ACCBoards

Quote:Now, here’s why this matters to us. Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Qadhafi would commit atrocities against his people. Many thousands could die. A humanitarian crisis would ensue.

The entire region could be destabilized, endangering many of our allies and partners.

The calls of the Libyan people for help would go unanswered. The democratic values that we stand for would be overrun.

Moreover, the words of the international community would be rendered hollow.

Those words sure seem familiar. Something to do with Iraq and Saddam.

Quote:Earlier today, I ordered Americas armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraqs nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

(03-18-2011 09:35 PM)Steve Hood Wrote: [ -> ]Those words sure seem familiar. Something to do with Iraq and Saddam.

Quote:Earlier today, I ordered Americas armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraqs nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

Niall Ferguson rips Obama on Egypt

This "amateurishness" Ferguson outlines has led to Obama's failure in Libya. Afghanistan and Pakistan. What I see is the emergence of foreign policy by polling results. Obama's primary interest is his re-election, which trumps any of his campaign promises or his liberal roots, or even what is correct.

He needs to be shown the gate in 2012.

It wouldn't matter what Obama decided to do; the partisan hacks would be all over him.

(03-19-2011 11:11 PM)fourcorners Wrote: [ -> ]It wouldn't matter what Obama decided to do; the partisan hacks would be all over him.

Those who defend him aren't "partisan"? Even some in the MSM are beginning to question his actions and they WERE his biggest supporters.

GW took it in the shorts on this forum for his vacation time and those WHINING the loudest are silent on the excessive trips and vacations of this man. Double standard? You bet there is. With all the problems this country and the world face, Obama plays golf and leaves the country on a five day junket. You'd have wanted to string GW up if he'd done that. Hypocrisy at it's finest but I expect nothing less from Lefty-Libs.

Most of those people no longer post here. I would have thought you would have figured that out by now.

And does other's hypocrisy excuse your own. When you engage in the 180 degree polar opposite arguments from those you accuse of being hypocrites, then what does that make you?

(03-20-2011 09:16 AM)ChrisL68 Wrote: [ -> ]When you engage in the 180 degree polar opposite arguments from those you accuse of being hypocrites

Wouldn't it be 360 degrees? I enjoy using their same arguments.

Why the rush to war?

Why not give sanctions a chance?

We can not afford another war!

Libya had nothing to do with 9-11!

Why are we taking our focus off of finding Bin Laden!

No War for oil!

No preemptive attacks!

All we are saying...is give peace a chance!
(When can we expect Julian Lennon and MTV to put out the video?)

Forgot one:


Was Libya an "imminent" threat to the US?

This isn't the first time we have bombed Libya. Ronnie did so.

And then, as now, the American public has much more of a stomach for bombing runs that don't cause any loss of US lives than they do once troops hit the ground and US soldiers start dying.

If there is internal momentum for revolt and we can help push the ball over the goal line without getting involved in some extensive nation-building, then that is always ideal.

Press reports say: "United States, France, Britain, Canada and Italy had begun launching strikes on Libya." "At least some Arab nations are expected to join the coalition later"

Not much of a coalition. 4 allies and maybe more later? Bush had over 40 in Iraq.

(Enjoying this immensely btw)

PS. Our war criminal president just killed 38 more civilians in Pakistan last week so wouldn't that make Libya war #4 for the US?

(03-20-2011 09:16 AM)ChrisL68 Wrote: [ -> ]Most of those people no longer post here. I would have thought you would have figured that out by now.

And does other's hypocrisy excuse your own. When you engage in the 180 degree polar opposite arguments from those you accuse of being hypocrites, then what does that make you?

That makes me correct.

I note that you can't bring yourself to address the point that Obama is a miserable President who hasn't the goolies or the intellect to make TOUGH decisions regarding the REAL problems we face. Like most Democrats, his answer is always the same: SPEND MORE MONEY AND IGNORE THE EFFECTIVE BUT POLITICALLY UNPOPULAR REAL ANSWERS!

(03-20-2011 11:24 AM)Stampeding Terp Wrote: [ -> ]That makes me correct.

No, it makes you just as hypocritical when you engage in the same partisan attacks and knee-jerk defenses from the right that you accuse the left of engaging in.

I ignored the rest of your post. Nothing of substance there.

(03-20-2011 11:38 AM)ChrisL68 Wrote: [ -> ]I ignored the rest of your post. Nothing of substance there.

Just the true and you can't handle that.

Tapdancing is incredibly fun to watch!

(03-20-2011 05:24 PM)jws Wrote: [ -> ]Tapdancing is incredibly fun to watch!

I know. It's why I am a big fan of your posts.

(03-20-2011 09:52 AM)ChrisL68 Wrote: [ -> ]This isn't the first time we have bombed Libya. Ronnie did so.

And then, as now, the American public has much more of a stomach for bombing runs that don't cause any loss of US lives than they do once troops hit the ground and US soldiers start dying.

If there is internal momentum for revolt and we can help push the ball over the goal line without getting involved in some extensive nation-building, then that is always ideal.

Ronnie was targeting the Colonel, but missed though we did kill his son and few others, but Qadfi got real quiet. So far we are not looking to cut the head from the snake, but instead are killing more Libyans in a more drawn out, politically safer process.

When it comes to starting another conflict, a majority of Americans are instinctively against it.

(03-20-2011 11:38 AM)ChrisL68 Wrote: [ -> ]No, it makes you just as hypocritical when you engage in the same partisan attacks and knee-jerk defenses from the right that you accuse the left of engaging in.

Actually when your side doesn't engage in the same attacks and knee-jerk reactions as they did when there was a ® next to the presidents name, its pretty obvious who the hypocrites are.

When can we expect a thread on Obama's torture of PFC Manning? The resumption of GITMO trials? The killing of civilians in Pakistan? Where is the anti-war left now?

(03-21-2011 08:46 AM)Steve Hood Wrote: [ -> ]Actually when your side doesn't engage in the same attacks and knee-jerk reactions as they did when there was a ® next to the presidents name, its pretty obvious who the hypocrites are.

When can we expect a thread on Obama's torture of PFC Manning? The resumption of GITMO trials? The killing of civilians in Pakistan? Where is the anti-war left now?

the anti-war left is still here. Some of us put the defense of innocent civilians and rule of law above am radio idiocy.

Rule of law? Are you talking about the UN resolutions? Hmmmm, so violating UN resolutions is NOW a legitimate reason to launch an "illegal" and "unilateral" attack for "Oil". Good to know after all these years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A. "illegal" (Even Kucinich is talking impeachment. A+ for consistency on one libs part)

B. If 40 nations against Iraq was "unilateral", than so is 4 nations against Libya

C. When can we expect an attack to protect civilians in a non-oil producing African nation?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
As for am radio idiocy, I agree. NPR is a joke that thinks JOOOOS control all the papers. They should be defunded.

Just to be clear, I support the attack on Kaddafi. I'm just enjoying throwing the hypocrisy back in the faces of the usual suspects.

You paint the 'left' with a broad brush.

If we are to have this giganormous military and impose power throughout the world I am for using it to try to save lives where we can.

Invading and Occupying whole countries for decade(s) is a whole different thing.

So then you would be a supporter of Bush and Rumsfeld's plan to use minimal troops in Afghanistan and leave the fighting to the warlords supported by US airstrikes?

You would also be against Obama's surge in Afghanistan that has resulted in the # of US military deaths there to go from 155 (Bush 2008) to 499 (Obama 2010)?

http://icasualties.org/oef/

Afghanistan is the epitome of a quagmire. Not sure I have any real understanding of the situation and I sure don't know what military tactics should be used from this point forward.

we need to get out as fast as possible, though.

Even if the Taliban controls lots of territory (which they do) I don't see the existential threat that requires occupying forces in addition to all the homeland security measures in place.

-----

but this is different from what the US is now helping with in Lybia

- by the way I just tried to look it up - wondering how many foreign military bases the US has

China - ZERO

US - around 800? can't get a reliable number.

(03-19-2011 11:11 PM)fourcorners Wrote: [ -> ]It wouldn't matter what Obama decided to do; the partisan hacks would be all over him.

takes one to know one....

(03-20-2011 09:20 PM)ChrisL68 Wrote: [ -> ]I know. It's why I am a big fan of your posts.

Understandable. I do indeed point out tapdancing regularly, and you being tapdancer-in-chief, I can see why you'd be a fan!

(03-21-2011 09:50 AM)wrongtimezone Wrote: [ -> ]Afghanistan is the epitome of a quagmire.

But wait...I recall when Iraq was the epitome of quagmire!

What happened to that?