I wish we could help everyone with their problems - I really do. But sometimes I think it's best to just mind our own business. Regarding humanitarian issues, I think it would be more productive to help build than to help destroy.
On the other hand - I have been carefully observing this issue in Libya and that dude is a crazy madman! At least we are not going in alone this time. Let's pray it is a fast procedure as we can't afford this.
A note of interest: Once again you would think the GOP would be all supportive of this as they love war. But apparently not if it is Obama's war. Nothing but negative comments online. They are hypocritical idiots.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
I agree Dennis, Libya's leader is a madman but what does that say about us? How many wars? And, we're torturing one of our own whose name is Bradley Manning. Yes, he may have broke the law but he hasn't had his trial yet and hasn't been convicted.
Just check out this link. It shows our history in black and white.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations
I've been called an anti-American this week and I laugh. I'm starting to wonder why the truth isn't being told here. Wait, wait, don't tell me, it's because Texas is rewriting our student's history books. Truth be damned.
Cheers,
Lisa in Indy
Den
At least we are not going in alone this time.
Andre
Come on Den, at least make SOME effort to get the history correct!
Coalition Forces / Iraq vs. Libya
Coalition Countries - Iraq - 2003
Afghanistan,
Albania
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Hungary
Italy
Japan
South Korea
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
Uzbekistan
[Source: US State Department]
Coalition - Libya - 2011
United States
France
United Kingdom
Italy
Canada
Belgium
Denmark
Norway
Qatar
Spain
Greece
Germany
Poland
Jordan
Morocco
United Arab Emirate
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2011/03/21/fact-bush-had-2-times-more-coalition-partners-iraq-obama-has-libya#ixzz1HUOPYSXK
Den
Once again you would think the GOP would be all supportive of this as they love war. But apparently not if it is Obama's war. Nothing but negative comments online. They are hypocritical idiots.
Andre
President Bush sought, and obtained, the permission of Congress before engaging in hostilities. President Obama didn't.
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” - Cadidate Obama, Dec. 20, 2007, as quoted in the Boston Globe.
Sounds like the biggest hypocritical idiot commenting on this situation is our current President.
That was a typo; I meant to write "Candidate Obama", not "Cadidate Obama".
The current President has many political and leadership failings, but I would never refer to him as a "Cad" (now, if we had been talking about President Clinton....)
The United Nations did not support the disaster we caused in Iraq because they could not prove there were indeed weapons of mass destruction. Our mission there was not to liberate the people until AFTER we realized that there were no WMDs. Your party was fooled - ours was not. That whole mission was a money laundering machine for Haliburton. There is video footage of Dick Cheney saying he knew it would be a quagmire. They new - and they did it anyway without help of real military nations. It remains a disgrace today.
The BIG (HUGE) difference in Libya and the other recently toppled nations is that their own people started the revolution. They are communicating amongst their selves and they have a plan on what to do after (hopefully). It is their idea - their mission - and I guess we are helping them now. We are not forcing Democracy on them this time - they are choosing it.
Let me just clarify because I know you are going to say that many Dems voted to go into Iraq too - and that is true. When I say your party was fooled - ours was not, I mean that we remember what the mission was - not what it was later revised to be. WMDs not Liberty. However, if Iraq can ever conquer it's own divides and survive on their own in a Democracy - it is a nice side effect. We shall wait and wait and wait and see.
Once again, you simply ignored and provided no substantial response to the two points of fact that I mentioned :
1. Fact: The Iraq War coalition included twice as many countries as this current intervention. Your claim that "At least we are not going in alone this time." merely demonstrates your ignorance of the actual history. Additionally, you add insult to injury with your gratuitous and irrelevant slur against the other 29 nation coalition partners, whose brave soldiers all risked, and in many cases shed, their blood in battle alongside our fighting men and women in Iraq. Your erroneous claim they were not from "real military nations" is merely another uninformed historical falsehood on your part.
2. Fact: President Bush wisely and properly sought the approval of Congress before engaging in hostilities. President Obama didn't.
Rather than addressing those points, you went off instead on some bizarre rant about the Iraq War, and, true to form, you managed to get that one all wrong too:
Den
Our mission there was not to liberate the people until AFTER we realized that there were no WMDs.
Andre
Wrong. The 2002 House Joint Resolution (H. J. Res 114), authorizing the President to use U.S. Armed Forces against Iraq, list a whole slew of reasons for that action, among which, if you bothered to read it, you would find, clearly and unambiguously enunciated, the following:
"... it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;"
Den
...we remember what the mission was - not what it was later revised to be.
Andre
It seems that you remember what you want to remember. The dishonest and inaccurate revisions of historical memory in this case, continue to be perpetuated by the Left, purely for their own selfish, power seeking, political advantage.
It figures you would accuse me of revising history when in fact it is you and the GOP who were already revising it while it was happening.
On your point about President Obama not getting proper approval from Congress - I do agree.
You accuse me of only addressing points I want to address and you completely ignored my accusation about Cheney.
This whole article is about comparison of this military action versus the CURRENT Iraq war. 2002?! Really?
BTW - I do not dismiss or minimize the coalition we did manage to acquire during the current Iraq war. They are indeed brave soles to join that effort. However, if we had United Nations support we would have spent far less and possibly had a greater impact. Of course those nations didn't have enough proof of the WMDs - as we didn't. They wisely didn't join our effort.
Den
You accuse me of only addressing points I want to address and you completely ignored my accusation about Cheney.
Andre
What accusation? Some alleged videotape, somewhere? What was said, when was it said? What was the full context?
You gave zero details,and no citation or link to support it, so as far as I am concerned, until you can provide something more substantial,it is nothing more than baseless hearsay , at best (and at worst, it is inane Leftist paranoia and/or fantasy).
Den
It figures you would accuse me of revising history ...
Andre
I believe that I did more than just "accuse" you of it. I pointed out exactly what you claimed, and then provided reasonable evidence to demonstrate that what you said was untrue, or at best, a ideologically biased mischaracterization of easily verifiable historical facts.
On the other hand, I think that your instinctual skepticism about the wisdom of this Libyan (mis)adventure is well founded:
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/middleeast/2011/03/22/down-the-rabbit-hole/
Honestly Andre - stop making me do your research for you! I googled "cheney quagmire video" How hard is that?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY
They knew - but they decided a quagmire would be very profitable!
Den
On your point about President Obama not getting proper approval from Congress - I do agree.
Andre
I'm not sure where I come down on this yet. For the moment,I suspect that the President was probably acting (just barely) within his legal prerogatives as Commander-in-Chief in ordering the actions that he did. The wisdom of such a policy is another matter.
A fascinating (and very informative) online symposium today at National Review debating this very issue, both pro and con. Good points being made on both sides of the question:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/262940/we-do-declare-nro-symposium?page=1
Now I see why you made no mention of the time or context when you first referenced this video:it was from 1994! Cheney was talking about why they didn't go to Baghdad after chasing the Iraqi army out of Kuwait.
The 2nd Iraq War was fought for a completely different set of reasons (not the least of which was Saddam's blatant violations of the Cease-Fire Agreement that ended the 1st war, including near continuous acts of war on his part against coalition aircraft patrolling to No-Fly Zone).
BTW: One of the good side results of the 2nd Iraqi war, was that Gaddafi got freaked out by it and was so scared of Bush that he voluntarily abandoned his own nuclear weapons program (which turned out to be far more sophisticated and advanced then Saddam's). Too bad that Gaddafi has no such fear of Obama.
That video shows that even as early as 1994 they knew the consequences of removing Saddam. The situation was the same at the start of the recent war. For Cheney at least - profits were the motive. For George W - Revenge was the motive. He made a good puppet for Cheney's money machine. WMDs were the lie used to convince the rest of us to go along. Fear is the great motivator. The money machine is still working.
You made me chuckle at your Gaddafi afraid of Bush remark. That is good comedy!
Den
You made me chuckle at your Gaddafi afraid of Bush remark. That is good comedy!
Andre
I wonder why you find that humorous?
Gaddafi saw what happened to Saddam, figured out that Bush (in stark contrast to his predecessor Clinton) was serious about defending American interests abroad with the full might of the American military, and knowing that his regime might be a likely next target, he made a self interest calculation, and concluded that the furthering of his personal life expectancy didn't correspond with his continuing pursuit of nuclear weapons.
He certainly didn't volunteer to abandon his nuclear weapons program because he thought Bush was a pussy-cat. What sense would that have made?
Den
For Cheney at least - profits were the motive....WMDs were the lie used to convince the rest of us to go along.
Andre
1. How did Cheney get the CIA to "lie" for him? How would he get hundreds of CIA career professionals to risk everything, include prison, to lie for him? There must have also have been countless others involved outside of the CIA. How did he get them all to go long with such an insane scheme, and how has he kept them all quiet all these years, and kept them from revealing any evidence to reveal such an enormous conspiracy?
2. How did Cheney also get every single US Government post-war study panel of this issue, whose ranks were often full of far Left Democrat legislators who were political enemies of Cheney, to conclude that there was absolutely no merit to any of those charges?
3. How did Cheney also get every other intelligence agency in the world to "lie" for him also? Even the intelligence agencies of countries like France and Germany who had huge oil deals with Saddam and were opposed to the invasion of Iraq?
Have you ever just sat quietly for awhile and really thought this whole paranoid "lie" conspiracy fantasy through?
It just doesn't make any sense.
Especially when you consider that if Cheney was really so psycho-pathologically motivated by such an insanely bizarre, mono-maniacal compulsion to expand Haliburton's profits,completely irrespective of any moral considerations at all,even the deaths of countless thousands, it would have been far far easier to just go the opposite route and get the Iraqi oil embargo lifted in exchange for Saddam giving Haliburton a sweetheart deal inside Iraq.
(You know, sort of like the ones that the French, Germans, and Russians had been enjoying for many years.)
But no, in your insane paranoid fantasy, Cheney was willing to risk literally everything,including billions and billions of budget dollars, countless lives, and all sorts of public political abuse (not to mention the risk of life in prison, and the complete and total destruction of his family and his entire life's legacy, if such vast and unspeakably evil conspiracy was ever unmasked), and all of this for what? So his personal net worth could tick up by a few million dollars?
Don't you realize how absurd and idiotic this all sounds?
He KNEW the consequences of removing Saddam - as illustrated in the video. Yet the administration chose to go to war with Iraq anyway - on data that was never proven. I believe your last paragraph says EXACTLY what happened. No-bid contracts are proof of the agenda. And it worked out perfectly for all of them.
On a completely different subject; you HAVE to watch this!
Pass it on. This brave, beautiful, and amazing woman needs to become a household name all over the world.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/263156/re-veena-malik-jonah-goldberg and supported all over the world"
Here's a more direct link to the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMnAmRa4NYw&feature=player_embedded
I agree! But I am quite surprised you would support this type of protest against religious doctrine.
In typical hypocritical style you support this women's rights to freedom and liberation but continue to support laws that remove rights of women in this country.
And where is your T-shirt that says American Muslims have the right to build houses of worship anywhere a Christian could?
Equality is so easy! Try it.
What the hell are you ranting about?
What laws do I support that remove womesn's rights in this country?
I have no clue what the comment regarding Muslim "houses of worship" refers to.
You are making even less sense than usual today.
I heard Glenn Beck talking about the Veena Malik video on his show today too. (I wonder if John Stewart will mention it today?)
The list of Conservative sites paying attention to this story continues to grow.
Have you encountered anyone on the Left bothering to mention it? (I'm not saying they haven't, I'm just not aware of it.)
Speaking of rants Andre - I'm not sure how we got off on this topic. But since we are and you seem lost let me explain:
You are all fired up about this person's rights when your party is currently involved in putting additional laws on women's (and gays) bodies. Think abortion and gay marriage. Let's fix it here first please.
This woman in the video is fighting against Muslim religious oppression, which you suddenly seem to support. Yet there is outrage right here in this country about building a mosque close to the site of the former twin towers. We can't fight religious oppression over there while clinging to it over here.
Is your thinking always this confused, or is it all an act just to get my goat?
"Suddenly" I am against Moslem religious oppression? Who knew? Please remind me when it was that I was for it, because I seem to have lost all memory about that part of my life.
This brave woman in Pakistan faces the real possibility of assassination by Islamic radicals, and yet in the warped Liberal mind, a perfectly understandable debate about the appropriateness of the location of the so called Ground Zero mosque is seen as morally equivalent.
Not even the most vocal opponents of the Ground Zero mosque have ever denied the right and legality of Moslems, or any other religious sect, to build a house of worship anywhere they want (subject to local building codes that apply equally to everyone). There is however, a very passionate debate over the appropriateness of such a placement, and over the true motives of the planners in choosing that site. I am not aware that I have ever staked any definitive position on that issue at this site. I think that there are very compelling arguments being made on both sides of that controversy(and a fair amount of over-heated rhetoric as well) In a free society, such a debate is perfectly appropriate. To refer to such a debate as "oppression" is just plain stupid, and it completely insults and belittles the victims of real religious oppression around the world.
But then again, not having the right to "gay marriage" in the United States is really no different than a gay man being being sentenced under Sharia to death by public stoning, is it?
Andre - calm down. I am in no way equating this women's serious issue with any of ours. I'm simply wondering why your focus is suddenly on this when we have so many issues of our own right here. Seems be be an attempt at distraction to me. We have fought many long hard fights in this country for all types of civil rights - women, race issues, gays - all are no less important. My only point is that we have a lot of work to do still - here. I fully support international efforts with civil rights as well. Just curious about the sudden focus on this one event right now. It's odd.
Calming down.....
Den
I am in no way equating this women's serious issue with any of ours.
Andre
In "no way"?
Reread your last posts and I think you will see that is exactly what you did do.
Whatever the merits of the arguments for and against "Gay Marriage", that issue pales in significance of importance when compared with the rise and spread of radical, jihadist, Islam around the world. Remember, they hate gays even more than they hate Christians!
Den
Just curious about the sudden focus on this one event right now. It's odd.
Andre
I find it odd that you find it odd.
I was just moved by that video so I forwarded it to a few people, because I think it's important that type of thing gets more widely seen (especially by folks who get most of their news from Stewart and Colbert).
It's certainly no odder than continuing an absurd debate about whether or not Dick Cheney is the greatest James Bond-villain, evil mastermind that ever lived!
Post a Comment