US Attacks Libya

[Anonymous]

I am just waiting for the Liberal outrage over this.

So far....*crickets*........

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am just waiting for the Liberal outrage over this.

So far....*crickets*........

Uh, Jeff's original post didn't do it for you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I think it's weird that he has the same policies as Bush and talked about change. I don't think he even thought about anything he was talking about in the campaign. He is making Bush look like his teacher. It proves that Democrats were only political and small when they protested and tried to hamstring and demoralize our troops mission. Why aren't they doing that now. We are more engaged than ever.

False. We are quickly drawing down in Iraq. But Democrats feel as though we broke it, so we bought it. Despite the fact that we were all opposed to the war, we went in and took over a country. We killed their dictator and decapitated their government. We destroyed towns and families and the economy. We can't just tip our hats, admit "our bad," and back away slowly.

And don't take the low road of claiming this is about demoralizing the troops. I come from a family of soldiers. I appreciate their commitment to the country and their lives, and I greatly oppose sending them into unwinnable wars based on false premises to fulfill somebody's childhood desire to avenge his father's slight. I'm not opposed to all war - sometimes you have to do the right thing. Unfortunately Bush was doing the wrong thing and pretending it was for the right reasons. THAT hamstrings and demoralizes our troops.

[Anonymous]

Mmmmm..There is a world of international support for this effort. Only the coalition of the willing was willing to help Bush out with Iraq.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mmmmm..There is a world of international support for this effort. Only the coalition of the willing was willing to help Bush out with Iraq.

And Iraq could have been easily avoided. That was based on knowledge based off a google search.
This time around they have more data.
But the old adage is still true, in a war, the first thing to die is the truth
You cannot fight it by just pressing buttons in a control room
Women and children do die, do not call it propaganda, that is just how it is.
Politicians get to lose their minds, innocents get to die

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mmmmm..There is a world of international support for this effort. Only the coalition of the willing was willing to help Bush out with Iraq.

Ah yes, the coalition of the willing. I wonder how much we promised Moldova in order to get them to send 24 troops. The most pathetic coalition imaginable.

[jsteele]

Before the invasion of Iraq, the US, Britain, and France maintained a no fly zone over northern and southern Iraq. That effort had little effect and Saddam remained a thorn in the Western side for more than a decade. To finally get rid of Saddam, the US launched an invasion that required the subsequent occupation that continues until today -- 8 years later.

So, what happens if this no fly zone fails to result in Qadafi's overthrow? Do we continue it for the next ten years? Do we launch a ground invasion? Do we occupy Libya for years to come?

Don't think for a minute that this attack has anything to do with democracy. There are currently strong opposition movements in Yemen and Bahrain. In both countries, the government has reacted violently to the peaceful protests. But, those governments -- which serve US interests -- don't have to worry about no-fly zones. To the contrary, the US Fifth Fleet is already harbored in Bahrain and standing by peacefully while Saudi troops have entered Bahrain to put down the protests. The so-called opposition leader in Libya is Qadafi's former Minister of Justice. Does anyone seriously believe that guy has an honest commitment to democracy? This war is about one thing: putting a more dependable dictator in power in Libya. Qadhafi is too erratic. His oil is too important. So, he will be replaced. The Bahraini King and the Yemeni President can go on killing their own people. They are dependable.

Does Obama's imitation of Bush mean that Bush was right? No. Bush was wrong and Obama is wrong. If anything, Obama is worse. Bush was too stupid to realize his error. Obama is smart enough to know better.

[Anonymous]

I don't quite get why Libya. Why now? There have been a number of civil wars In Africa in recent years. Why didn't the international community get this involved in Sudan or the Ivory Coast?

Why not, as Jeff mentioned, Yemen or Bahrain.

[Anonymous]

Darn , hit submit too early.

I don't agree with the oil reason.

[Anonymous]

I'm another left left left left lib crying foul over all of this. So many things, the tax cuts, Guantanimo Bay, Bradley Manning's treatment (guilty or not) and now this. I feel completely gobsmacked by this behavior because President Obama promised us he would be different. I don't kid myself that a Republican would be any better. I've always believed that liberals (mainly) did the right thing, with a few exceptions. I truly believed that Republicans were the party of "me" and the Liberals were the bleeding hearts. I still believe that when it comes to people, themselves. But the elected officials - are they really so different from one another?

I feel pretty sick lately. The news all over is just terrible. What kind of world have we brought our children into?

[Anonymous]

I'm on overload.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Obama should call Bush for more advice on having the exact same policies. Yes we can!

I call B.S. on this reasoning. This is humanitarian intervention against somebody attacking and brutally killing his own people! Bush went into Iraq supposedly because they attacked us and had weapons of mass destruction (don't forget we were told they were part of 9/11 and had stockades of earth shattering weapons). Libya has nothing to do with the Bush Doctrine.

Libya has nothing to do with the Obama Doctrine either. This is not a humanitarian intervention. Does anyone remember the poor country without oil: Haiti? Libyan oil is one of the easiest oils to process in the world, and they have plenty of it. We need it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bush was right to go into Iraq, and Obama was right to go against Libya. the fact that Libya should be easier and cheaper is because of the invasion of Iraq and the spur of revolutions it caused.

Libya had it coming: downing of passenger jet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am just waiting for the Liberal outrage over this.

So far....*crickets*........

That's because attacking Libya is part of Obama's green initiative in the sense that he is green.

[Anonymous]

Obama's entire campaign was based on Bush being wrong and now he attacks a country that didn't attack us, keeps the Bush tax cuts, does a surge in Afghanistan, signs an executive order to keep Guantanimo open, extends the patriot act, keeps an occupying force of 50000 troops in Iraq. He is admitting that Bush was right about EVERYTHING. He knows the policies he campaigned on are STUPID and he is STUPID with a lousy thought process and that Bush is SMART on the things that count.