Alright Democrats, explain to me how in principle this is different than Iraq

[Mr. Shaman]

UN support of the action?

We had 12 years of sanctions imposed against Iraq that they ignored.
We had a no fly zone imposed against Iraq and they dicked around with that.
Congress with Hillary and Senator "I served in Viet Nam"Kerry voting to give Bush authorization to use force against Iraq.

Saddam was a brutal thug,no one's crying he's gone.

.....Especially the folks who'd have been expo$ed, if Hussein's trial had gotten World-wide exposure.​

August 28, 2002​

"Only on August 2, 1990, did the agriculture department officially suspend the [CCC loan] guarantees to Iraq — the same day that Hussein's tanks and troops swept into Kuwait", noted Frantz and Waas."

Saddam Hussein/Chemical Weapons​

 

[Dr.Drock]

What was the invasion of Grenada called? Reagan sent 5,000 ground troops and they were in and out in about six weeks. What was the invasion of Panama called? We removed the depot Noriega and ended that adventure in less than three weeks. Such brief incursions are not major "acts of war" where the intent is to destroy the entire country because of the acts of their leaders, but to make sure those leaders are no longer around to expand upon their agendas. I don't think either of those mini-wars(?) had full congressional approval either.

So.......100? 1000? No limit?

What? That determination is obviously made by the military strategists. Make sense. I'm talking principle, and I guess I incorrectly thought you were too.

Well you gave other examples, which is ok, I would find those as acts of war.

What I always try to do is picture what we do in reverse. Imagine if someone did any of those things you listed or what we're doing in Libya to us. Would we view those as acts of war? No doubt about it.

The principle I'm asking is if we rained cruise missiles all over Libya would it be an act of war? Or are we free of such terminology because it wouldn't take us very long to do time-wise?

 

[sinister59]

Republicans excuse the military action in Iraq because they had a brutal dictator who killed his own people and the war gave Iraqi's more "freedom."

Now I'm hearing Democrats excuse the military action in Libya because they have a brutal dictator who kills his own people and you want to Libyans more "freedom."




Now I want to be up front and honest, I don't believe any of that b-s from either side. So this is your opportunity to convince me that it isn't solely republican voters supporting a repbulican and democratic voters supporting a democrat.

Of course the scale is different, but in principle, what's the difference?

you don't believe ? then how would anyone explain anything to a closed mine ?
how many ground troops are in Libya ?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Republicans excuse the military action in Iraq because they had a brutal dictator who killed his own people and the war gave Iraqi's more "freedom."

Now I'm hearing Democrats excuse the military action in Libya because they have a brutal dictator who kills his own people and you want to Libyans more "freedom."




Now I want to be up front and honest, I don't believe any of that b-s from either side. So this is your opportunity to convince me that it isn't solely republican voters supporting a repbulican and democratic voters supporting a democrat.

Of course the scale is different, but in principle, what's the difference?

you don't believe ? then how would anyone explain anything to a closed mine ?
how many ground troops are in Libya ?

Not believing isn't permanent, make me believe.

The style of fighting wars changes and different strategies take place.

Raining cruise missiles on the heads of Libyans isn't much different to me than bringing bullets from a parallel vantage point.

 

[rhodescholar]

Sure:
-No ground troops going in to knock over the government.
-Active rebellion taking place where civilians are getting slaughtered.
-Qaddafi really did have a hand in killing Americans at Lockerbie.
-Unlike Saddam, Qaddafi has no interest in giving up power.
-There is a real coalition and UN buy in.
-This is not being led by the US.

1) There are advisors in Libya on the ground, along with special forces.
2) kurd and shia rebellions, 1991.
3) Saddam tried to murder president Bush in 1998.
4) Saddam was going to give up power?
5) There were dozens of nation's troops in iraq since 2003.
6) Why is US leadership "bad"?

 

[rhodescholar]

The main difference is that the Libyan people are actually doing something, which wasn't the case with the Iraqis. Getting rid of a dictator is the job of the citizens of the country, see Germany, Poland, Tunisia, Egypt, etc. We can help, but we shouldn't initiate. Are we sending in troops? If not, there isn't much of a comparison to Iraq.

You're right, the kurds and shia stopped rebelling after Saddam nerve-gassed them - AFTER Bush Sr. told them to rebel and the US would defend them.

 

[MaggieMae]

Republicans excuse the military action in Iraq because they had a brutal dictator who killed his own people and the war gave Iraqi's more "freedom."

Now I'm hearing Democrats excuse the military action in Libya because they have a brutal dictator who kills his own people and you want to Libyans more "freedom."




Now I want to be up front and honest, I don't believe any of that b-s from either side. So this is your opportunity to convince me that it isn't solely republican voters supporting a repbulican and democratic voters supporting a democrat.

Of course the scale is different, but in principle, what's the difference?

you don't believe ? then how would anyone explain anything to a closed mine ?
how many ground troops are in Libya ?

Not believing isn't permanent, make me believe.

The style of fighting wars changes and different strategies take place.

Raining cruise missiles on the heads of Libyans isn't much different to me than bringing bullets from a parallel vantage point.

Seems like there would be a serious casulties count if those cruise missiles had been targeting willy-nilly and hitting regular civilian Libyans.

 

[NoNukes]

Republicans excuse the military action in Iraq because they had a brutal dictator who killed his own people and the war gave Iraqi's more "freedom."



Getting rid of a brutal dictator in Iraq was the third reason given to the American people for the invasion. It was Obama's first reason.

 

[Dr.Drock]

you don't believe ? then how would anyone explain anything to a closed mine ?
how many ground troops are in Libya ?

Not believing isn't permanent, make me believe.

The style of fighting wars changes and different strategies take place.

Raining cruise missiles on the heads of Libyans isn't much different to me than bringing bullets from a parallel vantage point.

Seems like there would be a serious casulties count if those cruise missiles had been targeting willy-nilly and hitting regular civilian Libyans.

Where did I say "targeting willy-nilly and hitting regular civilian Libyans"?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Republicans excuse the military action in Iraq because they had a brutal dictator who killed his own people and the war gave Iraqi's more "freedom."



Getting rid of a brutal dictator in Iraq was the third reason given to the American people for the invasion. It was Obama's first reason.

And?

 

[MaggieMae]

Not believing isn't permanent, make me believe.

The style of fighting wars changes and different strategies take place.

Raining cruise missiles on the heads of Libyans isn't much different to me than bringing bullets from a parallel vantage point.

Seems like there would be a serious casulties count if those cruise missiles had been targeting willy-nilly and hitting regular civilian Libyans.

Where did I say "targeting willy-nilly and hitting regular civilian Libyans"?

How else to interpret "raining" cruise missiles "on the heads of Libyans"... ???

 

[sinister59]

Republicans excuse the military action in Iraq because they had a brutal dictator who killed his own people and the war gave Iraqi's more "freedom."

Now I'm hearing Democrats excuse the military action in Libya because they have a brutal dictator who kills his own people and you want to Libyans more "freedom."




Now I want to be up front and honest, I don't believe any of that b-s from either side. So this is your opportunity to convince me that it isn't solely republican voters supporting a repbulican and democratic voters supporting a democrat.

Of course the scale is different, but in principle, what's the difference?

you don't believe ? then how would anyone explain anything to a closed mine ?
how many ground troops are in Libya ?

Not believing isn't permanent, make me believe.

The style of fighting wars changes and different strategies take place.

Raining cruise missiles on the heads of Libyans isn't much different to me than bringing bullets from a parallel vantage point.

so you think war is a sport ?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Seems like there would be a serious casulties count if those cruise missiles had been targeting willy-nilly and hitting regular civilian Libyans.

Where did I say "targeting willy-nilly and hitting regular civilian Libyans"?

How else to interpret "raining" cruise missiles "on the heads of Libyans"... ???

No interpretation is necessary, just use my own words rather than changing them to better fit your agenda.

 

[Dr.Drock]

you don't believe ? then how would anyone explain anything to a closed mine ?
how many ground troops are in Libya ?

Not believing isn't permanent, make me believe.

The style of fighting wars changes and different strategies take place.

Raining cruise missiles on the heads of Libyans isn't much different to me than bringing bullets from a parallel vantage point.

so you think war is a sport ?

Where do people come up with this stuff?

Did you ask that because you actually think I might think that or just solely to get a particular reaction?

 

[Cal]

It's not different. Period.

 

[MaggieMae]

Where did I say "targeting willy-nilly and hitting regular civilian Libyans"?

How else to interpret "raining" cruise missiles "on the heads of Libyans"... ???

No interpretation is necessary, just use my own words rather than changing them to better fit your agenda.

What a boring conversation any of the topics would be if everyone stuck to the verbatim statements of other posters. Whenever anyone (me included) makes a statement with a direct IMPLICATION in it, the game is on. This is a discussion forum, not a teacher-student textbook lecture where there's only one correct answer to each statement.

 

[Dr.Drock]

How else to interpret "raining" cruise missiles "on the heads of Libyans"... ???

No interpretation is necessary, just use my own words rather than changing them to better fit your agenda.

What a boring conversation any of the topics would be if everyone stuck to the verbatim statements of other posters. Whenever anyone (me included) makes a statement with a direct IMPLICATION in it, the game is on. This is a discussion forum, not a teacher-student textbook lecture where there's only one correct answer to each statement.

Raining cruise missiles on Libyan's heads can be accurately, measured and on purpose. Nothing willy-nilly about it.

Simply an incorrect interpretation, my apologies if I was being harsh or rude.

 

[mudwhistle]

LIBYA IS NOT OBAMA'S ILLEGAL WAR.

This is not Obama's war, He did not declare war on Libya therefore did not need approval of Congress.
The actions against Libya is backed by 128 nations. Who backed Bush's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan? Cheney and Rumsfeld. And they gave false infomation to Congress to get their approval. And used Colin Powell and later quit.
This is not Obama's war, not illegal and not unilaterally. Like Wyatt Earp's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.
There will be absolutely no US involvement beyond air strikes. Others will take it from there.

A pack of lies.We haven't declared war since WWII. Also Bush got the approval of Congress and the UN. Nobody on our side knew if the WMDs were there. However Russia, the UN, and Saddam did. The 101st Airborne Division shot up a huge convoy leaving Iraq for Syria and it was led by Russian Spiznats soldiers posing as journalists. The balance of their chemical warfare program was on those trucks.

The problem with both is once you commit, and real shit starts happening, both bodies get all weak in the knees and start crying about how they got snookered, primarily because they want to say high-minded things, but they don't want to put it into action.

As it was with Bush, Obama is catching hell because he carried out what everyone was crying about and now the naysayers are coming after him. The New Blackpanther Party, Louis Farikkan, the looney-left, all are complaining about Obama being no different then Bush. The very thing they accused Bush of Obama is now doing. Taking us to war for oil. Only this time it's not even our's, it's Europe's.

 

[rightwinger]

A pack of lies.We haven't declared war since WWII. Also Bush got the approval of Congress and the UN. Nobody on our side knew if the WMDs were there. However Russia, the UN, and Saddam did. The 101st Airborne Division shot up a huge convoy leaving Iraq for Syria and it was led by Russian Spiznats soldiers posing as journalists. The balance of their chemical warfare program was on those trucks.

.....

So Bush DIDN"T want WMDs to be found and prefered to look like an idiot to the whole world

 

[mudwhistle]

A pack of lies.We haven't declared war since WWII. Also Bush got the approval of Congress and the UN. Nobody on our side knew if the WMDs were there. However Russia, the UN, and Saddam did. The 101st Airborne Division shot up a huge convoy leaving Iraq for Syria and it was led by Russian Spiznats soldiers posing as journalists. The balance of their chemical warfare program was on those trucks.

.....

So Bush DIDN"T want WMDs to be found and prefered to look like an idiot to the whole world

Nope. Pretty dumb of you to say that btw.

If you remember 4th Armored was refused passage through Turkey at the last min. This ended our chances of catching them in the act.