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

[Quantum Windbag]

you can bet your bottom dollar, if this were a republican president doing this, 100% or close, of the repubs would be all over it, with no dissension.

How much do you want to bet on that?

Because I am basically not a thief I will warn you before you bet that I can prove that some Republicans opposed our invasion of Iraq under Bush and Afghanistan Dubya.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Robert Mugabe been doing it for decades, as well as the looney Iranian mullahs, hell the Mullahs in Iran kept hundreds of Americans captive for like 2 years, when are the US Cruise Missiles and French Fighter Jets heading to Iran and Zimbabwe?

Yes, but Truthinessmatters has done nothing but whine about Iraq and how Saddam wasn't such a bad guy.

It's really the hypocrisy I sought to highlight.

So Saddam should have been left alone, but Ghaddafi needs to go? I would love to hear someone explain to me how Saddam was better than Ghaddafi, especially since Saddam could teach Ghaddafi a thing or two on how to put down an uprising.

Well there was an 'R' in the White House then so that bizarre argument made perfect sense to the loons. Now that there's a 'D' in the White House,Gaddafi is much much worse than that Saddam Hussein guy. Gaddafi never invaded any nations and there is absolutely no evidence of "Genocide" either. The Left/Democrats are just in full Cheerlead/Justification Mode at this point. They'll say anything now. It's actually very pathetic.

 

[High_Gravity]

Yes, but Truthinessmatters has done nothing but whine about Iraq and how Saddam wasn't such a bad guy.

It's really the hypocrisy I sought to highlight.

So Saddam should have been left alone, but Ghaddafi needs to go? I would love to hear someone explain to me how Saddam was better than Ghaddafi, especially since Saddam could teach Ghaddafi a thing or two on how to put down an uprising.

Well there was an 'R' in the White House then so that bizarre argument made perfect sense to the loons. Now that there's a 'D' in the White House,Gaddafi is much much worse than that Saddam Hussein guy. Gaddafi never invaded any nations and there is absolutely no evidence of "Genocide" either. The Left/Democrats are just in full Cheerlead/Justification Mode at this point. They'll say anything now. It's actually very pathetic.

Ghaddafi is putting down an uprising and actually he is not using the full weapons at his disposal, he could drop some mustard gas on Benghazi and the other rebel cities and end this rebellion quite easily, like Saddam would have done. Ghaddafi got rid of his WMD program but you know they got some mustard and anthrax stashed somewhere for emergencies. Ghaddafi is a gentleman compared to Saddam.

 

[iggy pop]

Letting a dictator kill his people at his insane whim is not going to be good for anyone in the world.

Unless it's Saddam....

Robert Mugabe been doing it for decades, as well as the looney Iranian mullahs, hell the Mullahs in Iran kept hundreds of Americans captive for like 2 years, when are the US Cruise Missiles and French Fighter Jets heading to Iran and Zimbabwe?

ok, so now i've red one of your posts and that's repable

 

[Uncensored2008]

So Saddam should have been left alone, but Ghaddafi needs to go? I would love to hear someone explain to me how Saddam was better than Ghaddafi, especially since Saddam could teach Ghaddafi a thing or two on how to put down an uprising.

Well, maybe truthinessmatters will step up and defend his ideas...

But I wouldn't hold your breath.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

This is a Libyan Civil War. Gaddafi has never invaded other nations like Hussein did. Like i said earlier,the Iraq Wars supporters have a much stronger argument than the supporters of this War do. It's all just a bizarre hypocritical & dishonest Dog & Pony Show at this point. We gots to kill those Libyans to "save" the Libyans. How ******* stupid.

 

[Foxfyre]

you can bet your bottom dollar, if this were a republican president doing this, 100% or close, of the repubs would be all over it, with no dissension.

How much do you want to bet on that?

Because I am basically not a thief I will warn you before you bet that I can prove that some Republicans opposed our invasion of Iraq under Bush and Afghanistan Dubya.

Actually I was registered Republican at the time and I was very much opposed to our invasion of Iraq and also attempted nation building in Afghanistan. Once there, however, that did not matter as much as giving all possible support to the boots on the ground in harms way. I was not going to attack and denigrate their mission and therefore make it much more difficult for them to accomplish. My criticism has been focused on those things that make it more difficult for our guys to accomplish their mission; not on how we got there in the first place. You can't unring a bell once you ring it. What matters most is what is now and what needs to happen to make now and the future better.

I don't want to put our people now involved in Lybia at higher risk either. But I dang sure think we need clarification on what their mission actually is and how we will know when it is accomplished. Otherwise, I can see us enforcing no fly zones for a decade or more just as we did in Iraq.

 

[The Gadfly]

This is a UN action.

Quit lying

Truth,
I already tried to educate you on this once today, but one more time: The U.N. has NO authority whatever to commit the armed forces of the United States to action, anywhere, anytime. The SOLE lawful authority for doing that, rests with the POTUS, in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief, and with the congress, in its constitutional power to declare war, or under the War Powers Act, authorize use of military force against a foreign state. That's it; no ifs, ands, buts, or other quibbling. Under our constitution, United States law, and the United States constitution trump any and all foreign authority, including the U.N.

Do note, that I am supporting our Commander-in-Chief in taking action I believe is lawful and constitutional according to the War Powers Act and the constitution, although I do not agree with his politics, did not vote for him, and do not intend to vote for him in future. I do so, because I have consistently believed that any president should have the authority and flexibility to act on behalf of this nation militarily, when and as he believes it necessary. I refuse to undermine that principle for the sake of partisan advantage. However, with authority and discretion goes responsibility, and once this plays out, for better or worse, the president will be and ought to be accountable for the results, good or bad. In short, Obama's actions here have my full support, but when they are to be accounted for, he owns them, and the result.

That is both eminently fair, and in accord with the true facts and legalities of the situation. Now, I will presume you are aware of the legal fact that your president bears full responsibility, and the the U.N. DID NOT "make him do it".

Try to deflect by saying "it's the U.N.'s action", one more time, and I will assume that statement is either willful ignorance or a deliberate lie!

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Boy that's some "No Fly Zone." Does Libya have flying Tanks? Now we're blowing up and killing guys in Tanks over there. Bizarre stuff.

 

[The Gadfly]

you can bet your bottom dollar, if this were a republican president doing this, 100% or close, of the repubs would be all over it, with no dissension.

Unfortunately most repubs support this Intervention. Just like most Dems supported the Iraq War. There are a few Republicans speaking out and opposing these bombings but most support it. That's why i always say Socialists/Progressives & Neocons agree on much more than they like to admit. If they put this to a Vote in Congress,i'm pretty sure they would all vote in favor of Bombing Libya. Neocons/Socialists/Progressives? I just don't see much difference between the two. Real Conservatives would oppose these Bombings.

I don't think so. I am definitely no "neocon", I'm more a traditional conservative, and I am supporting the CINC in doing what he finds necessary, so long as it is lawful and constitutional, which to this point, it is. I'm not going to undermine the foreign policy of this or any other POTUS for cheap partisan advantage, whether I personally like the man or not. I do, however, insist that he be accountable for the results, or lack of them, associated with his decisions (as I would with any president, of whatever party).

 

[washamericom]

Yea where did all those "NO WAR FOR OIL!" peeps go? I guess they're all too busy being Hopey Changey sycophants to screech that stuff this time around. How sad.

the cool thing about arguing with liberals is all you need is one of theirs to get elected to office to prove their arguments wrong.

that's very ben frankliny, i'm impressed. frankly, i think ben would be impressed. in fact, if we could be frank and ernest, you could be frank and i could be ernest...

 

[The T]

you can bet your bottom dollar, if this were a republican president doing this, 100% or close, of the repubs would be all over it, with no dissension.

How much do you want to bet on that?

Because I am basically not a thief I will warn you before you bet that I can prove that some Republicans opposed our invasion of Iraq under Bush and Afghanistan Dubya.

Actually I was registered Republican at the time and I was very much opposed to our invasion of Iraq and also attempted nation building in Afghanistan. Once there, however, that did not matter as much as giving all possible support to the boots on the ground in harms way. I was not going to attack and denigrate their mission and therefore make it much more difficult for them to accomplish. My criticism has been focused on those things that make it more difficult for our guys to accomplish their mission; not on how we got there in the first place. You can't unring a bell once you ring it. What matters most is what is now and what needs to happen to make now and the future better.

I don't want to put our people now involved in Lybia at higher risk either. But I dang sure think we need clarification on what their mission actually is and how we will know when it is accomplished. Otherwise, I can see us enforcing no fly zones for a decade or more just as we did in Iraq.

Indeed. And Obama has already stipulated that there will be NO "boots on the ground"...So will this be another quagmire crafted by another Statist Democrat?

 

[washamericom]

Mission creep - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia we're not talking about catholic priests folks...

 

[QUENTIN]

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.

The entire left is anti-war by definition. Just as a fiscal conservative necessarily, conditionally, supports low taxes a leftist necessarily, conditionally, opposes aggressive or offensive warfare. There are indeed very few real anti-war people out there, but nearly all of them are found among the real left and actual conservatives, with far more in the former historically and currently. The left is uniformly against, and speaking out against, the new war on Libya. You don't know what you're talking about.

you can bet your bottom dollar, if this were a republican president doing this, 100% or close, of the repubs would be all over it, with no dissension.

Unfortunately most repubs support this Intervention. Just like most Dems supported the Iraq War. There are a few Republicans speaking out and opposing these bombings but most support it. That's why i always say Socialists/Progressives & Neocons agree on much more than they like to admit. If they put this to a Vote in Congress,i'm pretty sure they would all vote in favor of Bombing Libya. Neocons/Socialists/Progressives? I just don't see much difference between the two. Real Conservatives would oppose these Bombings.

Socialists ≠ Progressive and neither remotely ≠ mainstream Democratic party or voters. Kucinich is a progressive and there are maybe a handful of other progressives in the party. Sanders is a socialist and an independent who votes with Democrats more often than Republicans. They are staunchly against the war and Kucinich is calling for impeachment. Those are the only remotely leftist national politicians and they could not be more opposed to this war and all others we've engaged in in the last 50 years. Otherwise what you're talking about, the people supporting this bombing campaign, are Democrats and Republicans, the latter of whom may be largely neocons but the former of whom are rarely progressives and certainly not socialists. Words have meanings. I know some like to pretend the Democratic party is far left and socialist and yada yada, but in reality it's just not true, they have more in common with mainstream Republicans than they do socialists. Words have meanings. Are neocons and democrats on the same page when it comes to foreign intervention, invasion, occupation and the like? Pretty much. But they're both miles away from the left, which is largely made up of pacifists and to a lesser extent those who believe only in genuinely defensive war.

People are still confusing Neo-conservatives with real Conservatives. No matter how often you try to explain the differences,most just ignore and continue on with their willful ignorance. Most Republicans and Democrats fully support these Bombings. Both the Neocons & Socialists/Progressives just love aggressive Foreign Interventionism. If they put it to a vote in Congress,i'm sure most Republicans & Democrats would vote in favor of bombing Libya. And that's the big problem with this country. We need a real alternative to the Neocons & Socialists/Progressives. A real Conservative would vehemently oppose this Intervention. So where ya at Conservatives?

This is where the overwhelming hypocrisy comes most clearly into view. Yes, ignorant people conflate neo-conservatives with real conservatives despite neo-conservatives being substantially and substantively quite different on innumerable policies and fundamental ideology like the size and role and power of government.

However you, here and throughout this thread and constantly on this board, show your willful ignorance (we've had this conversation before) and hypocrisy in conflating the left with the hawkish mainstream of the Democratic party. Neo-conservative ≠ Conservative. Leftists ≠ Democrat, not even remotely. If you want to be taken seriously, if you want what you say to be accurate, and if you want others to respect and acknowledge that neo-conservatives are not conservatives, you must respect and acknowledge the simple fact that Democrats are not leftists.

Yea where did all those "NO WAR FOR OIL!" peeps go? I guess they're all too busy being Hopey Changey sycophants to screech that stuff this time around. How sad.

They're shouting it from the rooftops. You're ignoring the left and then claiming they're silent. Name me some prominent leftists who support this. You won't be able to, they don't exist.

Mission creep - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Never have we engaged in any military action that didn't steadily and intentionally creep, which is why we shouldn't keep involving ourselves at every opportunity.

 

[Dr Grump]

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?

It's a UN sanctioned action...and there is no subtefuge...

 

[Dr Grump]

I'd like to see if the UN is capable of handling something like this without the US Military involved.

The U.N. has failed many times.
Peacekeeping - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So has the US...shrug....

 

[dilloduck]

I'd like to see if the UN is capable of handling something like this without the US Military involved.

The U.N. has failed many times.
Peacekeeping - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So has the US...shrug....

NZ however has been really succesfull at it.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I'm not defending the Iraq Wars but i would say the argument for getting rid of Saddam Hussein was much stronger than the argument for getting rid of Gaddafi. That's why it's so perplexing observing all the hypocrisy & dishonesty on these Bombings. Hussein gassed his own people and invaded Nations. So i can kind of see an argument there. But Gaddafi has never invaded Nations and there is absolutely no evidence of Genocide either. Libya is in the midst of a Civil War. It's an internal conflict. We have no business bombing & killing Libyans. Period,end of story.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not to defend the Iraq War,but at least with Saddam Hussein you had a guy who brutally gassed his own people and invaded other nations. This Libyan War is a Civil War. This an internal conflict for them. Gaddafi hasn't invaded any Nations in the region. This Military Action is simply wrong and our Government shouldn't have anything to do with it. I don't care if it's UN Mandated or not. Our sovereignty and Constitution take precedent over any UN Mandates. This should have been presented to our Congress for debate and authorization. Hey i know they would have all voted in favor of bombing Libya,but they should have still debated it in Congress. The Neocons & Socialists/Progressives would have agreed to bomb Gaddafi but we still should have let the American People have some say. We should not be killing Libyans to "save" Libyans.

Now you're just repeating what I said days ago.

 

[Dr Grump]

The U.N. has failed many times.
Peacekeeping - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So has the US...shrug....

NZ however has been really succesfull at it.

eg?