I was wrong about President Obama

[Quantum Windbag]

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,

No, he could actually draft people into his Army and force them to be cannon fodder.

Guess what, the two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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

Yeah, and be surprised when the rebels are found to be al queda and muslim brotherhood, who are the real problem in the mideast. Seems funny how obamaturd will support overthrow of countries whose leaders are no threat to us, but countries like Iran and Syria he does nothing even thought they are far worse. Idiot in charge.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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.

lol Gaddaffi isn't dead, this is a UN action. and who is getting oil?

Same accusation you idiot lefties made against Bush, and was wrong. Lefties=socialists in training.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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.

We took care of hussein in Iraq and you lefties cried big tears, now obamaturd is doing the same thing, well not really, and you support him, hypocrites.

 

[Annie]

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.

We took care of hussein in Iraq and you lefties cried big tears, now obamaturd is doing the same thing, well not really, and you support him, hypocrites.

So if it's for Lockerbie, why won't Obama say just that? If that were the case, why didn't he run on that, considering the US had gone the way of Europe? If he thought too controversial, but that was really his agenda, why not declare a unilateral strike on Kadaffi much earlier than now? Or are you implying that the UN provided the excuse that Obama was looking for from the get go, sort of like Bush's war on Iraq because of the assassination attempt on Bush I?

 

[idb]

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

Yeah, and be surprised when the rebels are found to be al queda and muslim brotherhood, who are the real problem in the mideast. Seems funny how obamaturd will support overthrow of countries whose leaders are no threat to us, but countries like Iran and Syria he does nothing even thought they are far worse. Idiot in charge.

It's a simpler world in your head isn't it?

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

Zarqawi was ONE terrorist, who was, as far as our intelligence could ascertain, in Iraq without the sanction of the Iraqi government.

Qaddhaffi was literally training and giving orders to a network of terrorists at one point or another. Reagan bombed the guy specifically for that reason.

And you people see no difference there?

In addition, one of the justifications for the Iraq war was Hussein's past mass killings of his own people. Obama was trying to intervene before this happened in the first place...

How is that not different?

Finally, Obama is not risking hundreds of thousands of American troops here. That is certainly a big difference as far as I'm concerned. Personally, I actually "support the troops", I don't just pay lip service to the talking point. I'd rather see them stay alive.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Zarqawi was ONE terrorist, who was, as far as our intelligence could ascertain, in Iraq without the sanction of the Iraqi government.

Qaddhaffi was literally training and giving orders to a network of terrorists at one point or another. Reagan bombed the guy specifically for that reason.

And you people see no difference there?

In addition, one of the justifications for the Iraq war was Hussein's past mass killings of his own people. Obama was trying to intervene before this happened in the first place...

How is that not different?

Finally, Obama is not risking hundreds of thousands of American troops here. That is certainly a big difference as far as I'm concerned. Personally, I actually "support the troops", I don't just pay lip service to the talking point. I'd rather see them stay alive.

Are you trying to justify the attack of Libya, or discredit the invasion of Iraq? Either way, you are missing your goal.

Obama actually lied about what Qaddafi said. He did not threaten to destroy the city, he was telling the residents that he would root the rebels out of it. The man is crazy, but he was trying to encourage the city that he would not rest until he had rooter the enemy out.

Just something to think about.

 

[wyomingpatriot]

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

Yeah, and be surprised when the rebels are found to be al queda and muslim brotherhood, who are the real problem in the mideast. Seems funny how obamaturd will support overthrow of countries whose leaders are no threat to us, but countries like Iran and Syria he does nothing even thought they are far worse. Idiot in charge.

So what should be done about Iran and Syria? The U.S. can't even manage a low level guerrilla war against a few hundred taliban; barely, BARELY prevailed in iraq, if you can even call it prevailing...the U.S. would crash and burn against any enemy with a substantial military and unwavering ideology. A war with Iran would mean 100000 U.S. casualties, two trillion dollars, failure, and a complete loss of prestige, and possibly an economic depression. I dont think people today could stomach the implications of a real war.

 

[Avatar4321]

So what should be done about Iran and Syria? The U.S. can't even manage a low level guerrilla war against a few hundred taliban; barely, BARELY prevailed in iraq, if you can even call it prevailing...the U.S. would crash and burn against any enemy with a substantial military and unwavering ideology. A war with Iran would mean 100000 U.S. casualties, two trillion dollars, failure, and a complete loss of prestige, and possibly an economic depression. I dont think people today could stomach the implications of a real war.

Why should we be involved in any wars and rebellions in the middle east? Especially if, like in Libya, we don't seem to have a side that doesnt include our enemies.

 

[asterism]

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.

Zarqawi was ONE terrorist, who was, as far as our intelligence could ascertain, in Iraq without the sanction of the Iraqi government.

Qaddhaffi was literally training and giving orders to a network of terrorists at one point or another. Reagan bombed the guy specifically for that reason.

And you people see no difference there?

In addition, one of the justifications for the Iraq war was Hussein's past mass killings of his own people. Obama was trying to intervene before this happened in the first place...

How is that not different?

You may wish to read my post again. I said that perhaps the same case can be made about Qaddaffi however I'm not sure supporting Al Qaeda is in our best interests.

Finally, Obama is not risking hundreds of thousands of American troops here. That is certainly a big difference as far as I'm concerned. Personally, I actually "support the troops", I don't just pay lip service to the talking point. I'd rather see them stay alive.

At this point we have no idea how many troops are at risk. Things could very quickly escalate into a ground war. They aren't sending the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit over there early just for shits and giggles.

I remember Somalia, and when the 15th MEU was headed out we (in the 24th MEU) were told that we weren't going ashore. A week later I remember watching on CNN Madeleine Albright say that there weren't any US ground troops in Mogadishu - from the roof of the old US Embassy there.

 

[Vast LWC]

Are you trying to justify the attack of Libya, or discredit the invasion of Iraq? Either way, you are missing your goal.

Obama actually lied about what Qaddafi said. He did not threaten to destroy the city, he was telling the residents that he would root the rebels out of it. The man is crazy, but he was trying to encourage the city that he would not rest until he had rooter the enemy out.

Just womthing to think about.

Gaddhafi literally threatened to go house to house to root out and kill the rebellious people of the city in question.

Obama didn't re-write or parse what he said, Gaddhafi said it, period.

Now, I don't know about you, but it seems to me that if a proven terrorist leader makes a statement like that, I'm going to take him at his word.

Now, as to "justifying the attack on Libya", I don't feel that that's even necessary, until someone feels that it's necessary to justify Reagan's attack on Libya in the 80's.

Bush's invasion of Iraq, however, was based on a complete fabrication, and cost thousands of American lives, not to mention tens of thousands of Americans who are now maimed.

As far as I know, there have been no Americans killed in Libya. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary.

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

Zarqawi was ONE terrorist, who was, as far as our intelligence could ascertain, in Iraq without the sanction of the Iraqi government.

Qaddhaffi was literally training and giving orders to a network of terrorists at one point or another. Reagan bombed the guy specifically for that reason.

And you people see no difference there?

In addition, one of the justifications for the Iraq war was Hussein's past mass killings of his own people. Obama was trying to intervene before this happened in the first place...

How is that not different?

You may wish to read my post again. I said that perhaps the same case can be made about Qaddaffi however I'm not sure supporting Al Qaeda is in our best interests.

Finally, Obama is not risking hundreds of thousands of American troops here. That is certainly a big difference as far as I'm concerned. Personally, I actually "support the troops", I don't just pay lip service to the talking point. I'd rather see them stay alive.

At this point we have no idea how many troops are at risk. Things could very quickly escalate into a ground war. They aren't sending the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit over there early just for shits and giggles.

I remember Somalia, and when the 15th MEU was headed out we (in the 24th MEU) were told that we weren't going ashore. A week later I remember watching on CNN Madeleine Albright say that there weren't any US ground troops in Mogadishu - from the roof of the old US Embassy there.

How many people died in Somalia, 15? Wow, that was such a huge loss that it definitely deserved all the political bullshit that followed, wasn't it?

Especially compared to the thousands who died in Iraq, based on a fabrication. Or compared to the tens of thousands who died in Vietnam, based on another fabrication.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you trying to justify the attack of Libya, or discredit the invasion of Iraq? Either way, you are missing your goal.

Obama actually lied about what Qaddafi said. He did not threaten to destroy the city, he was telling the residents that he would root the rebels out of it. The man is crazy, but he was trying to encourage the city that he would not rest until he had rooter the enemy out.

Just womthing to think about.

Gaddhafi literally threatened to go house to house to root out and kill the rebellious people of the city in question.

Obama didn't re-write or parse what he said, Gaddhafi said it, period.

Now, I don't know about you, but it seems to me that if a proven terrorist leader makes a statement like that, I'm going to take him at his word.

Now, as to "justifying the attack on Libya", I don't feel that that's even necessary, until someone feels that it's necessary to justify Reagan's attack on Libya in the 80's.

Bush's invasion of Iraq, however, was based on a complete fabrication, and cost thousands of American lives, not to mention tens of thousands of Americans who are now maimed.

As far as I know, there have been no Americans killed in Libya. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary.

Qaddafi was using rhetoric to encourage his people that he would do whatever was necessary to keep them safe. Taking quotes out of context is bad and evil when Fox News does it, but if Obama does it you kiss his ass. Got it.

I don't know about you, but I have no problem with going after people who kill others, I just hate to be lied to when someone says that is the reason they attacked a country, when it isn't. If this is a humanitarian mission to keep people safe, why did Obama issue a national security finding to cover his ass a month ago? Why did he secretly work to line up support before we did this? Why did all this happen behind closed doors?

Why do idiots keep pointing to Iraq like it legitimizes what Obama did? Why do they ignore the fact that Saddam killed thousands of people, and Qaddafi has only killed hundreds? Why do they think that lying about one makes the other right?

 

[Vast LWC]

Qaddafi was using rhetoric to encourage his people that he would do whatever was necessary to keep them safe. Taking quotes out of context is bad and evil when Fox News does it, but if Obama does it you kiss his ass. Got it.

By all means, show us the exact context. The meaning doesn't change.

I don't know about you, but I have no problem with going after people who kill others, I just hate to be lied to when someone says that is the reason they attacked a country, when it isn't. If this is a humanitarian mission to keep people safe, why did Obama issue a national security finding to cover his ass a month ago? Why did he secretly work to line up support before we did this? Why did all this happen behind closed doors?

Why do idiots keep pointing to Iraq like it legitimizes what Obama did? Why do they ignore the fact that Saddam killed thousands of people, and Qaddafi has only killed hundreds? Why do they think that lying about one makes the other right?

He issued a national security finding to arm rebels in a nation that is ruled by a terrorist. What is the issue with that exactly?

And people point to Iraq because most of the same people who are criticizing Obama for this were supporters of the Iraq war.

As for "ignoring" Saddam's killing people, the correct time to attack would have been WHEN SADDAM WAS KILLING PEOPLE, not years afterwards, when it was too late to help anyone.

In fact, unless I'm crazy, and I'm not crazy, I specifically remember someone having a "No-Fly zone" over northern Iraq specifically to stop said killing, and it was quite effective.

But of course someone else decided they needed to invade anyway.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Qaddafi was using rhetoric to encourage his people that he would do whatever was necessary to keep them safe. Taking quotes out of context is bad and evil when Fox News does it, but if Obama does it you kiss his ass. Got it.

By all means, show us the exact context. The meaning doesn't change.

I don't know about you, but I have no problem with going after people who kill others, I just hate to be lied to when someone says that is the reason they attacked a country, when it isn't. If this is a humanitarian mission to keep people safe, why did Obama issue a national security finding to cover his ass a month ago? Why did he secretly work to line up support before we did this? Why did all this happen behind closed doors?

Why do idiots keep pointing to Iraq like it legitimizes what Obama did? Why do they ignore the fact that Saddam killed thousands of people, and Qaddafi has only killed hundreds? Why do they think that lying about one makes the other right?

He issued a national security finding to arm rebels in a nation that is ruled by a terrorist. What is the issue with that exactly?

And people point to Iraq because most of the same people who are criticizing Obama for this were supporters of the Iraq war.

As for "ignoring" Saddam's killing people, the correct time to attack would have been WHEN SADDAM WAS KILLING PEOPLE, not years afterwards, when it was too late to help anyone.

In fact, unless I'm crazy, and I'm not crazy, I specifically remember someone having a "No-Fly zone" over northern Iraq specifically to stop said killing, and it was quite effective.

But of course someone else decided they needed to invade anyway.

Bush evil, Obama perfect.

Git it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAyCdfOXvec]YouTube - Libya vs. Iraq[/ame]

 

[BrianH]

I think the Libyan rebels are a little different than what we've previously experienced. Recently there was about 13 Libyan rebels killed by U.S. warplanes. They were mistaken for Gadhaffi's (spelling?) forces. Several of the rebel leaders said that they did not blame anyone for the mistake. They stated that they appreciated the U.S. air campaign and recognized that these things are likely to happen in these types of situations and were proud that they died for a good cause.

However, I still don't agree with the whole thing....

 

[jgarden]

Let us call a spade, a spade ..... President Obama .....

Is this what is known as a "Freudian Slip?

"Gods people shall not spare to call a spade a spade, a niggard a niggard."
(John Trapp's Mellificium theologicum, 1647)

A Freudian slip, also called parapraxis, is an error in speech, memory, or physical action that is interpreted as occurring due to the interference of some unconscious ("dynamically repressed") wish, conflict, or train of thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudian_slip

A Freudian slip, named after famous psycho-analyst Sigmund Freud, is when one is speaking, and accidentally inserts a word on one's subconcious mind in place of another penis.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Freudian slip

 

[asterism]

Zarqawi was ONE terrorist, who was, as far as our intelligence could ascertain, in Iraq without the sanction of the Iraqi government.

Qaddhaffi was literally training and giving orders to a network of terrorists at one point or another. Reagan bombed the guy specifically for that reason.

And you people see no difference there?

In addition, one of the justifications for the Iraq war was Hussein's past mass killings of his own people. Obama was trying to intervene before this happened in the first place...

How is that not different?

You may wish to read my post again. I said that perhaps the same case can be made about Qaddaffi however I'm not sure supporting Al Qaeda is in our best interests.

Finally, Obama is not risking hundreds of thousands of American troops here. That is certainly a big difference as far as I'm concerned. Personally, I actually "support the troops", I don't just pay lip service to the talking point. I'd rather see them stay alive.

At this point we have no idea how many troops are at risk. Things could very quickly escalate into a ground war. They aren't sending the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit over there early just for shits and giggles.

I remember Somalia, and when the 15th MEU was headed out we (in the 24th MEU) were told that we weren't going ashore. A week later I remember watching on CNN Madeleine Albright say that there weren't any US ground troops in Mogadishu - from the roof of the old US Embassy there.

How many people died in Somalia, 15? Wow, that was such a huge loss that it definitely deserved all the political bullshit that followed, wasn't it?

Especially compared to the thousands who died in Iraq, based on a fabrication. Or compared to the tens of thousands who died in Vietnam, based on another fabrication.

So now you're just arguing the degree of casualties after the fact. Not a good argument. You also seem to be justifying military action based on a humanitarian cause in the case of Libya but holding onto the canard of "fabrication" with Iraq, ignoring that the very same humanitarian justification works there too.

(Never my justification, by the way)

All I can say, as someone who could have very easily been one of the 29 US bullet catchers, I'd rather risk my life and maybe die for an actual reason. Somalia wasn't much of a reason. Wish I'd been able to be part of taking out Saddam.

 

[Vast LWC]

Qaddafi was using rhetoric to encourage his people that he would do whatever was necessary to keep them safe. Taking quotes out of context is bad and evil when Fox News does it, but if Obama does it you kiss his ass. Got it.

By all means, show us the exact context. The meaning doesn't change.

I don't know about you, but I have no problem with going after people who kill others, I just hate to be lied to when someone says that is the reason they attacked a country, when it isn't. If this is a humanitarian mission to keep people safe, why did Obama issue a national security finding to cover his ass a month ago? Why did he secretly work to line up support before we did this? Why did all this happen behind closed doors?

Why do idiots keep pointing to Iraq like it legitimizes what Obama did? Why do they ignore the fact that Saddam killed thousands of people, and Qaddafi has only killed hundreds? Why do they think that lying about one makes the other right?

He issued a national security finding to arm rebels in a nation that is ruled by a terrorist. What is the issue with that exactly?

And people point to Iraq because most of the same people who are criticizing Obama for this were supporters of the Iraq war.

As for "ignoring" Saddam's killing people, the correct time to attack would have been WHEN SADDAM WAS KILLING PEOPLE, not years afterwards, when it was too late to help anyone.

In fact, unless I'm crazy, and I'm not crazy, I specifically remember someone having a "No-Fly zone" over northern Iraq specifically to stop said killing, and it was quite effective.

But of course someone else decided they needed to invade anyway.

Bush evil, Obama perfect.

Git it.

That's not a response, it's just a bit of hyperbolic bs.