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

[NYcarbineer]

I just caught enough of Mark Levin earlier to figure out that he's opposing this, but supported the Iraq war,

so there's a good example of the hypocrisy on the Right.

when you explain why that is, in YOUR opinion, I'll jump in, instead you're taking the smoke but no fire way out......why it is hypocritical?

By the same measures that Libo et al are claiming that those who opposed the Iraq war but support this action are hypocritical.

I'm sure you've already taken them to task on this, what was their explanation?

 

[Trajan]

meanwhile;


The "coalition" has no clothes
The administration has insisted that the attack on Libya is a broad international effort -- but, so far, it's not

An emphatic part of the White House messaging about the bombing in Libya is that the operation is truly international in character.

But it's quickly becoming clear that the bombing campaign -- at least so far -- is almost entirely an American operation, albeit one that has been packaged to give it an international look. It's a dissonance that brings back memories of George W. Bush's much-mocked "coalition of the willing."

The rhetoric from the administration has consistently referred to the U.S. playing a "support" role in a large coalition. As Hillary Clinton said yesterday in France, referring to the Security Council resolution that authorizes protection of civilians in Libya: "So let me be very clear about the position of the United States: We will support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce the terms of Resolution 1973."

President Obama, in what was obviously a carefully choreographed move, did not himself announce the beginning of the bombing. Indeed, when the news was announced by French President Nicholas Sarkozy, Obama was on an uncanceled trip to Brazil.

Obama's brief statement from Brasilia referred to a "broad coalition" that "brings together many of our European and Arab partners." He said he had authorized "military action in Libya in support of an international effort." Obama used the words "international" and "coalition" a total of ten times in a statement that lasted just three minutes.

The grandstanding was left to Sarkozy, who had ordered French planes to make the first flights over Libya -- before U.S. aircraft got involved. "Along with our Arab, European and North American partners, France has decided to play its part before history," he said.

But strikes by over 100 American cruise missiles quickly followed the French action, and early Sunday morning a slew of American planes -- including B2s, F-15s, F-16s, Navy EA-18G electronic warfare planes and Marine attack jets, according to the AP -- bombed Libya. It's not clear whether any Arab nations -- some of which supported the Security council resolution -- have contributed military support at this point.

more at-
The "coalition" has no clothes - War Room - Salon.com

 

[NYcarbineer]

I thought the Democrats supported the Iraq war, isn't that what you clowns have tried to sell for the last 8 years?

Yes, it is...

They did but then they didn't. Remember?

You're babbling.

 

[Trajan]

I just caught enough of Mark Levin earlier to figure out that he's opposing this, but supported the Iraq war,

so there's a good example of the hypocrisy on the Right.

when you explain why that is, in YOUR opinion, I'll jump in, instead you're taking the smoke but no fire way out......why it is hypocritical?

By the same measures that Libo et al are claiming that those who opposed the Iraq war but support this action are hypocritical.

I'm sure you've already taken them to task on this, what was their explanation?

when you explain why that is, in YOUR opinion, I'll jump in.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I thought the Democrats supported the Iraq war, isn't that what you clowns have tried to sell for the last 8 years?

Yes, it is...

And I thought that under Obama this was a coalition just like Bush 1 in Kuwait. Actually it's looking more and more like the Iraq war you all hated so much. France said they'd help then they stabbed in the back.

Now according to reports, the French were going to lead this one, Ummm, Houston, we have a problem... Does anyone really think that with what the Arab League, Turkey, and Germany are doing and saying that France or any other country is going to take over this 'mission'?

Print Story: International alliance divided over Libya command - Yahoo! News

International alliance divided over Libya command
By Laura Rozen laura Rozen Mon Mar 21, 5:15 pm ET

President Barack Obama, speaking in Santiago, Chile on Monday, defended his decision to order U.S. strikes against Libyan military targets, and insisted that the mission is clear.

And like a parade of Pentagon officials the past few days, Obama insisted that the United States' lead military role will be turned over—"in days, not weeks"—to an international command of which the United States will be just one part.

The only problem: None of the countries in the international coalition can yet agree on to whom or how the United States should hand off responsibilities.

The sense of urgency among White House officials to resolve the command dispute is profound: with each hour the U.S. remains in charge of yet another Middle East military intervention, Congress steps up criticism that Obama went to war in Libya without first getting its blessing, nor defining precisely what the end-game will be. (On Monday, Obama sent Congress official notification that he had ordered the U.S. military two days earlier to commence operations "to prevent humanitarian catastrophe" in Libya and support the international coalition implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1973.)

Below, an explainer on the military mission in Libya, the dispute over who should command it after its initial phase, and whether the military is concerned about mission creep....

I refer you to part one of my sigline.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

meanwhile;


The "coalition" has no clothes
The administration has insisted that the attack on Libya is a broad international effort -- but, so far, it's not

An emphatic part of the White House messaging about the bombing in Libya is that the operation is truly international in character.

But it's quickly becoming clear that the bombing campaign -- at least so far -- is almost entirely an American operation, albeit one that has been packaged to give it an international look. It's a dissonance that brings back memories of George W. Bush's much-mocked "coalition of the willing."

The rhetoric from the administration has consistently referred to the U.S. playing a "support" role in a large coalition. As Hillary Clinton said yesterday in France, referring to the Security Council resolution that authorizes protection of civilians in Libya: "So let me be very clear about the position of the United States: We will support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce the terms of Resolution 1973."

President Obama, in what was obviously a carefully choreographed move, did not himself announce the beginning of the bombing. Indeed, when the news was announced by French President Nicholas Sarkozy, Obama was on an uncanceled trip to Brazil.

Obama's brief statement from Brasilia referred to a "broad coalition" that "brings together many of our European and Arab partners." He said he had authorized "military action in Libya in support of an international effort." Obama used the words "international" and "coalition" a total of ten times in a statement that lasted just three minutes.

The grandstanding was left to Sarkozy, who had ordered French planes to make the first flights over Libya -- before U.S. aircraft got involved. "Along with our Arab, European and North American partners, France has decided to play its part before history," he said.

But strikes by over 100 American cruise missiles quickly followed the French action, and early Sunday morning a slew of American planes -- including B2s, F-15s, F-16s, Navy EA-18G electronic warfare planes and Marine attack jets, according to the AP -- bombed Libya. It's not clear whether any Arab nations -- some of which supported the Security council resolution -- have contributed military support at this point.

more at-
The "coalition" has no clothes - War Room - Salon.com

Coalition of the Killing.

 

[snowbud]

Im from england and what britain,france un and usa is doing is wrong and britain should keep out of it .

Its all about oil and gaff wont do what un ect want him to do , so they want to get him out.

 

[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...

Phew... that's a relief.

Maybe the reasons for a military action don't matter to you. They do to me...<shrug>

 

[bucs90]

Well, it's too late to be for or against the Obama War in Libya.

Now, it's a matter of winning it. We're in it, so we must win it. How do we win it? Leaving Ghaddafi in power would be seen by the Arab world (aka Al Qaida) and propagandized to a Muslim defeat of the USA. Not good.

So, lets see how the Commander in Chief fights his very first self-initiated war.

 

[Dr Grump]

You know what I really love? How the neocon whackjobs absolutely foamed at the mouth over Bush being criticised over an unjust war such as Iraq II, and are doing the same - for a very different reason - over a justified action like what is happening in Libya.

Bear in mind these are the same loons - on this very board - who wanted Gaddafi taken out when Scotland released the alleged Lockerbie bombers back into Libyian hands...

 

[LibocalypseNow]

The Democrats are probably worse than Republicans on issues like this. At first they all supported the Iraq War and then they didn't. At least the Republicans showed some consistency & honor on that one. These same Democrats also gave Bush Sr. bloody Hell during Gulf War I. So why are they doing all this cheerleading for bombing and killing Libyans? Have they no shame?

 

[Avatar4321]

You know what I really love? How the neocon whackjobs absolutely foamed at the mouth over Bush being criticised over an unjust war such as Iraq II, and are doing the same - for a very different reason - over a justified action like what is happening in Libya.

Bear in mind these are the same loons - on this very board - who wanted Gaddafi taken out when Scotland released the alleged Lockerbie bombers back into Libyian hands...

How on earth can you conclude that Saddam was unjustified and Khadafi is?

I can state very clearly why I supported one and why I don't support this one. Much of it has to do with the speed by which we are moving in, the lack of information being provided by the public, the lack of any sort of interest on our part, and the lack of authorization from Congress.

 

[Dr Grump]

Well, it's too late to be for or against the Obama War in Libya.

Now, it's a matter of winning it. We're in it, so we must win it. How do we win it? Leaving Ghaddafi in power would be seen by the Arab world (aka Al Qaida) and propagandized to a Muslim defeat of the USA. Not good.

So, lets see how the Commander in Chief fights his very first self-initiated war.

He didn't initiated Jack. The UN did.

I know you loons think the UN sucks, but us - who live in the real world - don't live and die by the thoughts/actions of a few. We take other opinions into consideration, and when they agree, do something about it. Unlike the last coalition of the willing that included such powerhouses as Albania and Slovenia, when the Brits, French AND Yanks agree on something, then its worth doing.

Following a common geopolitical line is far better than some skewed neocon agenda designed to incorporate a New World order that will only benefit the greedy few...

 

[ekrem]

Obama's brief statement from Brasilia referred to a "broad coalition" that "brings together many of our European and Arab partners." He said he had authorized "military action in Libya in support of an international effort." Obama used the words "international" and "coalition" a total of ten times in a statement that lasted just three minutes.
more at-
The "coalition" has no clothes - War Room - Salon.com

Bombing other countries has become a very normal thing.
So normal, that the head of state even doesn't cut short his foreign visits.

 

[Avatar4321]

Well, it's too late to be for or against the Obama War in Libya.

Now, it's a matter of winning it. We're in it, so we must win it. How do we win it? Leaving Ghaddafi in power would be seen by the Arab world (aka Al Qaida) and propagandized to a Muslim defeat of the USA. Not good.

So, lets see how the Commander in Chief fights his very first self-initiated war.

He didn't initiated Jack. The UN did.

I know you loons think the UN sucks, but us - who live in the real world - don't live and die by the thoughts/actions of a few. We take other opinions into consideration, and when they agree, do something about it. Unlike the last coalition of the willing that included such powerhouses as Albania and Slovenia, when the Brits, French AND Yanks agree on something, then its worth doing.

Following a common geopolitical line is far better than some skewed neocon agenda designed to incorporate a New World order that will only benefit the greedy few...

So you believe in peer pressure and not doing what's right for the sake of doing what's right regardless what others may think?

 

[Dr Grump]

You know what I really love? How the neocon whackjobs absolutely foamed at the mouth over Bush being criticised over an unjust war such as Iraq II, and are doing the same - for a very different reason - over a justified action like what is happening in Libya.

Bear in mind these are the same loons - on this very board - who wanted Gaddafi taken out when Scotland released the alleged Lockerbie bombers back into Libyian hands...

How on earth can you conclude that Saddam was unjustified and Khadafi is?

I can state very clearly why I supported one and why I don't support this one. Much of it has to do with the speed by which we are moving in, the lack of information being provided by the public, the lack of any sort of interest on our part, and the lack of authorization from Congress.

Gulf War 1 -totally justified
Gulf War 2 was a "he tried to kill my daddy' action, that was full of spite payback

You do realise that the UN, with regard to Libya, are only doing what Bush said he would do with regard to the Marsh Arabs etc just after Gulf War I. And we know what happened to those poor people due to Bush Snrs' lack of action. What Obama is doing is showing balls and leadership, which must really stick the craw of neocons (not that you are one btw)

 

[dilloduck]

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...

Did the NZ ambassador to the UN fill you in on that one ?

 

[Dr Grump]

Well, it's too late to be for or against the Obama War in Libya.

Now, it's a matter of winning it. We're in it, so we must win it. How do we win it? Leaving Ghaddafi in power would be seen by the Arab world (aka Al Qaida) and propagandized to a Muslim defeat of the USA. Not good.

So, lets see how the Commander in Chief fights his very first self-initiated war.

He didn't initiated Jack. The UN did.

I know you loons think the UN sucks, but us - who live in the real world - don't live and die by the thoughts/actions of a few. We take other opinions into consideration, and when they agree, do something about it. Unlike the last coalition of the willing that included such powerhouses as Albania and Slovenia, when the Brits, French AND Yanks agree on something, then its worth doing.

Following a common geopolitical line is far better than some skewed neocon agenda designed to incorporate a New World order that will only benefit the greedy few...

So you believe in peer pressure and not doing what's right for the sake of doing what's right regardless what others may think?

Who said peer pressure is a bad thing when it's the right thing to do? And who are these others? Other arab dictatorhips? The ones the neocon loons are always ranting against when we talk about Israel and its place in the ME?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Obama's brief statement from Brasilia referred to a "broad coalition" that "brings together many of our European and Arab partners." He said he had authorized "military action in Libya in support of an international effort." Obama used the words "international" and "coalition" a total of ten times in a statement that lasted just three minutes.
more at-
The "coalition" has no clothes - War Room - Salon.com

Bombing other countries has become a very normal thing.
So normal, that the head of state even doesn't cut short his foreign visits.

Wow. Sadly,this is true.

 

[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...

Did the NZ ambassador to the UN fill you in on that one ?

You know Dillo, I reckon 99 percent of your 40,000+ posts are full of one liners with nothing to say. When you want to have an indepth debate, let me know. I'm not interested in one-liners that wouldn't even make the grade at amateur hour at the Yellowknife comedy club..