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

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The doubletalk and historical revisionism over this topic is amazing. I'm surprised we haven't had a version of the story where President Bush personally flew a fighter plane into combat, like Independence Day

[JohnSmith2007 353]

The doubletalk and historical revisionism over this topic is amazing. I'm surprised we haven't had a version of the story where President Bush personally flew a fighter plane into combat, like Independence Day

Please point out any inaccuracy in my last statement.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You can't relativise two entirely different situations by recycling arguments from the Iraq war.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

You can't relativise two entirely different situations by recycling arguments from the Iraq war.

Then justify your statement. What is it your trying to say?

The doubletalk and historical revisionism over this topic is amazing. I'm surprised we haven't had a version of the story where President Bush personally flew a fighter plane into combat, like Independence Day

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Why doesn't the Arab League handle this....they can't be that worthless can they ? They buy all that high tech military equipment and never use it. They only ones that ever put it to use are the nutters in Lebanon and Gaza when their launching missiles into Israel.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Your entire argument against Libya involves recycling arguments from Iraq.

Limited military interventions are the typical way the international community does business - you can find examples of this that go back to the 1950s.

You don't seem to see any differences between limited military interventions and full scale wars involving invasion by air, land and sea to effect the complete removal of a government and the destruction of infrastructure.

Frankly, it's obscene.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Your entire argument against Libya involves recycling arguments from Iraq.

Limited military interventions are the typical way the international community does business - you can find examples of this that go back to the 1950s.

You don't seem to see any differences between limited military interventions and full scale wars involving invasion by air, land and sea to effect the complete removal of a government and the destruction of infrastructure.

Frankly, it's obscene.

You are still dancing Fish. Please tell me what you meant by your statement. "The doubletalk and historical revisionism over this topic is amazing. I'm surprised we haven't had a version of the story where President Bush personally flew a fighter plane into combat, like Independence Day "

To compare and contrast past conflicts with this one is not obscene. I don't see how you can make that statement. You were the one that made the comment in another thread, "Iraq=unilateral Libya=multilateral". Now that it has been shown to be false you deflect and dance by saying that you can't compare the two. My position is you can and you must. They are both war actions taken by American presidents.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You are still dancing Fish. Please tell me what you meant by your statement. "The doubletalk and historical revisionism over this topic is amazing. I'm surprised we haven't had a version of the story where President Bush personally flew a fighter plane into combat, like Independence Day "

To compare and contrast past conflicts with this one is not obscene. I don't see how you can make that statement. You were the one that made the comment in another thread, "Iraq=unilateral Libya=multilateral". Now that it has been shown to be false you deflect and dance by saying that you can't compare the two. My position is you can and you must. They are both war actions taken by American presidents.

I've told you what I mean.

It would be one thing if you were looking at modern events with a historical perspective and comparing them to something that is reasonably similar. However, you're comparing an isolated military intervention with a full-scale war - recycling specific arguments that were used in opposition to Iraq as if they somehow apply to Libya.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

I've told you what I mean.

It would be one thing if you were looking at modern events with a historical perspective and comparing them to something that is reasonably similar. However, you're comparing an isolated military intervention with a full-scale war - recycling specific arguments that were used in opposition to Iraq as if they somehow apply to Libya.

I was responding to Dog question:

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.

And I answered him with:

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.

To which you put forth,

"The doubletalk and historical revisionism over this topic is amazing. I'm surprised we haven't had a version of the story where President Bush personally flew a fighter plane into combat, like Independence Day

I asked you to justify that statement and so far you haven't. All you have done is dance and deflect. Either answer my question, admit to just throwing spitballs or butt out of a conversation I was having with Dog.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Butt out? Sorry, no.

I've justified the statement to my satisfaction - I don't think its possible to do it to yours - given your predilection for stating absolutes without giving any ground

I think you need to decide what kind of discussion you want to have - you can't have it both ways.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Butt out? Sorry, no.

I've justified the statement to my satisfaction - I don't think its possible to do it to yours - given your predilection for stating absolutes without giving any ground

I think you need to decide what kind of discussion you want to have - you can't have it both ways.

You haven't addressed my question in any way at all. All I get is your prattling about how they can't be compared which has nothing at all do do with the statement, "The doubletalk and historical revisionism over this topic is amazing. I'm surprised we haven't had a version of the story where President Bush personally flew a fighter plane into combat, like Independence Day " .So all I can assume is your throwing spitballs and don't want to admit it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I've explained it to you. Repeating myself would obviously be futile.

You're disingenuously recycling arguments that were used in opposition to the Iraq War against this action in Libya as part of some sort of perceived payback against people who disagreed with Bush.

Why aren't you talking about any of the other limited military interventions the US or the International Community have engaged in? Why are you fixating on Iraq? More to the point, is it any coincidence that as sensationalist parts of the US mass media propagate these arguments - that suddenly they appear on here?

Edited March 23, 2011 by fishdude

[JohnSmith2007 353]

I've explained it to you. Repeating myself would obviously be futile.

You're disingenuously recycling arguments that were used in opposition to the Iraq War against this action in Libya as part of some sort of perceived payback against people who disagreed with Bush.

Why aren't you talking about any of the other limited military interventions the US or the International Community have engaged in? Why are you fixating on Iraq? More to the point, is it any coincidence that as sensationalist parts of the US mass media propagate these arguments - that suddenly they appear on here?

Yet again you are not answering the question.

I was responding to Dogs question:

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.

And I answered him with:

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.

To which you put forth,

"The doubletalk and historical revisionism over this topic is amazing. I'm surprised we haven't had a version of the story where President Bush personally flew a fighter plane into combat, like Independence Day

Please show me where you answered my request to justify your statement about the doubletalk and historical revisionism. All you seem to want to do is change the subject and not address what I asked.

I will not let you off the hook on this. Either answer the question or stop responding. Anything else will only result in an endless request for you to answer my original question.

Edited March 23, 2011 by JohnSmith2007

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Again - why are you only interested in using arguments that were used to oppose Iraq to oppose Libya?

What about US interventions in Kosovo, Bosnia, Nicaragua, Grenada etc. etc.

What difference does it make to argue, for example, that Gaddafi doesn't pose a direct thread to US National Security? How is this supposed to be meaningful?

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Again - why are you only interested in using arguments that were used to oppose Iraq to oppose Libya?

What about US interventions in Kosovo, Bosnia, Nicaragua, Grenada etc. etc.

What difference does it make to argue, for example, that Gaddafi doesn't pose a direct thread to US National Security? How is this supposed to be meaningful?

I have made that case in other threads. But I as you again, please justify your comment in regard to this line of comments,

Dog asked:

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.

And I answered him with:

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.

To which you put forth,

"The doubletalk and historical revisionism over this topic is amazing. I'm surprised we haven't had a version of the story where President Bush personally flew a fighter plane into combat, like Independence Day