Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Congress approved the UN charter.
They voted long ago for us to join just such actions.
Keep lying to yourself about this if you are so dishonest.
Dont expect thinking people to accept your lies.
Ok then stop pretending it's about protecting civilians when they cry out for help.
If civilians are being ruthlessly murdered by a dictator, you're ok with it as long as there's no UN charter. If the UN tells us to do something, you want us to. Has nothing to do with dead civilians, so please stop pulling the morality card.
Please understand that its not an argressive move on a countries sovernty when they people ask the world for help and the world votes to help.
going in unasked is
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?
Congress approved the UN charter.
They voted long ago for us to join just such actions.
Keep lying to yourself about this if you are so dishonest.
Dont expect thinking people to accept your lies.
Ok then stop pretending it's about protecting civilians when they cry out for help.
If civilians are being ruthlessly murdered by a dictator, you're ok with it as long as there's no UN charter. If the UN tells us to do something, you want us to. Has nothing to do with dead civilians, so please stop pulling the morality card.
Please understand that its not an argressive move on a countries sovernty when they people ask the world for help and the world votes to help.
going in unasked is
Ok then stop pretending it's about protecting civilians when they cry out for help.
If civilians are being ruthlessly murdered by a dictator, you're ok with it as long as there's no UN charter. If the UN tells us to do something, you want us to. Has nothing to do with dead civilians, so please stop pulling the morality card.
Please understand that its not an argressive move on a countries sovernty when they people ask the world for help and the world votes to help.
going in unasked is
The world also voted to put sanctions on Iraq that if they broke we'd go to war, we broke them, then went to war. You should be against the UN putting sanctions on people when the end result is war.
Any military action that requires US taxpayer dollars that doesn't defend the US taxpayers is aggressive to me.
And thank you for agreeing to no longer using the principle of defending helpless civilians as an excuse for this, as we agree that's not the case.
Ok then stop pretending it's about protecting civilians when they cry out for help.
If civilians are being ruthlessly murdered by a dictator, you're ok with it as long as there's no UN charter. If the UN tells us to do something, you want us to. Has nothing to do with dead civilians, so please stop pulling the morality card.
Please understand that its not an argressive move on a countries sovernty when they people ask the world for help and the world votes to help.
going in unasked is
Sure it is. We are backing the rebels against the legitimate government.
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?
First of all the reasons given for the USA's unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq (without a UNSCR authorizing use of force) was that Saddam was a threat to us because he had WMD and he might use them against us or give the to an al Queda type terrorist group to attack us with.
The UN at the USA's instistance was still looking for Iraq's WMD via SCR 1441. Even if the weapons inspectors had found the fabled WMD or if Saddam had hendered their search, the only action that the SC was going to take was to re-convine to discuss the matter further.
Full text: UN security council resolution 1441 on Iraq | World news | guardian.co.uk
In UNSCR 1973 the wording is such that authorized countries may use any means necessary to carry out the resolutions objectives. Not so with SCR 1441
UN security council resolution 1973 (2011) on Libya
It is how civilized nations should confront aggression in this post cold-war era
Please understand that its not an argressive move on a countries sovernty when they people ask the world for help and the world votes to help.
going in unasked is
The world also voted to put sanctions on Iraq that if they broke we'd go to war, we broke them, then went to war. You should be against the UN putting sanctions on people when the end result is war.
Any military action that requires US taxpayer dollars that doesn't defend the US taxpayers is aggressive to me.
And thank you for agreeing to no longer using the principle of defending helpless civilians as an excuse for this, as we agree that's not the case.
More lies from you huh?
I never said anything like that.
This was entered into by the world because the Libyan people asked us to help them.
The UN agreed to help them.
lie to your self all you want.
Dont expect thinking people to accept your lies.
Please understand that its not an argressive move on a countries sovernty when they people ask the world for help and the world votes to help.
going in unasked is
Sure it is. We are backing the rebels against the legitimate government.
A governmnet is no longer ligitimate when its people revokes its power by the power of numbers.
Democracy is where the world is headed and if you dont like it then what type of world do you think we should have?
Please understand that its not an argressive move on a countries sovernty when they people ask the world for help and the world votes to help.
going in unasked is
Sure it is. We are backing the rebels against the legitimate government.
A governmnet is no longer ligitimate when its people revokes its power by the power of numbers.
Democracy is where the world is headed and if you dont like it then what type of world do you think we should have?
The world also voted to put sanctions on Iraq that if they broke we'd go to war, we broke them, then went to war. You should be against the UN putting sanctions on people when the end result is war.
Any military action that requires US taxpayer dollars that doesn't defend the US taxpayers is aggressive to me.
And thank you for agreeing to no longer using the principle of defending helpless civilians as an excuse for this, as we agree that's not the case.
More lies from you huh?
I never said anything like that.
This was entered into by the world because the Libyan people asked us to help them.
The UN agreed to help them.
lie to your self all you want.
Dont expect thinking people to accept your lies.
Truth you're helpless and I don't know why I don't give up on you, every cell in your body is partisan. Obama could bomb the hell out of Libya or do nothing and you'd cheer him on for both.
Alright Democrats, explain to me how in principle this is different than Iraq
We were led into the war in Iraq with a pack of lies about weapons of mass destruction and Iraq being a danger to us. Now we are working with some of our allies in an attempt to stop this madman. This is not Obama's war, Iraq was Bush's war. Did I go slow enough for you to follow?
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
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?
First of all the reasons given for the USA's unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq (without a UNSCR authorizing use of force) was that Saddam was a threat to us because he had WMD and he might use them against us or give the to an al Queda type terrorist group to attack us with.
The UN at the USA's instistance was still looking for Iraq's WMD via SCR 1441. Even if the weapons inspectors had found the fabled WMD or if Saddam had hendered their search, the only action that the SC was going to take was to re-convine to discuss the matter further.
Full text: UN security council resolution 1441 on Iraq | World news | guardian.co.uk
In UNSCR 1973 the wording is such that authorized countries may use any means necessary to carry out the resolutions objectives. Not so with SCR 1441
UN security council resolution 1973 (2011) on Libya
It is how civilized nations should confront aggression in this post cold-war era
Then why did the U.N. turn a blind eye on China's slaughter of their own people?
Why does the U.N. allow Chine to threaten Taiwan?
Sure it is. We are backing the rebels against the legitimate government.
A governmnet is no longer ligitimate when its people revokes its power by the power of numbers.
Democracy is where the world is headed and if you dont like it then what type of world do you think we should have?
So might makes right? So if say "white people" in the US rose up and overthrough the government and enslaved everyone else you would be ok with it?
Personally I have no problem with what we are doing in Libya but to say "not an argressive move on a countries sovernty" is pure B.S.
This is a UN action.
This is NOT Obama.
The fact that you people refuse to see what is real points right at YOUR partisan views.
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
A governmnet is no longer ligitimate when its people revokes its power by the power of numbers.
Democracy is where the world is headed and if you dont like it then what type of world do you think we should have?
So might makes right? So if say "white people" in the US rose up and overthrough the government and enslaved everyone else you would be ok with it?
Personally I have no problem with what we are doing in Libya but to say "not an argressive move on a countries sovernty" is pure B.S.
What makes a country sovern?
A dictator who the vast majority of the people are trying to oust is not a sovern government.
Your logic would put you on the side of the British in our own war for freedom.
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
Obviously the debate on this message board will revolve around the tit-for-tat political bullshit. Getting even is all the cons care about. Fuck the reason for the UN resolution and coalition trying to force G-daffy to end his brutality.
