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

[BlindBoo]

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?

Because China has a permanant position on the Security Councel with veto power. They can veto any SCR, just like the US can and has done so with the many resolutions against Israel.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

That's the point, Ghadafi was a brutal dictator, so was Saddam, so are others in the world. You're either in favor of using warmongering to get rid of these types or you aren't.

I fall on the aren't side.

I think if the UN wants to be considered a credible body, it should resolve to get rid of ALL of them, but it won't because like every political body, the UN Security Council members are influenced by other non-members, and they vote according to their own interests.

That said, your initial question asked what the difference was between Iraq and Libya and wondering if support would prove a level of hypocrisy. And all through this thread, people have tried to show you that there is a huge difference between the two. At least for now.

 

[Dr.Drock]

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.

That's the point, Ghadafi was a brutal dictator, so was Saddam, so are others in the world. You're either in favor of using warmongering to get rid of these types or you aren't.

I fall on the aren't side.

I think if the UN wants to be considered a credible body, it should resolve to get rid of ALL of them, but it won't because like every political body, the UN Security Council members are influenced by other non-members, and they vote according to their own interests.

That said, your initial question asked what the difference was between Iraq and Libya and wondering if support would prove a level of hypocrisy. And all through this thread, people have tried to show you that there is a huge difference between the two. At least for now.

Ah, now you're calling for world war, yikes.

I asked the difference in principle, and somehow the UN takes place of principle and changes everything.

Of course there's differences, but like I said in the OP both partisans are using the same exact excuse for why they support military action in the 2 instances.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I may have missed it, but I haven't seen any Republicans criticizing Obama's "authority" to use our Air Force to enforce the UN no-fly zone. But I have heard plenty of Republicans saying either we shouldn't have waited this long or questioning whether it was something we should have done because of the cost involved. Ironically, it's Dennis Kucinich who has drafted an impeachment resolution for taking the action at all. Kucinich is, of course a very liberal Democrat.

Yes there are quite a few Republicans whose criticism of the President is that he didn't act fast enough,

which means he would have had to act unilaterally, and in all likelihood would have put the whole mess right in our laps, blood and treasure-wise.

Why were you Republicans so keen on that scenario?? Are your defense stocks down?

Who are you addressing that question to? Maggie is by no means a Republican.

If you are addressing me, then first tell me where I criticized the President? BTW I am not a Republican.

Immie

I was expanding on her point and then asking the Republicans here why.

 

[MaggieMae]

That's the point, Ghadafi was a brutal dictator, so was Saddam, so are others in the world. You're either in favor of using warmongering to get rid of these types or you aren't.

I fall on the aren't side.

I think if the UN wants to be considered a credible body, it should resolve to get rid of ALL of them, but it won't because like every political body, the UN Security Council members are influenced by other non-members, and they vote according to their own interests.

That said, your initial question asked what the difference was between Iraq and Libya and wondering if support would prove a level of hypocrisy. And all through this thread, people have tried to show you that there is a huge difference between the two. At least for now.

Ah, now you're calling for world war, yikes.

I asked the difference in principle, and somehow the UN takes place of principle and changes everything.

Of course there's differences, but like I said in the OP both partisans are using the same exact excuse for why they support military action in the 2 instances.

No, they're not. The Bush Administration recognized that they needed congressional approval to go to war, which they got (conditionally). So that was an admission of war. The action taken so far in Libya is not an act of war. If it was, the AF could have dropped a couple of serious bombs directly on the G-Daffy complex and it then would have been an act of war. Establishing a no-fly zone is an action to PREVENT war.

 

[Rozman]

UN support of the action?

We had 12 years of sanctions imposed against Iraq that they ignored.
We had a no fly zone imposed against Iraq and they dicked around with that.
Congress with Hillary and Senator "I served in Viet Nam"Kerry voting to give Bush authorization to use force against Iraq.
Saddam was a brutal thug,no one's crying he's gone.

The difference is this is Obama and the media that helped get him elected in the first place will be very careful to go against him.

 

[NoNukes]

We were led into Iraq under a pack of lies, now we're attacking Libya under a pack of lies.

We worked with allies to "stop a madman" in both.

Both parties in the Senate and president supported the Iraq War and support this Libyan thing whatever it is.

No slow down, I want you to use your brain before you start typing.




before you begin typing, explain how we are in this Libya because of a pack of lies. Do you understand the difference between a few allies following us into Iraq and us assisting some allies and the UN in Libya?

 

[editec]

In princible?

They are similar.

In DETAIL?

They are significantly different events.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I think if the UN wants to be considered a credible body, it should resolve to get rid of ALL of them, but it won't because like every political body, the UN Security Council members are influenced by other non-members, and they vote according to their own interests.

That said, your initial question asked what the difference was between Iraq and Libya and wondering if support would prove a level of hypocrisy. And all through this thread, people have tried to show you that there is a huge difference between the two. At least for now.

Ah, now you're calling for world war, yikes.

I asked the difference in principle, and somehow the UN takes place of principle and changes everything.

Of course there's differences, but like I said in the OP both partisans are using the same exact excuse for why they support military action in the 2 instances.

No, they're not. The Bush Administration recognized that they needed congressional approval to go to war, which they got (conditionally). So that was an admission of war. The action taken so far in Libya is not an act of war. If it was, the AF could have dropped a couple of serious bombs directly on the G-Daffy complex and it then would have been an act of war. Establishing a no-fly zone is an action to PREVENT war.

What's the quota on how many cruise missiles need to be rained down on a country for you to consider it an act of war?

If Russia hit New York with a dozen cruise missiles would you not consider it an act of war?

 

[konradv]

That's the point, Ghadafi was a brutal dictator, so was Saddam, so are others in the world. You're either in favor of using warmongering to get rid of these types or you aren't.

I fall on the aren't side.

I think if the UN wants to be considered a credible body, it should resolve to get rid of ALL of them, but it won't because like every political body, the UN Security Council members are influenced by other non-members, and they vote according to their own interests.

That said, your initial question asked what the difference was between Iraq and Libya and wondering if support would prove a level of hypocrisy. And all through this thread, people have tried to show you that there is a huge difference between the two. At least for now.

Ah, now you're calling for world war, yikes.

I asked the difference in principle, and somehow the UN takes place of principle and changes everything.

Of course there's differences, but like I said in the OP both partisans are using the same exact excuse for why they support military action in the 2 instances.

Not exactly. In Libya we're supporting a popular uprising. In Iraq there was no such uprising. IMO, we shouldn't be attacking or invading countries on the "brutal dictator" excuse without a significant proportion of the population wanting and doing something about it.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I think if the UN wants to be considered a credible body, it should resolve to get rid of ALL of them, but it won't because like every political body, the UN Security Council members are influenced by other non-members, and they vote according to their own interests.

That said, your initial question asked what the difference was between Iraq and Libya and wondering if support would prove a level of hypocrisy. And all through this thread, people have tried to show you that there is a huge difference between the two. At least for now.

Ah, now you're calling for world war, yikes.

I asked the difference in principle, and somehow the UN takes place of principle and changes everything.

Of course there's differences, but like I said in the OP both partisans are using the same exact excuse for why they support military action in the 2 instances.

Not exactly. In Libya we're supporting a popular uprising. In Iraq there was no such uprising. IMO, we shouldn't be attacking or invading countries on the "brutal dictator" excuse without a significant proportion of the population wanting and doing something about it.

Why don't we leave that responsibility up to the people of the country rather than again putting the responsibility on the american taxpayer?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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."

True......but, that was Excuse #2.​

Bush Keeps Revising His Iraq War Rationale​

1. The need to seize Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction until none were found.

2. Liberating the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator.

3. Fighting terrorists in Iraq not at home.

4. Spreading democracy throughout the Middle East.

Iraq; Restatements

* * * *

"One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.

If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it."

*

"I'm a war president," Bush told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Feb. 8.

But in a July 20 speech in Iowa, he said: "Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president."

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

"Isa, a bespectacled businessman with family in Britain, praised Gaddafi when a minder was close, but when the official moved away he changed tack.

"This is the moment. It's critical. The bombs are booming at night. But we are watching the sky and we see the world is trying to help," he said.

A man working in a clothing shop did not want to give his name because he said it was too risky for him to be identified, but he did say: "We want Gaddafi to go."

"We are happy that the West is attacking his forces but we don't want them to get rid of him. We want to do it ourselves. Libyans should get rid of him."

Criticism Of Gaddafi Grows Bolder​

 

[Vanquish]

We shouldnt be over there. Period.

Saving the world is something we just can't do. Hate to say it. America is great and all, but we don't have the infinite resources to be at war forever, policing the world.

When it's time for a World War...call us. We'll get the job done.

 

[konradv]

Ah, now you're calling for world war, yikes.

I asked the difference in principle, and somehow the UN takes place of principle and changes everything.

Of course there's differences, but like I said in the OP both partisans are using the same exact excuse for why they support military action in the 2 instances.

Not exactly. In Libya we're supporting a popular uprising. In Iraq there was no such uprising. IMO, we shouldn't be attacking or invading countries on the "brutal dictator" excuse without a significant proportion of the population wanting and doing something about it.

Why don't we leave that responsibility up to the people of the country rather than again putting the responsibility on the american taxpayer?

Then they'll be crushed. Getting rid of Saddam wasn't bad per se, just badly planned. Everyone needs some help sometimes, e.g. Lafayette!!!

 

[Dr.Drock]

Not exactly. In Libya we're supporting a popular uprising. In Iraq there was no such uprising. IMO, we shouldn't be attacking or invading countries on the "brutal dictator" excuse without a significant proportion of the population wanting and doing something about it.

Why don't we leave that responsibility up to the people of the country rather than again putting the responsibility on the american taxpayer?

Then they'll be crushed. Getting rid of Saddam wasn't bad per se, just badly planned. Everyone needs some help sometimes, e.g. Lafayette!!!

When americans no longer need help, then I'll be more open to us helping others.

 

[MaggieMae]

UN support of the action?

We had 12 years of sanctions imposed against Iraq that they ignored.
We had a no fly zone imposed against Iraq and they dicked around with that.
Congress with Hillary and Senator "I served in Viet Nam"Kerry voting to give Bush authorization to use force against Iraq.
Saddam was a brutal thug,no one's crying he's gone.

The difference is this is Obama and the media that helped get him elected in the first place will be very careful to go against him.

Sorry, but you can't blame the media this time. There are criticisms by ALL the media; there are criticisms from both sides of the aisle; and there are criticisms from citizen Democrats and Republicans, Independents and from whateverelseyoupeoplecallyourselves these days.

 

[MaggieMae]

Ah, now you're calling for world war, yikes.

I asked the difference in principle, and somehow the UN takes place of principle and changes everything.

Of course there's differences, but like I said in the OP both partisans are using the same exact excuse for why they support military action in the 2 instances.

No, they're not. The Bush Administration recognized that they needed congressional approval to go to war, which they got (conditionally). So that was an admission of war. The action taken so far in Libya is not an act of war. If it was, the AF could have dropped a couple of serious bombs directly on the G-Daffy complex and it then would have been an act of war. Establishing a no-fly zone is an action to PREVENT war.

What's the quota on how many cruise missiles need to be rained down on a country for you to consider it an act of war?

If Russia hit New York with a dozen cruise missiles would you not consider it an act of war?

What was the invasion of Grenada called? Reagan sent 5,000 ground troops and they were in and out in about six weeks. What was the invasion of Panama called? We removed the depot Noriega and ended that adventure in less than three weeks. Such brief incursions are not major "acts of war" where the intent is to destroy the entire country because of the acts of their leaders, but to make sure those leaders are no longer around to expand upon their agendas. I don't think either of those mini-wars(?) had full congressional approval either.

 

[Dr.Drock]

No, they're not. The Bush Administration recognized that they needed congressional approval to go to war, which they got (conditionally). So that was an admission of war. The action taken so far in Libya is not an act of war. If it was, the AF could have dropped a couple of serious bombs directly on the G-Daffy complex and it then would have been an act of war. Establishing a no-fly zone is an action to PREVENT war.

What's the quota on how many cruise missiles need to be rained down on a country for you to consider it an act of war?

If Russia hit New York with a dozen cruise missiles would you not consider it an act of war?

What was the invasion of Grenada called? Reagan sent 5,000 ground troops and they were in and out in about six weeks. What was the invasion of Panama called? We removed the depot Noriega and ended that adventure in less than three weeks. Such brief incursions are not major "acts of war" where the intent is to destroy the entire country because of the acts of their leaders, but to make sure those leaders are no longer around to expand upon their agendas. I don't think either of those mini-wars(?) had full congressional approval either.

So.......100? 1000? No limit?

 

[MaggieMae]

We shouldnt be over there. Period.

Saving the world is something we just can't do. Hate to say it. America is great and all, but we don't have the infinite resources to be at war forever, policing the world.

When it's time for a World War...call us. We'll get the job done.

I don't think we should have taken the lead either, only because once the US gets involved, there's a collective sigh of relief from the other coalition members (if any) that they'll be off the hook. They won't have to deal with public outcry as long as the good ol' United States is in there to provide the majority of weaponry and take the fall from the worldwide press.

We can't be globocops and injecting our military might into every flareup. As several pundits have already mentioned, it's time to reestablish exactly what our foreign policy is with regard to "war."

 

[MaggieMae]

What's the quota on how many cruise missiles need to be rained down on a country for you to consider it an act of war?

If Russia hit New York with a dozen cruise missiles would you not consider it an act of war?

What was the invasion of Grenada called? Reagan sent 5,000 ground troops and they were in and out in about six weeks. What was the invasion of Panama called? We removed the depot Noriega and ended that adventure in less than three weeks. Such brief incursions are not major "acts of war" where the intent is to destroy the entire country because of the acts of their leaders, but to make sure those leaders are no longer around to expand upon their agendas. I don't think either of those mini-wars(?) had full congressional approval either.

So.......100? 1000? No limit?

What? That determination is obviously made by the military strategists. Make sense. I'm talking principle, and I guess I incorrectly thought you were too.