I was wrong about President Obama

[California Girl]

Not true, there is not a "tremendous amount of support" for Gaddafi. we should back the Freedom Fighters in Lybia.

So you support Al Qaida?

What?Who said anything about Al Qeada. Let me guess, Fox "News"?

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links - Telegraph

So, no. Not Fox News.

 

[idb]

Is there any possibility that the actions are in fact completely altruistic - just as the UN has said?

Is there any possibility that the moon is made out of green cheese?

Explain why it isn't possible?

 

[L.K.Eder]

Not true, there is not a "tremendous amount of support" for Gaddafi. we should back the Freedom Fighters in Lybia.

So you support Al Qaida?

What?Who said anything about Al Qeada. Let me guess, Fox "News"?

Gaddafi blames unrest on al-Qaeda - Africa - Al Jazeera English

 

[editec]

Leaders who have real support of the people do not need to call upon foreign mercenaries to keep them in office.

Except the POPE of course,

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I was wrong about President Obama

Let us call a spade, a spade.

I praised the American people for not playing the race card in the last election because I am not a racist.

But let us call a spade....

Ouch.

"Ouch", indeed!!

Even a Russian should have access to the Internet, and understand......if he wants to be a recognized-member of the International Brotherhood O' Teabaggers....he needs to remember to say:

"Some o' my best-friends are Black!!"

​

 

[kaz]

Not true, there is not a "tremendous amount of support" for Gaddafi. we should back the Freedom Fighters in Lybia.

So Liberals with bogus peace prizes pick and choose who to illegally kill in the name of oil?



Odd.


Democrats told me they were educated.

Let me educate you a little. That bloodthirsty ******* asshole Qaddafi killed over 200 Americans at Lockerbie. He deserved to get his brain splattered for that one. That anyone supports this piece of crap is beyond me..especially anyone calling themselves an American. **** Qaddafi and **** his supporters.

He should have been dead and buried decades ago.

So out of curiosity, did you follow this philosophy over Iraq or was that "different" because it was lead by a Republican?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Liberals are truly capable of cognitive dissonance. They pretend that Obama's war in Libya is not really about oil when we all know that it is. There is nothing "humanitarian" about it.

Ah, yes....'cause, after all....Republicans already covered the "humanitarian"-issues!!​

"After diplomatic negotiations held through the various countries' secret services, led by Stephen Kappes of the CIA and Sir Mark Allen of MI6, in August 2003, two years after Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's conviction, Libya wrote to the United Nations formally accepting 'responsibility for the actions of its officials' in respect of the Lockerbie bombing and agreed to pay compensation of up to US$2.7 billion—or up to US$10 million each—to the families of the 270 victims.

Forty percent of the compensation was then paid to each family, and a further 40% followed once U.S. sanctions were removed. Because the United States refused to take Libya off its list of state sponsors of terrorism, Libya retained the last 20% ($540 million) of the $2.7 billion compensation package. In October 2008 Libya paid $1.5 billion into a fund which will be used to compensate relatives of the Lockerbie bombing victims with the remaining 20%, American victims of the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing, American victims of the 1989 UTA Flight 772 bombing and Libyan victims of the 1986 U.S. bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi. In exchange, President Bush signed Executive Order 13477 restoring the Libyan government's immunity from terror-related lawsuits and dismissing all of the pending compensation cases in the United States, the White House said.

In September 2008, U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice became the first in her position to visit Libya since 1953 and said about the visit; "It demonstrates that when countries are prepared to make $trategic change$ in direction, the United States is prepared to respond."

CA$H; The Be$t Cure-All For Terrorism!!​

"When I called on Libyan Leader Muammar Gaddafi in his Bedouin tent last year, he was at pains to explain how he and President Bush were on the same wavelength. In all his years as a bad boy in the eyes of the West, he said, Libya was simply doing what Bush did when he invaded Iraq. "Bush is saying that America is fighting for the triumph of freedom," Gaddafi said between sips of tea. "When we were supporting liberation movements in the world, we were arguing that it was for the victory of freedom. We both agree. We were fighting for the cause of freedom."

Freedom; NEVER About Oil​

 

[asterism]

common knowledge? lol I have more knowledge on who Lybians are than Fox Noise. But I would be more than happy to look at any link you have.

Al Qaeda may already be among Libya's rebels - World Watch - CBS News

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links - Telegraph

Connections Between Al Qaeda And Libyan Rebels Run Deep

That doesn't prove anything. These are the same people that parroted Bush Admin lies about Al Qeada in Iraq.

It seems you have made up your mind already. What lies are you talking about? As it turns out Zarqawi was indeed in Iraq before the invasion, he went there right after his training camp in Afghanistan got routed. That said, I wasn't aware of CBS being on the pro-Bush side. HuffPo, CNN and The Washington Times weren't either. I've included some International sources and older background information for your consideration.

Al Qaeda offers aid to rebels in Libya - Washington Times

Al Qaeda Presence Detected In Libya

Libyan civil war: An opening for al Qaeda and jihad? - CNN

Libya: Al-Qaeda behind unrest, Gaddafi tells Serbian TV - Adnkronos Politics

BBC NEWS | Africa | Libyan Islamists 'join al-Qaeda'

Al Qaeda sets up 'Islamic emirate' | Herald Sun

Al Qaeda backs Libyan protesters and condemns Gaddafi | Reuters

 

[mudwhistle]

Not true, there is not a "tremendous amount of support" for Gaddafi. we should back the Freedom Fighters in Lybia.

So Liberals with bogus peace prizes pick and choose who to illegally kill in the name of oil?



Odd.


Democrats told me they were educated.

Let me educate you a little. That bloodthirsty ******* asshole Qaddafi killed over 200 Americans at Lockerbie. He deserved to get his brain splattered for that one. That anyone supports this piece of crap is beyond me..especially anyone calling themselves an American. **** Qaddafi and **** his supporters.

He should have been dead and buried decades ago.

I love it when a lefty steps in shit.

Saddam must have been a nice guy because I'm willing to bet you were against getting rid of him.

Iraq under Saddam Hussein had high levels of torture and mass murder.

Secret police, torture, murders, deportations, forced disappearances, assassinations, chemical weapons, and the destruction of wetlands (more specifically, the destruction of the food sources of rival groups) were some of the methods Saddam Hussein used to maintain control. The total number of deaths related to torture and murder during this period are unknown, as are the reports of human rights violations. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International issued regular reports of widespread imprisonment and torture.

According to The New York Times, "he [Saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants — friends on friends, circles within circles — making an entire population complicit in his rule".[8] Others have estimated 800,000 deaths caused by Saddam not counting the Iran-Iraq war.[9] Estimates as to the number of Iraqis executed by Saddam's regime vary from 300-500,000[10] to over 600,000,[11] estimates as to the number of Kurds he massacred vary from 70,000 to 300,000,[12] and estimates as to the number killed in the put-down of the 1991 rebellion vary from 60,000[13] to 200,000.[11] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.[14]

Invasion of Kuwait

Saddam's Kill Totals

Scud Missile Hits Reserve Soldier Barracks

Saddam's Bio

I guess for a Republican President it has to be over WMDs. But for a Democrat, all you need is a threat of a future slaughter.

Doesn't seem fair.

 

[8537]

The far-right finding themselves in lockstep agreement with Pravda? Well, somehow that's fitting.

 

[asterism]

Al Qaeda may already be among Libya's rebels - World Watch - CBS News

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links - Telegraph

Connections Between Al Qaeda And Libyan Rebels Run Deep

Nice, now who was actually in power at the time in Libya that sanctioned training and arming of terrorists?

I imagine you'll also quote from the hundreds and hundreds of articles and document that detail the Libyan government's involvement and support in international terrorism.

I remember when people on the right were spouting off about Iraq "harboring terrorists", showing as proof ONE terrorist (Zarqawi) visiting the country for a time without the Iraqi government's knowledge...

Following the above logic, that should have been entirely blamed on the local villagers, right?

I guess double standards are nothing new among the partisan crazies though...

You seem to have figured out what I am going to say so why should I bother to reply? Does my actual opinion even matter? I'm well aware of Qaddaffi's support for terrorists. I do not advocate backing him either.

 

[gautama]

Is there any possibility that the actions are in fact completely altruistic - just as the UN has said?

Is there any possibility that the moon is made out of green cheese?

Explain why it isn't possible?

Obamarrhoidal idjit, have you ever attempted to prove a negative ?

 

[Sallow]

Is there any possibility that the actions are in fact completely altruistic - just as the UN has said?

Politics and altruism rarely comingle.

You mean like in the Balkins? When Clinton stopped a real live honest to goodness genocide?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Ex

Al Qaeda may already be among Libya's rebels - World Watch - CBS News

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links - Telegraph

Connections Between Al Qaeda And Libyan Rebels Run Deep

Nice, now who was actually in power at the time in Libya that sanctioned training and arming of terrorists?

I imagine you'll also quote from the hundreds and hundreds of articles and document that detail the Libyan government's involvement and support in international terrorism.

I remember when people on the right were spouting off about Iraq "harboring terrorists", showing as proof ONE terrorist (Zarqawi) visiting the country for a time without the Iraqi government's knowledge...

Following the above logic, that should have been entirely blamed on the local villagers, right?

I guess double standards are nothing new among the partisan crazies though...

You seem to have figured out what I am going to say so why should I bother to reply? Does my actual opinion even matter? I'm well aware of Qaddaffi's support for terrorists. I do not advocate backing him either.

Exactly...I say we let them fight it out and deal with the winners. Wether it's with the military or through diplomacy.
As far as i'm concerned both sides suck.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Not true, there is not a "tremendous amount of support" for Gaddafi. we should back the Freedom Fighters in Lybia.

Why on earth should we be supporting people who support Al Qaeda or terrorism?

I don't think we should. And if we would actually have that relatively low standard, we wouldn't be interfering in Libya at all.

who said they support al Qeada? Fox "News"? they have no credibility.

i read it in my local paper.....an AP artical....it said there are things that would suggest that......but as far as i am concerned.....anything Hugo Chavez supports im against....

 

[Sallow]

So Liberals with bogus peace prizes pick and choose who to illegally kill in the name of oil?



Odd.


Democrats told me they were educated.

Let me educate you a little. That bloodthirsty ******* asshole Qaddafi killed over 200 Americans at Lockerbie. He deserved to get his brain splattered for that one. That anyone supports this piece of crap is beyond me..especially anyone calling themselves an American. **** Qaddafi and **** his supporters.

He should have been dead and buried decades ago.

So out of curiosity, did you follow this philosophy over Iraq or was that "different" because it was lead by a Republican?

Saddam Hussein had a passing connection with the first world trade center bombing. And it's not clear if he really knew all that much about it. The Hussein regime flirted with the idea of backing Al Qaeda but decided against it because they were just as dangerous to his government as they were to Western governments. The time to start stuff up with Iraq was probably after Bush I told the Kurds to revolt..but that time had long passed. So when Bush II attacked Iraq, they weren't involved in terrorist activities, they did not have weapons of mass destruction, they weren't involved in an active genocide, and here's the kicker..IRAQIS were begging the US NOT to attack.

Those were the differences.

 

[signelect]

We would pitch a fit in another country told us we were not treating our people right and if they started dropping boms we would go to war over it. WE do NOT have a RIGHT to go to other countries and try to enforce our morality on them.

Obama has enough domestic problems that he is not smart enough to solve without going to Libya to meddle.

Oh, maybe it is about oil after all

 

[asterism]

Ex

Nice, now who was actually in power at the time in Libya that sanctioned training and arming of terrorists?

I imagine you'll also quote from the hundreds and hundreds of articles and document that detail the Libyan government's involvement and support in international terrorism.

I remember when people on the right were spouting off about Iraq "harboring terrorists", showing as proof ONE terrorist (Zarqawi) visiting the country for a time without the Iraqi government's knowledge...

Following the above logic, that should have been entirely blamed on the local villagers, right?

I guess double standards are nothing new among the partisan crazies though...

You seem to have figured out what I am going to say so why should I bother to reply? Does my actual opinion even matter? I'm well aware of Qaddaffi's support for terrorists. I do not advocate backing him either.

Exactly...I say we let them fight it out and deal with the winners. Wether it's with the military or through diplomacy.
As far as i'm concerned both sides suck.

I agree. I'm open to considering new information, but so far it looks like the left supports the action because the President supports it, because the UN asked for it, because the UN Security Council wants to keep the oil flowing to Europe.

That's all perfectly fine if it's in the best interests of our USA. So far I haven't seen the case and the logic of Obama's supporters runs counter to their justifications against the invasion of Iraq. That hypocrisy is of no consequence, it's just interesting.

 

[asterism]

Let me educate you a little. That bloodthirsty ******* asshole Qaddafi killed over 200 Americans at Lockerbie. He deserved to get his brain splattered for that one. That anyone supports this piece of crap is beyond me..especially anyone calling themselves an American. **** Qaddafi and **** his supporters.

He should have been dead and buried decades ago.

So out of curiosity, did you follow this philosophy over Iraq or was that "different" because it was lead by a Republican?

Saddam Hussein had a passing connection with the first world trade center bombing. And it's not clear if he really knew all that much about it. The Hussein regime flirted with the idea of backing Al Qaeda but decided against it because they were just as dangerous to his government as they were to Western governments. The time to start stuff up with Iraq was probably after Bush I told the Kurds to revolt..but that time had long passed. So when Bush II attacked Iraq, they weren't involved in terrorist activities, they did not have weapons of mass destruction, they weren't involved in an active genocide, and here's the kicker..IRAQIS were begging the US NOT to attack.

Those were the differences.

With or without Saddam's support, Zarqawi demonstrated the validity that Iraq was the next best place for Al Qaeda. Saddam was also gaming the UN corruption and was on the cusp of having no sanctions whatsoever which would have provided him even more clout to support his agenda.

Perhaps the same case can be made for supporting the ouster of Qaddaffi, but so far I don't see how we're any better off supporting Al Qaeda's associates in the opposition.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is there any possibility that the actions are in fact completely altruistic - just as the UN has said?

Is there any possibility that the moon is made out of green cheese?

Explain why it isn't possible?

1. If it were actually altruistic we would have invaded a country where we could make a real difference, not one where we can make a real profit.
2. Obama does nothing for anyone unless he gets something out of it.
3. We have been to the moon, and found no green cheese.