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

[High_Gravity]

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 biggest difference I see is that US Troops are not on the ground physically invading Libya, and there was no rebels in Iraq currently fighting Saddam and holding cities like there is in Libya.

 

[High_Gravity]

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.

Out of all your points thats the one I disagree with, Saddam was offered asylum in Qatar before the war in Iraq started and he denied it, Bush gave him and his sons a chance to leave Iraq before the US went in and he said no and vowed to fight to the end, much like Ghaddafi is now. They are cut from the same clothe.

 

[Robert]

Indeed we have a very sketchy history in the regard. My point however was the seeming defense by the left that it's ok now to attack Libya because of Gaddafi actions against his people.

I was merely pointing the Hypocritical raging attacks against one administration and not this one for doing more or less the same thing and please before the next mime of there are no troops on the ground invading the nation I would remind that the action has just started.

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

 

[rightwinger]

Indeed we have a very sketchy history in the regard. My point however was the seeming defense by the left that it's ok now to attack Libya because of Gaddafi actions against his people.

I was merely pointing the Hypocritical raging attacks against one administration and not this one for doing more or less the same thing and please before the next mime of there are no troops on the ground invading the nation I would remind that the action has just started.

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

We also enforced a no fly zone in Iraq

Still much different than invading with 100,000 troops

 

[High_Gravity]

Indeed we have a very sketchy history in the regard. My point however was the seeming defense by the left that it's ok now to attack Libya because of Gaddafi actions against his people.

I was merely pointing the Hypocritical raging attacks against one administration and not this one for doing more or less the same thing and please before the next mime of there are no troops on the ground invading the nation I would remind that the action has just started.

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

We also enforced a no fly zone in Iraq

Still much different than invading with 100,000 troops

That no fly zone in Northern Iraq stopped Saddam from basically making the Kurds extinct, so what was a good move.

 

[Truthmatters]

The people of Lybia cried fout for our help in ridding themselves of a brutal dictator.

The people of Iraq NEVER called out for our help.

Bush decided to go get the man who threatened his daddy and who had a shit load of oil even when the UN refused.


To pretend a UN action is the same as the what Bush did is completely dishonest.

Big surprize, the right has been lying to themselves for decades and are always pissed at the people who dont join them in the lapping up of the lies concocted by their right wing leaders.

 

[8537]

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.

-We have support of the Arab nations in the region.

 

[Kalam]

The people of Lybia cried fout for our help in ridding themselves of a brutal dictator.

Who did they appoint to speak for them?

 

[LilOlLady]

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?

Do you understand "UNILATERALLY" "ILLEGAL" "LIES" "OIL"

 

[Truthmatters]

The British should heed Free Libya

To pretend that the liberation factions were not crying for a no fly zone is bullshit.



The most crucial argument in favour of a no-fly-zone is that it is what the free Libyans, at least as manifested in the Transitional National Council in Benghazi (the fledgling caretaker-government-in-waiting), have themselves called for. Just as we supported sanctions against South Africa because it was what the black South Africans themselves called for, so we should do what the free Libyans are calling for.

 

[LilOlLady]

LIBYA IS NOT OBAMA'S ILLEGAL WAR.

This is not Obama's war, He did not declare war on Libya therefore did not need approval of Congress.
The actions against Libya is backed by 128 nations. Who backed Bush's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan? Cheney and Rumsfeld. And they gave false infomation to Congress to get their approval. And used Colin Powell and later quit.
This is not Obama's war, not illegal and not unilaterally. Like Wyatt Earp's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.
There will be absolutely no US involvement beyond air strikes. Others will take it from there.

 

[LilOlLady]

U.N. approves military action on Libya
WSJ reports Egypt sending arms to rebels
Explore related topics
March 17, 2011,
By John Letzing,

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — The United Nations Security Council on Thursday approved the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya and “all necessary measures” to protect civilians in the war-torn African nation, while air attacks aimed at Col Moammar Gadhafi’s forces were reportedly expected within hours.
The U.N. council voted 10-0 to adopt the resolution providing for the use of force in Libva, with five abstentions including China and Russia.

Gadhafi, the embattled leader whose rule not long ago was seen as tenuous, was expected to soon arrive in the eastern city of Benghazi to attempt to wipe out the rebel movement based there.
U.N. approves military action on Libya - MarketWatch


U.N. Authorizes Air Attacks To Stop Libyan Slaughter
New York City : NY : USA | Mar 17, 2011
By Robert Weller

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-ne ... -slaughter


With UN Permission, U.S. Leads Missile Assault
on Gadaffi Forces in Libya Written by Dave Bohon
Sunday, 20 March 2011

Following a second day of UN-approved missile strikes by U.S., French, and British fighter jets and naval forces, military officials said that troops loyal to Libyan dictator Muammar Gadaffi had been stopped in their advance on the rebel-held city of Benghazi.

With a no-fly zone in place following a 24-hour period of attacks from both air and sea, and Libyan forces observing an immediate cease-fire, according to a Reuters news report, Gaddafi’s troops were stopped for the moment, but the dictator of 41 years promised “a long, drawn-out war” against both rebel and foreign forces he referred to as “traitors” and “Nazis.”
The New American ... s-in-libya

 

[Robert]

LOL I'm all for the Calls of Impeachment by the Dem's over Obama Illegal action's seems to me given how the left felt about Bush that they as well would support the same Calls of Impeachment.

Or does the Hypocrisy of the left allow for that?

Just saying

 

[LilOlLady]

Defense Secretary: US Expects to Hand Over the Lead of Libya Mission in 'Days'
Sunday, March 20, 2011
By Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press

Onboard a US Military Aircraft (AP) – U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday that the U.S. expects to turn control of the Libya military mission over to a coalition – probably headed either by the French and British or by NATO – "in a matter of days."


Defense Secretary: US Expects to Hand Over the Lead of Libya Mission in 'Days' | CNSnews.com

This is the difference between invading Iraq and Afghanistan by Bush and our involvement in Libya.UNDERSTAND?[/B]

 

[LilOlLady]

The people of Lybia cried fout for our help in ridding themselves of a brutal dictator.

Who did they appoint to speak for them?

They spoke loud and clear with their protesting.
Iraqis did not ask for our help. Bush's mission in Iraq was not to stop Saddam from killing his peoplebut about WMDs which he did not have. Otherwise he did not give a damn about the people of Iraq. Saddam had been killing his people for decades. What did Bush do about the geneocide in Africa?
Our mission in Iraq changed with the tide. WMDs, genocide, connection with Al Qaeda, Take your pick.


Our mission in Iraq has mutated
By IVAN GOLDMAN
GUEST COLUMNIST

One of the oddest features of our strange, strange war in Iraq is that we're still trying to figure out the mission. Oil? Religious zealotry? Revenge? Glory? What?

Some critics say President Bush has failed to define just what it is we're trying to do there, but he and his handlers have defined it over and over. The trouble is, just about everyone understands by now that they've been lying all along. So media questioners twist themselves into pretzels trying to figure out some polite way of asking them to tell the truth, just once.

http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/237561_goldmanop.html

 

[Dr.Drock]

Defense Secretary: US Expects to Hand Over the Lead of Libya Mission in 'Days'
Sunday, March 20, 2011
By Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press

Onboard a US Military Aircraft (AP) – U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday that the U.S. expects to turn control of the Libya military mission over to a coalition – probably headed either by the French and British or by NATO – "in a matter of days."


Defense Secretary: US Expects to Hand Over the Lead of Libya Mission in 'Days' | CNSnews.com

This is the difference between invading Iraq and Afghanistan by Bush and our involvement in Libya.UNDERSTAND?[/B]

I'm talking about principle, not scale, I dunno how many times I have to repeat that.

If you're counter argument is a lower number of US involved personnel please choose a different strategy.

 

[Vanquish]

It's insane that the conservatives can't get their act together. Which is it? Should Obammy stay out so we spend money on ourselves...or go in and take the lead the way the U.S. "should always do" ?

You people can't even agree amongst yourselves about how Obammy's doing it wrong.

 

[del]

the only difference is that a brain dead dem started this one up instead of a brain dead repub.

 

[Dr.Drock]

It's insane that the conservatives can't get their act together. Which is it? Should Obammy stay out so we spend money on ourselves...or go in and take the lead the way the U.S. "should always do" ?

You people can't even agree amongst yourselves about how Obammy's doing it wrong.

Your problem is you try to argue with a group rather than debate with an individual.

I don't vote for either mainstream party.

Obama should stay out because attacking a country for any reason other than defense is unconstitutional and we're financially bankrupt.

 

[rightwinger]

LOL I'm all for the Calls of Impeachment by the Dem's over Obama Illegal action's seems to me given how the left felt about Bush that they as well would support the same Calls of Impeachment.

Or does the Hypocrisy of the left allow for that?

Just saying

There are some slight differences..

The left called for impeachment proceedings because Bush lied about his reason for attacking Iraq (Smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud) and engaged in torture