehensive response to critics of Libya policy. Nobody gamed out the scenario, considered the most predictable developments, and developed comprehensive, well-researched answers to likely challenges. Instead, it was Improv Night in front of a brick wall in Chile, and the President decided to haul out the old joke about Bush the Unitary Executive.

The President's comment demonstrates an appalling lack of knowledge about the Iraq war. He ran as an outspoken opponent of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay… but has continued all three, and now added Libya. It would seem his campaign criticism was not informed and intelligent opposition, but rather a general conviction that George Bush is the devil, and anything he did should be mindlessly denounced from every possible angle.

Congress is understandably upset that they weren't even formally notified about Odyssey Dawn until several days of bombing had already gone by. No rational person could have thought they would be mollified by boasting of how many international allies were consulted, especially since this is a coalition Obama was dragged into. This is not the rhetoric of a President who has been carefully weighing policy options since the beginning of the Libyan uprising. It's the irritable snarl of a man who sent American troops into combat to get everyone off his back, so he could get back to doing what he enjoys.

http://www.humaneven...le.php?id=42440

Edited March 23, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

and now, obama has broken the record by launching more cruise missiles than any other peace prize winner.

[natty bumppo 297]

and now, obama has broken the record by launching more cruise missiles than any other peace prize winner.

it's all part of his stimulus package ... gotta manufacture more

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Why would you say "The rest of the world be damned"..... when you know we had a long list of partners?

How long a list? How many countries? How many countries do we have in the world? Look at those numbers and you'll realize just how short that list was. The vast majority of the international community did not support this action. The relevant international body did not support this action. And those "partners" did not come to the US to ask us to play police man of the world, the US sought their support for what it had already determined to undertake. So, yes, the rest of the world be damned.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

How long a list? How many countries? How many countries do we have in the world? Look at those numbers and you'll realize just how short that list was. The vast majority of the international community did not support this action. The relevant international body did not support this action. And those "partners" did not come to the US to ask us to play police man of the world, the US sought their support for what it had already determined to undertake. So, yes, the rest of the world be damned.

I think the point is there were more countries supporting the invasion of Iraq than there were supporting the no fly zone in Libya. It is just untrue to call Iraq unilateral and at the same time calling Libya multilateral. There was much more support in the world for Iraq AND we had congressional approval. For Libya we didn't have congressional approval and there were fewer countries throwing in their support. It seems that you are hanging everything on the fact there was a UN mandate for the no fly zone and there wasn't for the invasion of Iraq. My point is that both were wrong but Libya is even more wrong.