Alright Democrats, explain to me how in principle this is different than Iraq

[Dr.Drock]

Republicans excuse the military action in Iraq because they had a brutal dictator who killed his own people and the war gave Iraqi's more "freedom."

Now I'm hearing Democrats excuse the military action in Libya because they have a brutal dictator who kills his own people and you want to Libyans more "freedom."




Now I want to be up front and honest, I don't believe any of that b-s from either side. So this is your opportunity to convince me that it isn't solely republican voters supporting a repbulican and democratic voters supporting a democrat.

Of course the scale is different, but in principle, what's the difference?

 

[rightwinger]

UN support of the action?

 

[Sallow]

Sure:
-No ground troops going in to knock over the government.
-Active rebellion taking place where civilians are getting slaughtered.
-Qaddafi really did have a hand in killing Americans at Lockerbie.
-Unlike Saddam, Qaddafi has no interest in giving up power.
-There is a real coalition and UN buy in.
-This is not being led by the US.

 

[Dr.Drock]

UN support of the action?

The UN put in the sanctions of Iraq that they violated. If they never did that, no Iraq War.

 

[konradv]

Republicans excuse the military action in Iraq because they had a brutal dictator who killed his own people and the war gave Iraqi's more "freedom."

Now I'm hearing Democrats excuse the military action in Libya because they have a brutal dictator who kills his own people and you want to Libyans more "freedom."




Now I want to be up front and honest, I don't believe any of that b-s from either side. So this is your opportunity to convince me that it isn't solely republican voters supporting a repbulican and democratic voters supporting a democrat.

Of course the scale is different, but in principle, what's the difference?

The main difference is that the Libyan people are actually doing something, which wasn't the case with the Iraqis. Getting rid of a dictator is the job of the citizens of the country, see Germany, Poland, Tunisia, Egypt, etc. We can help, but we shouldn't initiate. Are we sending in troops? If not, there isn't much of a comparison to Iraq.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Sure:
-No ground troops going in to knock over the government.
-Active rebellion taking place where civilians are getting slaughtered.
-Qaddafi really did have a hand in killing Americans at Lockerbie.
-Unlike Saddam, Qaddafi has no interest in giving up power.
-There is a real coalition and UN buy in.
-This is not being led by the US.

1.) So? Still a war act where civilians will likely end up being killed.
2.) Civilians were being killed in Iraq also................
3.) Then why weren't you pushing for war with Libya before now?
4.) Saddam wanted to give up power? Link?
5.) Addressed this in my post to rightwinger.
6.) So the Iraq War would've been ok if we were only supporting, let's say England?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The same UN involved in mass rape and other atrocities?

Funny.. that makes it legit?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It's good because of the (D) vs. (R).

There ya go.

 

[Robert]

Well let's see

Bush had 57 UN resolutions calling for the end of Saddam actions.

Obama has 1 UN Resolution calling for an end to Gaddafi's actions.

Bush Had 57 UN resolutions and the full Congressional Approval.

Obama has 1 UN resolution and no Congressional Approval.

And let us not forget Saddams genocidal actions against the Kurds

 

[Dr.Drock]

It's good because of the (D) vs. (R).

There ya go.

I know, thanks Soggy.

I'm just trying to show others the light .



I remember when democrats used to pretend to care about the potential for US weapons to kill civilians, oh it'd be so much fun to go back and re-read those snipets from about 5 years ago.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Well let's see

Bush had 57 UN resolutions calling for the end of Saddam actions.

Obama has 1 UN Resolution calling for an end to Gaddafi's actions.

Bush Had 57 UN resolutions and the full Congressional Approval.

Obama has 1 UN resolution and no Congressional Approval.

And let us not forget Saddams genocidal actions against the Kurds

Well that still have to do with scale. The principle of enforcing what the UN tells us to do is the same whether they tell us 57 times or once.

The genocide goes with scale too, in terms of killing civilians.

 

[rightwinger]

UN support of the action?

The UN put in the sanctions of Iraq that they violated. If they never did that, no Iraq War.

Thats strange...


We invaded to enforce UN sanctions, but the UN opposed our invasion requesting we allow more time for UN Weapons inspectors to do their job

Funny how the conservatives support the UN when it comes to enforcing sanctions but ignore the UN when they say don't invade

 

[FuelRod]

Fun to watch Liberal justification of actions against their core beliefs...

 

[Dr.Drock]

UN support of the action?

The UN put in the sanctions of Iraq that they violated. If they never did that, no Iraq War.

Thats strange...


We invaded to enforce UN sanctions, but the UN opposed our invasion requesting we allow more time for UN Weapons inspectors to do their job

Funny how the conservatives support the UN when it comes to enforcing sanctions but ignore the UN when they say don't invade

Don't lump me in with republicans, I wish the UN vanished off the face of the Earth and that it was never put into place.

Iraq violated UN sanctions, correct? They didn't have WMD's but they had weapons they weren't allowed to have according to the UN, hence giving us an excuse for war.

I'm one of these loons who's against unconsitutional war acts when either party does it, and I'm against doing things we fiscally can't afford when the military act has NOTHING to do with defense.

 

[rightwinger]

The UN put in the sanctions of Iraq that they violated. If they never did that, no Iraq War.

Thats strange...


We invaded to enforce UN sanctions, but the UN opposed our invasion requesting we allow more time for UN Weapons inspectors to do their job

Funny how the conservatives support the UN when it comes to enforcing sanctions but ignore the UN when they say don't invade

Don't lump me in with republicans, I wish the UN vanished off the face of the Earth and that it was never put into place.

Iraq violated UN sanctions, correct? They didn't have WMD's but they had weapons they weren't allowed to have according to the UN, hence giving us an excuse for war.

I'm one of these loons who's against unconsitutional war acts when either party does it, and I'm against doing things we fiscally can't afford when the military act has NOTHING to do with defense.

Strange once again...

You oppose the concept of the UN but support sacrificing 4000 US Soldiers to enforce UN sanctions

 

[Dr.Drock]

Thats strange...


We invaded to enforce UN sanctions, but the UN opposed our invasion requesting we allow more time for UN Weapons inspectors to do their job

Funny how the conservatives support the UN when it comes to enforcing sanctions but ignore the UN when they say don't invade

Don't lump me in with republicans, I wish the UN vanished off the face of the Earth and that it was never put into place.

Iraq violated UN sanctions, correct? They didn't have WMD's but they had weapons they weren't allowed to have according to the UN, hence giving us an excuse for war.

I'm one of these loons who's against unconsitutional war acts when either party does it, and I'm against doing things we fiscally can't afford when the military act has NOTHING to do with defense.

Strange once again...

You oppose the concept of the UN but support sacrificing 4000 US Soldiers to enforce UN sanctions

Amazing that you'd read my posts and conclude that I support the Iraq War.

I'm anti-war, hence one of the main reasons why I'll never be a republican or democrat.

 

[Avatar4321]

I think the main difference between the 2 is unlike Iraq, we have rushed to war with Libya which seems very poorly thought out.

The rebels in Libya have my sympathies. I don't want any person to be killed. But I don't know who these people are. They could end up being more tyranical or have more ties to terrorism than Khadafi. We don't have a clear plan on how we are going to reach our objectives, which as far as i can tell is only making sure Khadafi doesn't kill his people. It's pretty darn vague.

I don't see how US interests are served in this yet. I don't think this was the wisest course of action. It may turn out to have been at some point. But I don't really like this lack of information.

I could at least see some clear strategy, objectives, and information back when we went into Iraq. We also didn't do it immediately.

Of course, these are two different conflicts. They can't really be compared. We will just have to way to see what happens.

 

[JBeukema]

Republicans excuse the military action in Iraq because they had a brutal dictator who killed his own people and the war gave Iraqi's more "freedom."

I thought it was that whole smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud?

 

[JBeukema]

-No ground troops going in to knock over the government.

We'll see whether that remains true

-Active rebellion taking place where civilians are getting slaughtered.

I sure hope we know whom we're backing

-Qaddafi really did have a hand in killing Americans at Lockerbie.

Isn't it kinda late to be using that as justification for actions against him?

-Unlike Saddam, Qaddafi has no interest in giving up power.

I call bullshit

1. Saddam is prepared to give up power and formally resign from all posts, while his second son Qusay Saddam Hussein will rule Iraq. Saddam will stay in Iraq "for the moment."

Saddam Offered Conditional Step-down before Bush Issued Ultimatum: Report

 

[JBeukema]

And let us not forget Saddams genocidal actions against the Kurds

Since when does the U.S. care about that? We didn't care about the Jews before Japan attacked us, we stood by during the Rwanda genocide...

We've a sketchy history when it comes to claiming that moral highground