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

[Article 15]

But using the OP's logic where is the right cheerleading this on and shouting down those who dare criticize the POTUS during such a critical time while our nation is at war?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

So, is the Right cheering it?

Most of the Right is in a pickle here because they agree with the President's policy but their 'code' prevents them from simply saying so and leaving it at that. The next best thing for them is to try to make it all about liberals and whether they support the president.

Thing about obama is that if he was more honest and transparant those on the right would support him. He has yet to be honest and open, like he campigan on in 2008.

 

[shintao]

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

So, is the Right cheering it?

Most of the Right is in a pickle here because they agree with the President's policy but their 'code' prevents them from simply saying so and leaving it at that. The next best thing for them is to try to make it all about liberals and whether they support the president.

Thing about obama is that if he was more honest and transparant those on the right would support him. He has yet to be honest and open, like he campigan on in 2008.

IF you are saying Obam is lying and you can prove it, then Obama must be open, and you are blowing bullshit. Bush was so open he was caught in a lie a day. LOL!!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Most of the Right is in a pickle here because they agree with the President's policy but their 'code' prevents them from simply saying so and leaving it at that. The next best thing for them is to try to make it all about liberals and whether they support the president.

Thing about obama is that if he was more honest and transparant those on the right would support him. He has yet to be honest and open, like he campigan on in 2008.

IF you are saying Obam is lying and you can prove it, then Obama must be open, and you are blowing bullshit. Bush was so open he was caught in a lie a day. LOL!!

IF you are saying Obam is lying and you can prove it, then Obama must be open, and you are blowing

Even for my standards this comment makes no sense at all.

Bush was so open he was caught in a lie a day.

OK if that how you want to do it.obama has scored more lies in little over two years than bush did his entire 8 years as president.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Cruise missile blasts Gadhafi's compound near tent - Yahoo! News

Now Gadhafi's forces are potential targets for U.S. and European strikes. The U.N. resolution authorizing international military action in Libya not only sets up a no-fly zone but allows "all necessary measures" to prevent attacks on civilians.

But the U.S. military, for now at the lead of the international campaign, is trying to walk a fine line over the end game of the assault. It is avoiding for now any appearance that it aims to take out Gadhafi or help the rebels oust him, instead limiting its stated goals to protecting civilians.

Sure, these strikes are to protect "innocent" people from getting killed, why can't Obama just damn admit that him and his war mongering advisers and allies using that lie as an excuse to oust Ghaddafi? They're essentially aiding the opposition. This is war mongering. Air defense targets are not harming innocent civilians so why attack them? They are helping the rebels to oust Ghaddafi and if any one, Democrat or Republitard, believes otherwise they're retarded.

 

[midcan5]

Because this is not the past, barbarism is on display and regardless of arguments comparing, contrasting, or obfuscating war and law, doing nothing was immoral. Somethings are simple and outside the boundaries of ideology and politics as in the cases of mass murder, similar to Kosovo. Arguing about murder is an odd tactic for even the worst ideologue. The irony that the French wanted to take action demonstrates the complexity of our relationship with middle east dictators. PS the Iraq war never had humanitarian written on it as when Saddam committed his worst atrocities we stood by. If Bush jr had argued humanitarian for his 'invasion' no one would have followed for a variety of reasons that make these actions so difficult.

NATO's 'Humanitarian War' Over Kosovo by Adam Roberts

"The available evidence suggests that the critical considerations impelling NATO to take action were those of humanity and credibility. An amalgam of these factors was apparent in the justification for the use of force made by UK Foreign Secretary Robin Cook in a House of Commons debate on 25 March 1999: Since March last year, well over 400,000 people in Kosovo have at some point been driven from their homes. This is about a fifth of the total population. In Britain the equivalent would be over ten million people. I defy any Hon. Member to meet the Kosovar Albanians, to whom I have talked repeatedly over the past three months, and tell them that we know what is being done to their families, that we see it every night on the television in our own homes, that in the region we have a powerful fleet of allied planes; and yet that, although we know what is happening and have the power to intervene, we have chosen not to do so. Not to have acted, when we knew the atrocities that were being committed, would have made us complicit in their repression ... The first reason why we took action was that we were aware of the atrocities that had been carried out and we had the capacity to intervene, but that is not the only reason. Our confidence in our peace and security depends on the credibility of NATO. Last October, NATO guaranteed the cease-fire that President Milosevic signed. He has comprehensively shattered that cease-fire. What possible credibility would NATO have next time that our security was challenged if we did not honour that guarantee? The consequences of NATO inaction would be far worse than the result of NATO action."

 

[editec]

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?

The devil is in the details, Lib.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Because this is not the past, barbarism is on display and regardless of arguments comparing, contrasting, or obfuscating war and law, doing nothing was immoral. Somethings are simple and outside the boundaries of ideology and politics as in the cases of mass murder, similar to Kosovo. Arguing about murder is an odd tactic for even the worst ideologue. The irony that the French wanted to take action demonstrates the complexity of our relationship with middle east dictators. PS the Iraq war never had humanitarian written on it as when Saddam committed his worst atrocities we stood by. If Bush jr had argued humanitarian for his 'invasion' no one would have followed for a variety of reasons that make these actions so difficult.

NATO's 'Humanitarian War' Over Kosovo by Adam Roberts

"The available evidence suggests that the critical considerations impelling NATO to take action were those of humanity and credibility. An amalgam of these factors was apparent in the justification for the use of force made by UK Foreign Secretary Robin Cook in a House of Commons debate on 25 March 1999: Since March last year, well over 400,000 people in Kosovo have at some point been driven from their homes. This is about a fifth of the total population. In Britain the equivalent would be over ten million people. I defy any Hon. Member to meet the Kosovar Albanians, to whom I have talked repeatedly over the past three months, and tell them that we know what is being done to their families, that we see it every night on the television in our own homes, that in the region we have a powerful fleet of allied planes; and yet that, although we know what is happening and have the power to intervene, we have chosen not to do so. Not to have acted, when we knew the atrocities that were being committed, would have made us complicit in their repression ... The first reason why we took action was that we were aware of the atrocities that had been carried out and we had the capacity to intervene, but that is not the only reason. Our confidence in our peace and security depends on the credibility of NATO. Last October, NATO guaranteed the cease-fire that President Milosevic signed. He has comprehensively shattered that cease-fire. What possible credibility would NATO have next time that our security was challenged if we did not honour that guarantee? The consequences of NATO inaction would be far worse than the result of NATO action."

Its *NOT* the responsibility of ours to get involved with Libya, I cannot agree with this, especially when they're lying. Their aim is to support the rebels and topple Ghaddafi for political gain and because Libya is oil rich, they blew their objectivity by meeting with rebel leaders.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

So, is the Right cheering it?

Most of the Right is in a pickle here because they agree with the President's policy but their 'code' prevents them from simply saying so and leaving it at that. The next best thing for them is to try to make it all about liberals and whether they support the president.

Thing about obama is that if he was more honest and transparant those on the right would support him. He has yet to be honest and open, like he campigan on in 2008.

You either support the use of military force in Libya or you don't. If you do, say so, if you don't say so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

But using the OP's logic where is the right cheerleading this on and shouting down those who dare criticize the POTUS during such a critical time while our nation is at war?

You mean like being told you can't oppose the war and support the troops?

 

[washamericom]

I am against using military force against Libya but let's not pretend that the circumstances surrounding US involvement in Libya are the same as those surrounding US involvement in Iraq.

we're not wasting this crisis to point at that very claim.

there is no fundamental difference and we're taking this opportunity to point out the rich hypocrisy of the democrats falling all over themselves using their part time moral philosophy to suit their political interests. the fun part for us, is watching liberals justify the circumstances, so much, as to rationalize wanting to vote for him again. the 180's are comical, and greatly anticipated. you can only ride the fence for so long, and the american people see that, and it may be a problem in 2012 for obama, which is a good thing. your campaign slogan should be "it's ok if we do it...obama for president"

perhaps we could move away from the amateurish and inexperienced lack of leadership that we have today. it's as if we're being led by a bunch of little kids.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

I am against using military force against Libya but let's not pretend that the circumstances surrounding US involvement in Libya are the same as those surrounding US involvement in Iraq.

we're not wasting this crisis to point at that very claim.

there is no fundamental difference and we're taking this opportunity to point out the rich hypocrisy of the democrats falling all over themselves using their part time moral philosophy to suit their political interests. the fun part for us, is watching liberals justify the circumstances, so much, as to rationalize wanting to vote for him again. the 180's are comical, and greatly anticipated. you can only ride the fence for so long, and the american people see that, and it may be a problem in 2012 for obama, which is a good thing. your campaign slogan should be "it's ok if we do it...obama for president"

perhaps we could move away from the amateurish and inexperienced lack of leadership that we have today. it's as if we're being led by a bunch of little kids.

This can be blamed squarely on Obama, not the Democrats in unison.

 

[High_Gravity]

If this was happening in poor Zimbabwe or Uganda instead of oil rich Libya, would there be US cruise missiles on their way to either of those countries? I highly doubt it.

 

[kaz]

If this was happening in poor Zimbabwe or Uganda instead of oil rich Libya, would there be US cruise missiles on their way to either of those countries? I highly doubt it.

Agreed. And what's worse is it's more important we stop our government meddling in oil supplies. For the whole we're "addicted" to oil thing, the only way to stop that addiction is to let prices go up to spur innovation, domestic exploration and habit change. I'd rather get involved in Zimbabwe or Uganda then Libya or any oil producer for that reason, we pay for it twice.

 

[High_Gravity]

If this was happening in poor Zimbabwe or Uganda instead of oil rich Libya, would there be US cruise missiles on their way to either of those countries? I highly doubt it.

Agreed. And what's worse is it's more important we stop our government meddling in oil supplies. For the whole we're "addicted" to oil thing, the only way to stop that addiction is to let prices go up to spur innovation, domestic exploration and habit change. I'd rather get involved in Zimbabwe or Uganda then Libya or any oil producer for that reason, we pay for it twice.

The thing is if we sent cruise missiles and troops to every nation in trouble we would have no Military left on our own soil!

 

[dilloduck]

If this was happening in poor Zimbabwe or Uganda instead of oil rich Libya, would there be US cruise missiles on their way to either of those countries? I highly doubt it.

Agreed. And what's worse is it's more important we stop our government meddling in oil supplies. For the whole we're "addicted" to oil thing, the only way to stop that addiction is to let prices go up to spur innovation, domestic exploration and habit change. I'd rather get involved in Zimbabwe or Uganda then Libya or any oil producer for that reason, we pay for it twice.

Can we pump the oil we already have here in the mean time ?

 

[LilOlLady]

This is not Obama's war, He did not declare war on Libya therefore did not need approval of Congress.
The actions against Libya is backed by 128 nations. Who backed Bush's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan? Cheney and Rumsfeld. And the gave false infomation to Congress to get their approval. And used Colin Powell and later quit.
This is not Obama's war, not illegal and not unilaterally. Like Wyatt Earp's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.



U.N. Authorizes Air Attacks To Stop Libyan Slaughter
New York City : NY : USA | Mar 17, 2011
By Robert Weller

U.N. Authorizes Air Attacks To Stop Libyan Slaughter

 

[Dr.Drock]

If this was happening in poor Zimbabwe or Uganda instead of oil rich Libya, would there be US cruise missiles on their way to either of those countries? I highly doubt it.

Agreed. And what's worse is it's more important we stop our government meddling in oil supplies. For the whole we're "addicted" to oil thing, the only way to stop that addiction is to let prices go up to spur innovation, domestic exploration and habit change. I'd rather get involved in Zimbabwe or Uganda then Libya or any oil producer for that reason, we pay for it twice.

Can we pump the oil we already have here in the mean time ?

Well "we" can't unless you're advocating for nationalized oil.

You think gas prices are high now imagine if the US gov't had total control.

 

[kaz]

If this was happening in poor Zimbabwe or Uganda instead of oil rich Libya, would there be US cruise missiles on their way to either of those countries? I highly doubt it.

Agreed. And what's worse is it's more important we stop our government meddling in oil supplies. For the whole we're "addicted" to oil thing, the only way to stop that addiction is to let prices go up to spur innovation, domestic exploration and habit change. I'd rather get involved in Zimbabwe or Uganda then Libya or any oil producer for that reason, we pay for it twice.

Can we pump the oil we already have here in the mean time ?

I addressed that

 

[kaz]

Agreed. And what's worse is it's more important we stop our government meddling in oil supplies. For the whole we're "addicted" to oil thing, the only way to stop that addiction is to let prices go up to spur innovation, domestic exploration and habit change. I'd rather get involved in Zimbabwe or Uganda then Libya or any oil producer for that reason, we pay for it twice.

Can we pump the oil we already have here in the mean time ?

Well "we" can't unless you're advocating for nationalized oil.

You think gas prices are high now imagine if the US gov't had total control.

I think he meant removing the myriad of government restrictions blocking domestic exploration