Obama declares war on Lybia

Oh, I'm sorry, "A No-Fly Zone." That's not war, right? No. Just imprisonment of a sovereign nation under the guise of humanitarianism and claims that Gaddhafi, like they said about Sadaam, is really interested in eradicating his own people. When they fight back we'll call THAT an act of war and then we'll send in ground troops and occupy their country for ten years until it's "stabilized." Having countries "stabilized" (more like lobotomized) seems to be very important to our Federal Government.



How many of you support this decision? And with your answer, would you mind adding whether you supported going to Iraq when Bush was in office and if you could do it all over, if you'd support it again?

I don't support the Libya operation. Didn't support Bush going to Iraq. And I'm in the Army and went to Iraq.

I don't support this at all. I supported both invasions of Iraq (borderline on the most recent) as well as the invasion into Afghanistan, but this one is nothing at all similar. This is the US/UN picking sides in a civil war that poses no threat to the United States and the world at large (other than the price of oil). If we are going into Libya, why not Darfur? Yemen? Pakistan? or back to Somalia?

snoscythe wrote:
I don't support this at all. I supported both invasions of Iraq (borderline on the most recent) as well as the invasion into Afghanistan, but this one is nothing at all similar. This is the US/UN picking sides in a civil war that poses no threat to the United States and the world at large (other than the price of oil). If we are going into Libya, why not Darfur? Yemen? Pakistan? or back to Somalia?

I agree with Sno.

I supported going to Iraq the first time, as well as the surge. I have since changed my position and would go against it had I another chance. President Bush stands for everything I claim to hate about government, Obama too for that matter, and I just don't know why it took me six years to finally start seeing that. The only real difference I see between Bush and Obama is the attention they pay to college basketball.

Perhaps he can just vote " present " on this war like he did with all of his other war votes.



Obama was pretty vociferous about opposing bushes regime change in Iraq but how quickly do we jump back into the same pattern. When will we learn? We supported Qaddafi just 2 months ago as allies and now he's a bad guy again. We gave money an weapons to Osama bin laden long before 9/11. We put saddam into power in iraq just like we sid with the Shahs in Iran. we ousted Noriega in Panama a few years after he had pictures taken with George h bush when they were best buds. The list goes on. Regime changes do not work well for us.



as for obamas Change? Obamas Hope? How about obamas 'one term' instead?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I was for capturing and trying the people who blew up the planes. (That does not mean I was for invading Afghanistan). I was against Iraq (both times). Obama is a terrible president, McCain would have been worse (does anyone dispute this?), more Bush would have been worse, Romney likely would have been worse.



Anyone seen footage of the tomahawks yet? There can be no question that was an act of war.



I know some here have called me out for bashing the military, but if you consider the constitution and the men who wrote it inspired you should read what they had to say about a standing military, which is the problem in Lybia and the USA.

I respect your opinions. I do not have great expertise, but here is where I am:



I supported our involvement in Afghanistan. Iraq caused us to ignore it for too many years and to our detriment. I support the troop drawdown. I support the predator attacks on Taliban and Al Qaeda personnel in the Afghan and Pakistan wilds.



I supported our first Iraq war. Bottom line for me is that, depending upon the specifics, stopping one country's attempt to take over another country, when it affects our national security, is justifiable, at least in my books. A bollthirsty dictator on the Saudi border is a matter of national security. Don't like that fact, but it is what it is



I opposed our entry into Iraq in 2003. We did not need to go in when we did and we did not have a clue how to handle the post war to our detriment. So much blood and treasure wasted.



I support participating in a UN no flyover resolutioin with respect to Libya. We are schizophrenic in when we get involved in these sorts of actions--we ignored Darfur and Rwanda and Cambodia. So why in Libya? I cannot explain it, but the fact that we have ignored in some places does not mean we cannot be part of an international coalition that tells a bloodthirsty dictator that we will not stand by while you slaughter your own citizens

I do not support sending troops into Libya.

[

BoiseBYU wrote:
Bottom line for me is that, depending upon the specifics, stopping one country's attempt to take over another country, when it affects our national security, is justifiable, at least in my books.

"When it affects our national security." Sounds like Fox News empty rhetoric to me. I think you could ALWAYS make the argument that anything going on in any part of the world "affects our national security" but where do we draw the line? It seems to me that to convince Americans today that we should do something we just need to yap about "national security" "Al Qaeda" and "9/11" for fifteen seconds and we're all go for launch. When will we live by principle rather than circumstance? Until we do we will continue to fight WWIII one country at a time.

Lately, siding with the UN = bad idea.



Another boo from me.

taekwondave wrote:
[

Bottom line for me is that, depending upon the specifics, stopping one country's attempt to take over another country, when it affects our national security, is justifiable, at least in my books.

"When it affects our national security." Sounds like Fox News empty rhetoric to me. I think you could ALWAYS make the argument that anything going on in any part of the world "affects our national security" but where do we draw the line? It seems to me that to convince Americans today that we should do something we just need to yap about "national security" "Al Qaeda" and "9/11" for fifteen seconds and we're all go for launch. When will we live by principle rather than circumstance? Until we do we will continue to fight WWIII one country at a time.

A fair concern. Here's what I meant at least: If Namibia invades Botswana, that would probably not be enough for me to say we should send in troops to stop it. I cannot discern a national security interest justifying such action But Iraq ivnading Kuwait was different. The uncomfortable truth is that with Saddam next door to the Saudis, and at the time capable of taking them over, it would have jeopardized not only our economy, but most of the Western world too. We would have been hostage to a tyrant. So to me that is enough to justify President Bush Senior's decision to amass a coalition and act as we did.

btw, here's some photos from our "justified" war in Afghanistan.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368314/German-newspaper-publishes-suppressed-photos-U-S-soldiers-posing-partially-naked-Afghan-corpse.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

taekwondave wrote:
btw, here's some photos from our "justified" war in Afghanistan.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368314/German-newspaper-publishes-suppressed-photos-U-S-soldiers-posing-partially-naked-Afghan-corpse.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wow. You really take the cake for sensationalism before reason. That's totally worse than this:



http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/images/ACF1572.jpg" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">



See! I can be sensational too!

http://thehelplessdancer.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/the-sensational-alex-harvey-band.jpg" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

BoiseBYU wrote:

[

BoiseBYU wrote:
Bottom line for me is that, depending upon the specifics, stopping one country's attempt to take over another country, when it affects our national security, is justifiable, at least in my books.

"When it affects our national security." Sounds like Fox News empty rhetoric to me. I think you could ALWAYS make the argument that anything going on in any part of the world "affects our national security" but where do we draw the line? It seems to me that to convince Americans today that we should do something we just need to yap about "national security" "Al Qaeda" and "9/11" for fifteen seconds and we're all go for launch. When will we live by principle rather than circumstance? Until we do we will continue to fight WWIII one country at a time.

A fair concern. Here's what I meant at least: If Namibia invades Botswana, that would probably not be enough for me to say we should send in troops to stop it. I cannot discern a national security interest justifying such action But Iraq ivnading Kuwait was different. The uncomfortable truth is that with Saddam next door to the Saudis, and at the time capable of taking them over, it would have jeopardized not only our economy, but most of the Western world too. We would have been hostage to a tyrant. So to me that is enough to justify President Bush Senior's decision to amass a coalition and act as we did.

If Saddam had stolen from Americans on US soil we would have been justified in attacking collectively. They didn't so an attack by the US was not justified. (Not selling oil at the price you want doesn't qualify). I find what Saddam did to the Kurds and Kuwatis morally reprehensible so if you had wished to volunteer for the Kuwaiti or Kurdish armed forces I would not argue with the morality of that action. But neither group is involved in a contract with any Americans compelling all Americans to pay for providing their defense.

snoscythe wrote:

btw, here's some photos from our "justified" war in Afghanistan.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368314/German-newspaper-publishes-suppressed-photos-U-S-soldiers-posing-partially-naked-Afghan-corpse.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wow. You really take the cake for sensationalism before reason. That's totally worse than this:



http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/images/ACF1572.jpg" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">



See! I can be sensational too!

So, ten years after 9/11, some U.S. soldiers hunting the C.I.A.-funded Al Qaeda in Afghanistan brutally murder innocent civilians that had zero to do with the twin towers, take pictures smiling over their mangled, bloody bodies and... your picture is relevant how?

taekwondave wrote:
So, ten years after 9/11, some U.S. soldiers hunting the C.I.A.-funded Al Qaeda in Afghanistan brutally murder innocent civilians that had zero to do with the twin towers, take pictures smiling over their mangled, bloody bodies and... your picture is relevant how?

Hmmmmm.....you are sounding a bit like MSNBC right about now. "What do your pictures of Al Qaeda-funded terrorists killing thousands of civilians have to do with my pictures of US soldiers killing ten citizens?"



Your pictures are equally (if not less so) relevant to whether or not the war in Afghanistan is "justified" given the fact that your pictures are of reprehensible acts 9 years after the invasion, while mine shows the reprehensible acts that were the catalyst to the invasion. Either way, using either set of pictures here is nothing short of sensationalist drivel.

So nobody approves of the use of a no-fly zone to prevent Qaddafi from bombing his own civilian population? Or do you all just believe that someone else should do it?



I supported both efforts in OIF and OEF in their beginnings. I support current "withdrawal" plans now. I'm just tired of both. I've spent countless hours droning over both AORs.



I think NATO should worry about Libya. Oh wait, we are a member of NATO.

CAFB_04-12 wrote:
So nobody approves of the use of a no-fly zone to prevent Qaddafi from bombing his own civilian population? Or do you all just believe that someone else should do it?



I supported both efforts in OIF and OEF in their beginnings. I support current "withdrawal" plans now. I'm just tired of both. I've spent countless hours droning over both AORs.



I think NATO should worry about Libya. Oh wait, we are a member of NATO.

Libya is not a threat to the United States. We have no idea who the good guys and bad guys are over there (or I should say the bad guys and the worse guys), for all you know you are helping a bunch of communists (in fact there is a very good chance of that). But if you are so sure, I bet the rebels would accept you as a volunteer. Just don't ask the rest of us to fund another unjust, undeclared war.



BTW it appears the only reason you think the other undeclared wars should be stopped (slowed?) is your fatigue. And I think most of us recognize NATO has become no less an entangling alliance than any other. There is no reason we should subsidize the Europeans (who are no more at risk from Libya than we are) when they are plenty able to care for themselves in this case and every other.

[quote="snoscytheYour pictures are equally (if not less so) relevant to whether or not the war in Afghanistan is "justified" given the fact that your pictures are of reprehensible acts 9 years after the invasion, while mine shows the reprehensible acts that were the catalyst to the invasion. Either way, using either set of pictures here is nothing short of sensationalist drivel.[/quote]



Right, since the country of Afghanistan knocked down the towers rather than a controlled demolition.



FYI, I only peak now and then at MSNBC, CNN, or Fox these days just to get a good laugh at their drivel. All three of those stations, from what I've seen in the past, take turns agreeing with me and disagreeing with me on the surface, but their whole purpose is to spin each and every issue into the mould of this left-right paradigm that I no longer buy into. I used to be a Fox News junkie like yourself. I used to lambast those that questioned the official story of how the three towers (there WERE three, you know) fell on 9/11 as anti-Bush liberal commies who were "just using 9/11 as a platform to gain public favor in the next election." I said that right down to the very last firefighter who said he saw and heard a huge series of explosions, reminiscent of a normal demolition, right before the towers fell. I figured the democrats had just gotten to him and were using him to smear Bush and the Republican Party so they could gain votes in the next election. That's what corporate media does to us. It gives us this odd perception of reality and keeps us fighting amongst ourselves rather than fighting the king-men who actually run this country and own the news. It forces us into a "team" mentality. You know, that irrational hatred we feel for Ute fans and Rebels fans which we seem to rationally justify every chance we get despite knowing that we're really just getting caught up in the drama? Welcome to the Fox/MSNBC/CNN dog and pony show, my friend.