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

[dilloduck]

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

ty

 

[kaz]

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

In the United States that makes it Obama's war. None of those countries or the UN can deploy our troops, Obama did that. Obama needs to man up and own his actions.

 

[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.

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

the democrats are no longer in unison, they have been decidedly cleaved by their "leader".

 

[Bass v 2.0]

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.

Zimbabwe has got diamonds, but strategically they will not bomb Zimbabwe, that would look too damn obvious so they're trying to do by funding and secretly supporting opposition parties, the same way they did in diamond and gold rich Congo. Libya is Moslem and oil rich so they're using the civil war as an excuse.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

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.

the democrats are no longer in unison, they have been decidedly cleaved by their "leader".

Democrats are *NOT* jumping out in support of these bombings like Republitards did in Iraq, even after it became known that the reason we went in was fraudulent.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

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

The UN cannot force the US to commit its troops and planes to bombings so I don't buy that excuse that this is the UN's war, this lies squarely on Obama as CINC and there is no slaughter of people in Libya, this is a civil war, if this wasn't a civil war it would be a different story, there are rebel held areas in Libya who are "slaughtering" people in support of Ghaddafi as well, why are they bombing only Ghaddafi's forces and trying to drop bombs on him to kill him while pretending and tell the people that they're not?

 

[High_Gravity]

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

The UN cannot force the US to commit its troops and planes to bombings so I don't buy that excuse that this is the UN's war, this lies squarely on Obama as CINC and there is no slaughter of people in Libya, this is a civil war, if this wasn't a civil war it would be a different story, there are rebel held areas in Libya who are "slaughtering" people in support of Ghaddafi as well, why are they bombing only Ghaddafi's forces and trying to drop bombs on him to kill him while pretending and tell the people that they're not?

Obama called on Ghaddafi to step down when this first started, so if Ghaddafi is not removed the oil contracts are lost.

 

[washamericom]

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

the democrats are no longer in unison, they have been decidedly cleaved by their "leader".

Democrats are *NOT* jumping out in support of these bombings like Republitards did in Iraq, even after it became known that the reason we went in was fraudulent.

simply not true, any of it. merely a conditioned response rendered through rose coloured glasses. accordingly, democrats have to attach materialism, when we are speaking of a higher moral algebra (ben franklin). the fact that this president is doing it this way is the proof.

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&...=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=ff3e2739446bc197

strangely enough, this was never reported by the democrat/obama media.

 

[Dr.Drock]

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

the democrats are no longer in unison, they have been decidedly cleaved by their "leader".

Democrats are *NOT* jumping out in support of these bombings like Republitards did in Iraq, even after it became known that the reason we went in was fraudulent.

True the level of outspoken support is different.

No republican will ever have a problem with the US using force to kill brownish arab muslims.

The level of support doesn't matter though, it's still support. Obama can responsible for this garbage and still get all the votes from democrats he needs in 2012.

 

[washamericom]

Italian support for Iraq during the Iran

First....from experience on this board the label "weapons of mass destruction" needs to be defined. Many readers do not know what is a weapon of mass destruction

Second... A weapon of mass destruction is any weapon chemical, biological or radiological that can be used to cause mass casualties..... by the UN's definition WMD's also includes the materials and delivery systems used with WMD's

Third.... The existence of WMD's was only ONE of the several reasons for the Iraq war.... even without WMD's the war was amply justified and legal. Was there WMD's in Iraq?...... YES
There were literally dozens of WMD, equipment WMD sites and WMD weapons discovered after the invasion of Iraq. Here are a few examples.
* A prison laboratory complex used to test biological weapons on prisoners.
* Live strains of biological agents (WMDs)concealed in a scientist’s home.
* A secret network of laboratories and safe houses containing equipment used for WMD research.
*Iraq was conducting new research on several live viruses. (Brucella; Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic fever) and several poisons (Ricin; Aflatoxin)
*Equipment and research documents were hidden in scientist’s homes which could be used to restart Iraq’s nuclear weapons program.
*Iraq had several Unmanned Airial Vehicles (UAV’s) capable of delivering a nuclear device deep into Israel. This was a violation of the UN Peace Accords on WMD’s.
*A secret ability to manufacture a fuel propellant only used for illegal long range SCUD missiles used to deliver WMDs.
*Advanced design work and plans to develop long-range missiles that could reach anywhere in Israel. These weapons were prohibited by the UN.
*Secret attempts to obtain several prohibited long range missile systems from North Korea.
* Three tons of “Yellow Cake” purchased from Nigeria. Two tons were recently move to Canada.
* Over 3,000 new chemical protection suits used to protect Iraqi troops from Sarin, VX and other toxic nerve agents.
* Discovery of more than twenty secret sites where Iraq was conducting nuclear research.
*Thirty four secret sites where Iraq conducted their illegal chemical warfare program.
* A warehouse with over 500 chemical munitions most of them still lethal. Evidently these reportedly “destroyed” munitions were overlooked when the bulk of Iraq’s WMD’s were moved to Syria.
* Over twenty CBR research sites disguised as private homes and even water wells. According to Civil Engineer Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri many “substitute sites” were constructed in case any of these operational research sites were discovered and destroyed.
* Iraqi had rebuilt numerous segments of its “industrial chemical infrastructure” under the guise of a “civilian need for pesticides, chlorine and other dual-purpose chemicals.” The actual purpose of these facilities is highly suspect. Many WMD’s start out as pesticides (Mustard-Lewisite; Phosgene and Hydrogen Cyanide etc).
*Some IED’s used against allied forces did contain Sarin gas, a WMD.
*Huge caches of “commercial and agricultural’ chemicals were discovered. The fact that these huge caches could easily be converted to WMD’s was conveniently overlooked.
*Near Karbala a large supply of 55 gallon drums containing “agricultural chemicals” was found in a camouflaged bunker (?). The agricultural site (?) was collocated with a military ammunition dump. Several of the drums contained Sarin, a WMD. Several allied forces and a CNN reporter were injured by exposure to this nerve agent.
* The 4th Infantry in Bai’ji discovered several 55 gallon drums of cyclosarin, a blister agent. Collocated with these chemicals were protective masks, mobile laboratories capable of mixing chemicals and several ground to air and ground to ground long range missiles.
* The 101st AAD found numerous drums of Sarin and Mustard agent dumped in the Euphrates River. These WMD’s contaminated the local water supply to toxic levels.
* Danish forces discovered 120mm shells with a mysterious liquid that initially tested as a blister agent (a WMD).
* Reports from three different sources that tons of Iraqi WMD’s were moved to three villages in Syria’s Bakka Valley. We know how it is stored and that some of those lethal Iraqi WMD’s are currently being shipped to North Africa (Sudan). We will no doubt see more of these “non-existent WMD’s” in the future

EDIT....Thumbs Down..... you may not like the answer but it is the truth.... do the research....FACTS are FACTS

from yahoo answers

i think "he had them but made them disapear, because we know he had them, is more credible than "the u.n couldn't find them. this is a good example of the fake it till you make it argument. spin away till it comes true, only it's not. and another thing ?

BTW the expression of "the right side of history" sucks.

history is an objective collection of facts, not a side you join before it happens.

 

[washamericom]

the democrats are no longer in unison, they have been decidedly cleaved by their "leader".

Democrats are *NOT* jumping out in support of these bombings like Republitards did in Iraq, even after it became known that the reason we went in was fraudulent.

True the level of outspoken support is different.

No republican will ever have a problem with the US using force to kill brownish arab muslims.

The level of support doesn't matter though, it's still support. Obama can responsible for this garbage and still get all the votes from democrats he needs in 2012.

racist and inflammatory, actually pretty sickening, and stock.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

the democrats are no longer in unison, they have been decidedly cleaved by their "leader".

Democrats are *NOT* jumping out in support of these bombings like Republitards did in Iraq, even after it became known that the reason we went in was fraudulent.

True the level of outspoken support is different.

No republican will ever have a problem with the US using force to kill brownish arab muslims.

The level of support doesn't matter though, it's still support. Obama can responsible for this garbage and still get all the votes from democrats he needs in 2012.

That just might happen, but I don't know if he will get a lot of blacks this time around, he might just still but only because Republitards are the greater of the two evils.

 

[KissMy]

That just might happen, but I don't know if he will get a lot of blacks this time around, he might just still but only because Republitards are the greater of the two evils.

 

[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.

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.

I don't trust him period.

 

[slukasiewski]

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?

But... Bush.....

 

[LibocalypseNow]

And now the Shell-Game begins...An 'R' in the White House = "Unlawful War" while a 'D' in the White House = "Good War." I make it a point to never ever trust the Left on anything. There is no real 'Anti-War Left' in reality. They're just Anti-Republican/Conservative. There are very few real Anti-War people out there. This Libyan War will likely go the way of Gulf War I. Ironically the Left screeched 24/7 about that War being "Evil" and "Unjustified." Their hypocrisy & dishonesty on this one really is just good ole fashioned fun entertainment. Stay tuned cuz their spin is definitely going to get more bizarre.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

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.

BINGO!

 

[High_Gravity]

And now the Shell-Game begins...An 'R' in the White House = "Unlawful War" while a 'D' in the White House = "Good War." I make it a point to never ever trust the Left on anything. There is no real 'Anti-War Left' in reality. They're just Anti-Republican/Conservative. There are very few real Anti-War people out there. This Libyan War will likely go the way of Gulf War I. Ironically the Left screeched 24/7 about that War being "Evil" and "Unjustified." Their hypocrisy & dishonesty on this one really is just good ole fashioned fun entertainment. Stay tuned cuz their spin is definitely going to get more bizarre.

If Bush had bombed Libya, there would be protests in the streets and people calling him a war criminal.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

It didn't happen in Durfar

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And now the Shell-Game begins...An 'R' in the White House = "Unlawful War" while a 'D' in the White House = "Good War." I make it a point to never ever trust the Left on anything. There is no real 'Anti-War Left' in reality. They're just Anti-Republican/Conservative. There are very few real Anti-War people out there. This Libyan War will likely go the way of Gulf War I. Ironically the Left screeched 24/7 about that War being "Evil" and "Unjustified." Their hypocrisy & dishonesty on this one really is just good ole fashioned fun entertainment. Stay tuned cuz their spin is definitely going to get more bizarre.

If Bush had bombed Libya, there would be protests in the streets and people calling him a war criminal.

Yes I agree.