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

[MaggieMae]

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

The US has always appeared selective regarding which dictator to remove who is using genocide against his own people. Nixon and Carter ignored Idi Amin of Uganda; Reagan and all successors have ignored Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe; Reagan and all successors have been reluctant to interfere in Sudan. And we probably wouldn't have gotten involved in Libya if it weren't for the uprising by the people to unseat Ghadaffi who, until then, was being treated like a friend and ally.

 

[StevenC]

A dictator who the vast majority of the people are trying to oust is not a sovern government.

Since when?

The United Nations currently only requires that a sovereign state have an effective and independent government within a defined territory. According to current international law norms, states are only required to have an effective and independent system of government pursuant to a community within a defined territory

Your logic would put you on the side of the British in our own war for freedom.

No, that is your logic. I would have sided with the revelution as I side with the Libyan rebels.
But the British were the true sovereign until we won.

 

[BlindBoo]

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

The final SCR against Saddam's Iraq was 1441 and was in effect at the time Bush determined to invade and occupy.

Let's not forget that Ronnie Raygun Refused to sanction Iraq's use of Chemical Weapons against not only the Kurds in Iraq, but also against the Iranian troops as well. Lets not forget that Ronnie continued to ally with Saddam after the facts of his Chemical attacks were known. Lets also not forget that Because of Uncle Raygun, Saddam was able to expand his chemical arsinal to include more sophisticated chemicals. Not to mention the technology need to start his Nuclear weapons program.

Can you say "And I Helped"

 

[MaggieMae]

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

Most of the raging against the Iraq war was that we never had a Plan B, let alone an exit plan. The BA had several opportunities to declare victory and ease out of that hell hole, but it chose to "stay the course." At least there is no plan to send in American combat troops to Libya; there is a strategy in place to stop G-daffy's air bombardment against its own civilians (they have no real ground combat capability anyway), and when that is successful, the coalition forces, especially Italy and France, who have more to lose, will take over the major operation from there. I've seen several comments from people who are angry that "we don't know enough," to which I'll just say when are war room strategies ever discussed with the public beforehand?

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

I never believed that urban myth. Bush was convinced by Cheney and Rumsfeld that an invasion of Iraq was necessary. He didn't listen to anyone else, and they of course listened to Curveball. People who have never read it should pick up a copy (probably really cheap now) of Woodward's "Plan of Attack." The behind-closed-doors debates are revealed by the principals involved, including Secretary Powell's objections to the invasion and Condi Rice's constant put-downs by Cheney and Rumsfeld.

 

[BlindBoo]

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

It's more fun watching the pseudo-conned continue to justify invading and occupying Iraq and drawing a moral equivalence to the UN action in Libya, when there is none.

 

[MaggieMae]

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

Yeah, that part is sooooooooooooooooooooo important.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

That's why I was dead set against being first in. I envision another long, drawn-out conflict with far too many American lives lost and way too much money invested in another bad outcome in any event. But, being the optimist I still try to be, I also believe that there are smarter people making such decisions than me. What I do know is that there were a multitude of principals both from the State and Defense Departments trying to decide upon the best route to take with Libya. Hopefully they made the right one this time.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Actually the Iraqis did call out for help overthrowing Saddam. In 1991. After the first Gulf War President Bush (GHWB) encouraged the Iraqi to revolt and overthrow Saddam.

On February 15, 1991, President of the United States George H. W. Bush announced on the Voice of America radio saying:

“ "There is another way for the bloodshed to stop: And that is, for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside and then comply with the United Nations' resolutions and rejoin the family of peace-loving nations."

On the evening of February 24, several days before the Gulf War ceasefire was signed in Safwan, the Saudi Arabia-based Voice of Free Iraq radio station, funded and operated by the CIA, broadcasted a message to the Iraqis telling them to rise up and overthrow Saddam.[1] The speaker on the radio was Salah Omar al-Ali, a former member of the Ba'ath Party and the ruling Revolutionary Command Council. Al-Ali's message urged the Iraqis to overthrow the "criminal tyrant of Iraq":

“ "Rise to save the homeland from the clutches of dictatorship so that you can devote yourself to avoid the dangers of the continuation of the war and destruction. Honourable sons of the Tigris and Euphrates [rivers], at these decisive moments of your life, and while facing the danger of death at the hands of foreign forces, you have no option in order to survive and defend the homeland but put an end to the dictator and his criminal gang."[2] ”

Al-Ali's radio broadcast encouraged Iraqis to "stage a revolution" and claimed that "[Saddam] will flee the battlefield when he becomes certain that the catastrophe has engulfed every street, every house and every family in Iraq.

1991 uprisings in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When they did revolt, the President of the United States offered them no help in anyway and let them all get brutally slaughtered by pro-Saddam forces.

 

[MaggieMae]

You know, one could say that is because unlike liberals/Democrats, conservatives think for themselves and don't just agree on everything accepting the parties "Talking Points" as being gospel and just following along with whatever the party tells them to do.

Immie

That almost sounds reasonable...until you realize that your "side" will be coming at him no matter what the situation is. At least come to some consensus before you attack the man.

Then you remember that conservatives are usually the KINGS of taking one sound byte and pounding it home to middle America. That's been their strength over the last 2 years.

I don't have a side. And I am not attacking him.

I actually support him in this instance although I am concerned that this will lead to ground troops and another long term occupation. I'm praying it does not. I really do not want to be in another Iraq type situation where American soldiers are dying for something that will not change if we are there 1,000 years.

Also, I don't think they (conservatives) should come to a consensus. Why should they all agree to do something that is immature and idiotic? Those that feel he is over stepping his authority should have every right to say so, those that don't feel that way should not be forced to say so because the man in the Oval Office carries a (D) after his name rather than an (R).

Immie

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.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

That's why I was dead set against being first in. I envision another long, drawn-out conflict with far too many American lives lost and way too much money invested in another bad outcome in any event. But, being the optimist I still try to be, I also believe that there are smarter people making such decisions than me. What I do know is that there were a multitude of principals both from the State and Defense Departments trying to decide upon the best route to take with Libya. Hopefully they made the right one this time.

I see the same thing except that I expect the rest of the coalition to realize that this is going to turn into another long occupation and to eventually pull out. The past tells me the world will pull out, but we will still be there holding the bag once again. And then we will end up being the bad guys once again.

Immie

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

The UN put peacekeepers in the Congo, troops, how many were American? None? 2 to 4 million people have been killed related to the war(s) there in recent years.

Why wasn't that a vital US interest, but Libya is?

 

[NYcarbineer]

That almost sounds reasonable...until you realize that your "side" will be coming at him no matter what the situation is. At least come to some consensus before you attack the man.

Then you remember that conservatives are usually the KINGS of taking one sound byte and pounding it home to middle America. That's been their strength over the last 2 years.

I don't have a side. And I am not attacking him.

I actually support him in this instance although I am concerned that this will lead to ground troops and another long term occupation. I'm praying it does not. I really do not want to be in another Iraq type situation where American soldiers are dying for something that will not change if we are there 1,000 years.

Also, I don't think they (conservatives) should come to a consensus. Why should they all agree to do something that is immature and idiotic? Those that feel he is over stepping his authority should have every right to say so, those that don't feel that way should not be forced to say so because the man in the Oval Office carries a (D) after his name rather than an (R).

Immie

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?

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

That would be because we aren't some monolithic group.

I don't think we should be going in. But since we are, it would be nice to see the President actually act like the President. He could atleast address the American people, tell us why he decided to support this action, who the rebels we are supportng, and other important stuff to make his argument. He could go to Congress like He's required to and get the people to support him. Something people who love liberty like our Leaders to do. I mean we are likely going to have to pay some or all of this despite what promises we might have from the Arab League. It would be nice to see some leadership for the money we are paying.

Key Congress people were consulted. It takes an enormous amount of time to get anything through Congress, and Libya could go up in flames before THEY even stopped debating the issue as a whole body. And Obama is supposed to speak about Libya at about 2PM, a few minutes from now.

 

[BlindBoo]

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

Impeach Obama because he lied about the ongoing Libyian Weapon of Mass Destruction programs that are stockpiling new weapons as we speak!

Impeach Obama because he lied about Libyian connection with al Queda!

Impeach Obama for invading a country without support of the UNSC!

Just doesn't work quite the same.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

I don't think the Constitution provides Congress with the authority to delagate their power to declare war to the UN.

This isn't "war." And we ARE a member of the United Nations, which adopted the resolution to create a no-fly zone, which I think is the only point TM is trying to make. As far as the constitutionality, we'd have to remove ourselves as members of the UN Security Council if that's going to be the argument.

 

[jillian]

UN support of the action?

not based on a lie?

 

[Immanuel]

I don't have a side. And I am not attacking him.

I actually support him in this instance although I am concerned that this will lead to ground troops and another long term occupation. I'm praying it does not. I really do not want to be in another Iraq type situation where American soldiers are dying for something that will not change if we are there 1,000 years.

Also, I don't think they (conservatives) should come to a consensus. Why should they all agree to do something that is immature and idiotic? Those that feel he is over stepping his authority should have every right to say so, those that don't feel that way should not be forced to say so because the man in the Oval Office carries a (D) after his name rather than an (R).

Immie

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

 

[High_Gravity]

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?

The UN put peacekeepers in the Congo, troops, how many were American? None? 2 to 4 million people have been killed related to the war(s) there in recent years.

Why wasn't that a vital US interest, but Libya is?

There were no multi billion dollar oil contracts in the Congo, if there were we would have Marines in there so quick to give them democracy it would make your head spin.

 

[dilloduck]

UN support of the action?

not based on a lie?

It's based on a lie ---the goal here is regime change. NOT protecting civilians.