"Obama has now fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined."

[Duck Rodgers]

I say, before we can ever commit troops to a war, all politicians in Wash must commit one family member for the cause (cannot be the wife). Perhaps then we'll stop this useless warmongering.

Now we know why you love Sarah Palin so much.

 

[Mission Accomplished]

Looks like you got all of your liberal talking points covered:

(1) Conservatives hate the environment [check]
(2) Conservatives all want the rich and powerful to get richer and powerfuller [check]
(3) Coservatives don't want any regulation or taxation of business in order to bring about #2 [check]
(4) Conservatives drive away jobs [check]
(5) Conservatives are the only ones holding up congress from solving every world problem (hunger, environment, sock lost in dryers, etc.) [check]

You only missed abortion, separation of church and state (religious nut-jobs), only taxing the poor while never taxing the rich, unjust wars, and big oil to round out your talking points. I am glad you have been paying attention to Maher, Moore and Franken. They have indoctrinated you well.

Actually I'm just starting to throw my hat in the ring. And no I'm not referring to the last election you can swing idiots votes by pumping garbage propaganda down their throats everyday like the propaganada machine Fox New.

https://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-24-2011/exclusive---bret-baier-extended-interview-pt--1

Fox News admits over and over again that they are an mostly opinion news network and yet conservative suckle it like is milk from heaven.

 

[LogGrad98]

Keep calling it the invasion of Libya. Doesn't make it really what's happening. and no, Obama is nowhere near Bush level yet, not even close.

Keep those blinders on. Make sure to repeat the mantra "Bush lied, people died" before you go to bed at night. I am sure Obama has a great excuse for not seeking a congressional resolution and just acting on his own, as well as breaking his promise to sit down in diplomatic meetings before engaging in any action against another nation. Not to mention his statement that he would not engage in regime change just for the sake of regime change. But was it really to afffect regime change since Ghadaffi threatened to turn off his oil productionm, upon which Europe heavily relies (along with the US to a lesser extent)? Ghadaffi had changed his behavior on the world stage when we invaded Iraq so we would leave him alone, but we attacked anyway, presumably to halt the killing of civilians. Apparenlty that is good enough to pre-emptively attack Lybia, but was not good enough to invade Iraq, while Iraq's attrocities against their civilian population trail only dictators like Mao, Stalin and Hitler. Obama also never met with Ghadaffi as he said he would do with any foreign leader "without preconditions" before taking hostile action. The White House is also insinuating the possibility of "weapons of mass distruction" even while Ghadaffi has made it clear he is open to inspection by the UN, something Iraq avoided, and something that the UN did not do, and Obama did not require, before attacking Lybia. Bush made it clear at the beginning that if Saddam allowed inspectors into the country in a timely fashion it would be good enough, but Saddam would not allow it. Ghadaffi offered, but that was not good enough for Obama and the UN. In addition, we had past experience with Saddam and WMD's to bolster the intelligence that said he was stockpiling. He had famously used chemical andother weapons to exterminate large groups of Kurds (civilians). Ghadaffi has been rumored to have WMDs, but has not used them.

This can go on and on. The comparison is scary.

But go ahead and keep your blinders on. Keep repeating your mantra "Bush lied, people died" and "Obama's awesome" every night before going to bed. Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion.

 

[LogGrad98]

I say, before we can ever commit troops to a war, all politicians in Wash must commit one family member for the cause (cannot be the wife). Perhaps then we'll stop this useless warmongering.

Actually not a bad idea.

 

[Mission Accomplished]

Lets take the conservatives ways of dealing with the Middle East v. the Obama way. Conservatives especially the Bushes used the turmoil in the Middle East to get $$$$ rich at the expense of the tax payers (which by the way is one great way to get us out of debt if we weren't still fighting to put out the Bush small wildfires.) Trying to force those in the Middle East into regime change and forcing Democracy by way of the fist. While Obama who respected their traditions and cultures gave a stirring speech in Egypt invoke a yearning for those who are under oppression to demand regime change.

The reason why Libya is different is the US didn't demand this no-fly-zone France lead the call for a UN intervention and the US acting with a coalition of nations are performing these military operations. But, why this is so critical is after Egypt didn't use violence to stop nonviolent protests. Gadhafi instead began to slaughter his own people. Now Bush would have turned a blind eye to this because Libya doesn't have the oil or money that he is worried about. But, thank God that Obama is a man who hasn't sold his soul to the corporate America.

 

[LogGrad98]

Lets take the conservatives ways of dealing with the Middle East v. the Obama way. Conservatives especially the Bushes used the turmoil in the Middle East to get $$$$ rich at the expense of the tax payers (which by the way is one great way to get us out of debt if we weren't still fighting to put out the Bush small wildfires.) Trying to force those in the Middle East into regime change and forcing Democracy by way of the fist. While Obama who respected their traditions and cultures gave a stirring speech in Egypt invoke a yearning for those who are under oppression to demand regime change.

The reason why Libya is different is the US didn't demand this no-fly-zone France lead the call for a UN intervention and the US acting with a coalition of nations are performing these military operations. But, why this is so critical is after Egypt didn't use violence to stop nonviolent protests. Gadhafi instead began to slaughter his own people. Now Bush would have turned a blind eye to this because Libya doesn't have the oil or money that he is worried about. But, thank God that Obama is a man who hasn't sold his soul to the corporate America.

1) Who exactly was forced into regime change besides Iraq? "Middle East" is a pretty broad statement. Iraq violated UN-ratified restrictions. Iraq killed far more of their own citizenry than Lybia has. Saddam was among the top 5 worst dictator the world has ever seen. Can you argue that Iraq did not need regime change? That Saddam killing millions of his own people testing WMD's was ok? If all that is not enough reason to invade Iraq, then what exactly did Lybia do to warrant this intervention?

2) Why did France lead the call for intervention in Lybia? What did Lybia do to France? The only plausible answer was the effect it would have on France for Lybia to turn off their oil, which Ghadafi threatened to do as part of his attempts to restrict uprisings in his own country. Lybia provides a substantial amount of oil to France and other european countries. If it isn't about oil, then what is it about?

3) Pure speculation. Also do you really think Obama gets no kickbacks or lobby money at all funded by corporations? Are you really that naive to ascribe veritable sainthood to a politician?

Apparently the Obama way is to cloud the issue, deflect blame/accountability, not involve congress before committing US resources, and use shaky evidence if any at all.

As a final point, please list the "conservatives" who got rich, and exactly what they benefited from invading Iraq. How much money did they make? Can you prove that not a single liberal benefited in the same way? Also can you successfully argue that no one in any previous military conflict in the history of American benefited financially?

All of these blanket statements are ways of glossing over the facts and details so you don't have to face the possibility that your opinion of the infallibility of the democratic party may be wrong.

Don't worry, you are not alone. Plenty of other democrats think the same way, as do plenty of republicans. That is actually why I do not always get involved in these debates here. Hard to discuss issues with someone who has fully been indoctrinated by the left or the right and cannot accept that maybe they don't have all the answers.

 

[PearlWatson]

I say, before we can ever commit troops to a war, all politicians in Wash must commit one family member for the cause (cannot be the wife). Perhaps then we'll stop this useless warmongering.

That was kinda funny.

 

[babe]

I say, before we can ever commit troops to a war, all politicians in Wash must commit one family member for the cause (cannot be the wife). Perhaps then we'll stop this useless warmongering.

Actually, to be truly "equal" maybe we should say "cannot be the spouse". And call me misanthropic if you want, but my father wouldn't have skipped a beat to put me on the point of a bomb squad. I'd have to hold out for just making the politicians pay for the wars out of their own wealth, and carry the guns and take the heat of battle themselves.

 

[LogGrad98]

Actually, to be truly "equal" maybe we should say "cannot be the spouse". And call me misanthropic if you want, but my father wouldn't have skipped a beat to put me on the point of a bomb squad. I'd have to hold out for just making the politicians pay for the wars out of their own wealth, and carry the guns and take the heat of battle themselves.

You could just have them pay bit by bit. For every million we spend on the war, their pay drops by 10k per year. For every life lost, they lose an appendage, chosen at random.

 

[One Brow]

This can go on and on. The comparison is scary.

Is the situation itself supposed to be scary, or just the completely selective nature of your comparison?

 

[Sneakers]

Invasion:the act of invading; the act of an army that invades for conquest or plunder

How exactly has the US "invaded" Libya again?

When we stormed into Iraq we had every intention of taking their capital city, gaining control of the country and its resources. We "invaded" Iraq.

Intervention:the act of intervening (as to mediate a dispute, etc.); "it occurs without human intervention"

Does the US even have a single ground soldier in Libya right now?? ...No! We are bombing them, collectively with several other nations, in an attempt to aid the rebels in over-turning their dictator Ghadafi who was in the process of slaughtering innocent civilians while they peacefully protested his dictatorship. How is this an "invasion" again, exactly?

 

[Sneakers]

1) Who exactly was forced into regime change besides Iraq? "Middle East" is a pretty broad statement. Iraq violated UN-ratified restrictions. Iraq killed far more of their own citizenry than Lybia has. Saddam was among the top 5 worst dictator the world has ever seen. Can you argue that Iraq did not need regime change? That Saddam killing millions of his own people testing WMD's was ok? If all that is not enough reason to invade Iraq, then what exactly did Lybia do to warrant this intervention?

2) Why did France lead the call for intervention in Lybia? What did Lybia do to France? The only plausible answer was the effect it would have on France for Lybia to turn off their oil, which Ghadafi threatened to do as part of his attempts to restrict uprisings in his own country. Lybia provides a substantial amount of oil to France and other european countries. If it isn't about oil, then what is it about?

3) Pure speculation. Also do you really think Obama gets no kickbacks or lobby money at all funded by corporations? Are you really that naive to ascribe veritable sainthood to a politician?

Apparently the Obama way is to cloud the issue, deflect blame/accountability, not involve congress before committing US resources, and use shaky evidence if any at all.

As a final point, please list the "conservatives" who got rich, and exactly what they benefited from invading Iraq. How much money did they make? Can you prove that not a single liberal benefited in the same way? Also can you successfully argue that no one in any previous military conflict in the history of American benefited financially?

All of these blanket statements are ways of glossing over the facts and details so you don't have to face the possibility that your opinion of the infallibility of the democratic party may be wrong.

Don't worry, you are not alone. Plenty of other democrats think the same way, as do plenty of republicans. That is actually why I do not always get involved in these debates here. Hard to discuss issues with someone who has fully been indoctrinated by the left or the right and cannot accept that maybe they don't have all the answers.

You seem to subscribe to far more speculation than anyone else is indulging in. Also, what WMDs??

Saddam was among the top 5 worst dictator the world has ever seen

Not a history major, eh?