So, is the left denouncing Obama's "unlawful" war in Libya?

[HUGGY]

Gee great point there were a handful of sane right leaning people then.

How many voted FOR the crap?

How many voted for this latest shindig?

I don't agree with this action either but this is what happens when the Christian Fundamentalists set a precedent. Reagan invaded Granada ... Clinton Bosnia...Bush Iraq... It is now and has been a LONG standing presidential tradition to choose to attack another country in what is perceived by a sitting president to be in American interests and national security.

Same thing with the Patriot Act and GITMO.

The slippery slope was embarked on over thirty years ago.

In Bush's world you crybabies are all traitors.

There was no need for a vote of congress. That fact has been established MANY times and co-signed by the neo con Fascists.

As far as I am concerned the people of Libya are all terrorists.

On the other hand this could be looked upon as justice finally arriving on Gudafi's doorstep for the Pan Am downing over Locherby Scotland.

I always though that stupid bombing of Gudafi's tent was WEAK!

The real problem is that we have no way of knowing what will replace that crazy ****. The REAL problem is that the oil speculators and the oil corporations will use this as an excuse to rape the American public for a few trillion dollars at the pump.

If this settles some instability in North Africa in a few weeks Obama will be a hero to the Arab League and the USA will benefit from it. If it goes sideways and the Crazy Fundamentalist Muslims gain control it could end up even more unstable and a haven for terrorism.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Didn't DA BOOOOOSH at least go to Congress for some kind of authorization? How can the Left/Democrats spin this stuff?

 

[Trajan]

No and don't expect it to happen either. I have always said the so-called 'Anti-War Leftists' are by far the biggest frauds in America. They don't hate War.

Who are you referring to? This thread is about "the left" but the actual pacifist wing of "the left" that reflexively opposes all military action is rather small.

I would guess that most of the "the left" shares the view articulated by Obama himself in his 2002 speech:

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war.​

Lots of folks on the left supported the war in Afghanistan at its inception despite the fact that, yes, the President at the time had an R next to his name.

The political universe doesn't conform to your paint-by-numbers understanding of it.

so how does the media color in their numbers?

how do you feel about Yemen and Bahrain...Darfur?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

I disagree with the bombing because they next leader of Libya will be just another western puppet who's going to exchange the country's oil wealth and be just another tyrant while the people we[Allies] claim to be protecting will be treated just the same. If anyone wants to know why Africa is so messed up today the involvement of the West has a lot to do with.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

"NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!" Hey where did those people go? Oh that's right,a 'D' is doing the bombing now. So all is well with these frauds i guess. What a sad scam.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

If Libya wasn't oil rich and financing projects in other African countries there would be no bombing. It doesn't help that Britain and France, two former colonial powers of Africa, are part of this bombing, and when they left Africa 40-50 years ago they simply brainwashed America to pick up where they left off via neocolonialism.

 

[Modbert]

i believe that, there is some pathological element within this president, and some of his fanatical followers.

Says the guy who compared Ayn Rand to Jesus.

 

[LilOlLady]

This is not Obama's war. This is how these kind of wars need to be fought. Bilaterally with the backing of the UN. You cannot blame this on Obama. But Bush is another story. He lied to get Congress to approve his invasion of Iraq and he is a masss murdered of 1 million innocent Iraqi men, women and children, murder of over 5,000 of your children and the wonded of 33,000, suicide of many more. This is not Obama war.Iraq and Afghanistan is not Obamas war. Bush gave them to him and he ended the war in Iraq and trying to end it is Afghanist but the Reich voted against him doing so.
Like Khadafi said. the rebels are nothing more then terrorist themselves. Bush was a terrorist and a mass murderer.

 

[LilOlLady]

I disagree with the bombing because they next leader of Libya will be just another western puppet who's going to exchange the country's oil wealth and be just another tyrant while the people we[Allies] claim to be protecting will be treated just the same. If anyone wants to know why Africa is so messed up today the involvement of the West has a lot to do with.

The British already did that. Africa is so messed up today because of the British and the West burying the heads in the asses until they had destoryed Africa. Remember the genocide in Sudan, Uganda and Rwanda? I didn't thing so. Where were the Bushes and the west?
And when the Brits were stealing Africa's wealth. Gold and oil, etc

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Bottom line we shouldn't be there and I don't approve of Obama sending warplanes to bomb a country thats at civil war. This is not a case of Ghadafi killing "innocent" people, its a damn civil war, this kind of foreign policy is what makes us hated around the world, it doesn't make us look like heroes. The rebels they're assisting don't like America any more than Ghadafi's forces, its a handful of the rebels that welcome this.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yes and Gaddafi is much worse than Saddam Hussein and this War has nothing to do with Oil...Yup and i got a bridge for sale too. Kooky stuff.

 

[Varth Dader]

No? Well then what is the problem with Iraq again? (Not that I am defending Iraq, I thought it was dumb, I think military action in Libya is dumb too). So...where are the left's cries for peace like in 2003?

Did you see the massive disinformation campaign in the last few weeks as you saw prior to the Iraqi invasion?

Plus, I think you are confusing cries for peace with cries for truth in 2003.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

I disagree with the bombing because they next leader of Libya will be just another western puppet who's going to exchange the country's oil wealth and be just another tyrant while the people we[Allies] claim to be protecting will be treated just the same. If anyone wants to know why Africa is so messed up today the involvement of the West has a lot to do with.

The British already did that. Africa is so messed up today because of the British and the West burying the heads in the asses until they had destoryed Africa. Remember the genocide in Sudan, Uganda and Rwanda? I didn't thing so. Where were the Bushes and the west?
And when the Brits were stealing Africa's wealth. Gold and oil, etc

True, there was no bombing in Sudan and the situation there has been worse always and why? The Southerners in Sudan have resources and rather than bomb Sudan they hastened the partition of that country. This is why I don't by Obama BS that the US cannot idly sit by watch "innocent" people get killed, its been going on continuously since he's been in office. Why can't he just admit that the West's big three are using the civil war in Libya as an excuse to exploit that county's resources?

 

[Truthmatters]

Its the UN folks and NOT just Obama.

Without this type of action you would see all of these countries in the process of the people CRYING out for freedom being squashed with their own military might.

THIS IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO!

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I disagree with the bombing because they next leader of Libya will be just another western puppet who's going to exchange the country's oil wealth and be just another tyrant while the people we[Allies] claim to be protecting will be treated just the same. If anyone wants to know why Africa is so messed up today the involvement of the West has a lot to do with.

The British already did that. Africa is so messed up today because of the British and the West burying the heads in the asses until they had destoryed Africa. Remember the genocide in Sudan, Uganda and Rwanda? I didn't thing so. Where were the Bushes and the west?
And when the Brits were stealing Africa's wealth. Gold and oil, etc

True, there was no bombing in Sudan and the situation there has been worse always and why? The Southerners in Sudan have resources and rather than bomb Sudan they hastened the partition of that country. This is why I don't by Obama BS that the US cannot idly sit by watch "innocent" people get killed, its been going on continuously since he's been in office. Why can't he just admit that the West's big three are using the civil war in Libya as an excuse to exploit that county's resources?

"NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!" Remember that old Leftist Battlecry? Where did they go?

 

[Truthmatters]

I love how some on the right here refuse any logical argument as to why this UN move is in the interests of all people in the world.

They just pretend its just like what Bush did in Iraq when all the evidence shows it is not.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Yes and Gaddafi is much worse than Saddam Hussein and this War has nothing to do with Oil...Yup and i got a bridge for sale too. Kooky stuff.

I wouldn't say he's worse than Saddam, the thing with Gaddafi is that with Libya's oil wealth he's able finance projects in Africa which lessens Western influence and involvement in Africa. The more pan-African and self sufficient African becomes the worse for Western countries looking to exploit the continent and control it via the IMF and World Bank.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

I love how some on the right here refuse any logical argument as to why this UN move is in the interests of all people in the world.

They just pretend its just like what Bush did in Iraq when all the evidence shows it is not.

Not every move that the UN makes is in the best interest of the world, only Britain, France and US supported this bombing, the other permanent members of the security council did not. Most African countries do not support these actions either.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

The British already did that. Africa is so messed up today because of the British and the West burying the heads in the asses until they had destoryed Africa. Remember the genocide in Sudan, Uganda and Rwanda? I didn't thing so. Where were the Bushes and the west?
And when the Brits were stealing Africa's wealth. Gold and oil, etc

True, there was no bombing in Sudan and the situation there has been worse always and why? The Southerners in Sudan have resources and rather than bomb Sudan they hastened the partition of that country. This is why I don't by Obama BS that the US cannot idly sit by watch "innocent" people get killed, its been going on continuously since he's been in office. Why can't he just admit that the West's big three are using the civil war in Libya as an excuse to exploit that county's resources?

"NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!" Remember that old Leftist Battlecry? Where did they go?

Thats not necessarily a leftist thing, botn sides do it, but to say this bombing is all about protecting the people of Libya is a flat out lie.

 

[Big Fitz]

I love how some on the right here refuse any logical argument as to why this UN move is in the interests of all people in the world.

They just pretend its just like what Bush did in Iraq when all the evidence shows it is not.

And Iraq wasn't. Gotcha. Resolution 1440 anyone?

Anyone?

Also, where the hell is my Iraqi oil! I went to war for it 8 years ago and it still hasn't reduced my gas prices to 89 cents a gallon. Da ****?