It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Liberal America is now put to the test

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+9 more 
posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Today begins a test of for all liberal Americans. When George Bush authorized military actions to take out Saddam, the left began their anti-war cry. It was the central tenet of Bush hate speech for the remainder of his time in office. Then Senator Obama was as vocal against Bush and his 'illegal' war.

When Obama came into office, he ultimately did get a reduction in forces in Iraq, with only slight grumblings from the left.

Today, President Obama launches his own illegal war. At this point, the media, under its usual influence, is careful to call the whole ordeal a European led attack, and that coupled with the Presidents claim to not send in ground forces, is the way he will try to both involve and distance himself at the same time.

If the liberals in the US don't stand up and raise just as much hell about this if not more than they did with Bush, then we will all see square in the eyes, the hypocrisy that much of the world accuses America of.


MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'


Coincidentally, the dates are the same, much like the words...


MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'


and the beat goes on.




posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Speaking as a liberal American...

I was for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan when they occurred. I was caught up, like most of us, in 9/11 fever and was drinking the Kool Aid. I later learned that I'd been misled and felt very betrayed. In fact... This is the reason why I know identify as "liberal" and not "Republican", my previous self imposed label.

If Ghaddafi is killing his own people, as the news suggests he is, then I support this action. But I am reticent to accept anything the media tells me at face value. So I am on the fence right now. If Obama is doing this for the right reasons, then good. If not, well then I'll call him a war criminal just as eagerly as I call George W. Bush one.

~Heff



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:26 AM
link   
I can already hear the
*cricket*
*cricket*
*cricket*
on the left. This is Obamas' War.

Also a brilliant thread! S+F for illustating the blatent hypocracy that lives in the left.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 


Big difference though...this time the whole U.N. agrees on it....Bush ignored the U.N. and went ahead....Even the French led this attack...if he was left alone he would just destroy all of his people. Where Iraq did not ask for our help, was not trying to make their own revolution, this is a bit different. The people of Libya stood up and said "enough of this...we want a democracy." They protested peacefully, no weapons, just protesting...and he open fired on them! Although part of his military crossed over to join with the people, that was the only firepower that they had. He has been beating them down as they pleaded with other countries to help them.

You do know the French helped us obtain our country right? It was just the right thing to do. And again, it is the right thing to do. It sucks, but the rest of the world is backing us this time.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


I consider myself a conservative, although I am not a Republican. What gets me about this situation, is how the reason is to stop a dictator from oppressing a grassroots democracy rising and killing his people. Like this is a new thing. Many dictators have and continue to oppress democracy and opposition. It just so happens, such is occurring in Bahrain and Yemen to include killings, yet there is no coalition to stop those. Perhaps its because we have the 5th fleet in Bahrain?

Likewise, America hasn't stood up to stop genocide since WWII, and then only after being attacked. Dharfur had hundreds of thousands killed, yet America barely even commented, let alone acted.

Many liberals loudly oppose interfering in another nations internal political strife's. If we are going to make exception on behalf of the moral right, then their can be no exemptions and we need to send troops or missiles in on ever case of political murders and genocide in any nation.

I hate to think that Gaddafi is killing his people as they rise up in opposition, but this is their business. Trying to be morally right has only brought hate and terrorism on and to the USA. Let the people and nations of the world come begging long before we take our forces to bare on foreign soil in the name of morality any longer. Our banks and our bodies cannot spare such hospitality anymore.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by restlessbrainsyndrome
Where Iraq did not ask for our help, was not trying to make their own revolution, this is a bit different. The people of Libya stood up and said "enough of this...we want a democracy." They protested peacefully, no weapons, just protesting...and he open fired on them!


Actually, after the gulf war, the people of Iraq did beg for our help, and all we did was tell them to rise up, and without our help, they were slaughtered by Saddam. So while the WMD accusation was ultimately in error, the moral justification was as strong as ever.

Not to mention the other arab nations trying to rise up for democracy that we aren't attacking.

edit on 20-3-2011 by Wolf321 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:43 AM
link   
This thread has already shown the "rationalization" that will flood the web and airways.

Butbutbut it's DIFFERENT this time.
The french are in charge.
The U.N. said it was okay.
Gaddhafi is a bad guy.
We had a megamoon.
It's Bush's fault.
. . . . . . .

I'm just waiting for someone to play the race card next.


+4 more 
posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

I'm just waiting for someone to play the race card next.


Check that off, because you just did.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


As far as your 9/11 bandwagon...Iraq and Afghanistan did not do that...a group did. Not a country...why not just attack Canada for it...that's where some of the members came from as well? No...the U.N. did not back us on that one. Yes Saddam was a tyrant, good to get him out of power, but it was not worth over 3000 American troops to do so. We were told it was over WMD's, then it was harboring terrorists, then it was the liberation of Iraqi people, when no one will say it was over oil. This is not for the financial gain of the oil companies. This has the backing of U.N. The people of Libya started this on their own, but are being punished for it. Punishment when they have no weapons to fight back. His jets flew over them and dropped napalm for crying out loud!



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

Originally posted by beezzer

I'm just waiting for someone to play the race card next.


Check that off, because you just did.


High-lighting hypocracy does not make one a hypocrite. It just makes me proactive.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:49 AM
link   
Here. Let me fix your headline for you.

Liberal America is now put to the test




posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:51 AM
link   
This seems like being in a rigged carnival game.

I already got two dictators, so it can't be hard to get just one more.


edit on 20-3-2011 by binomialtheorem because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by restlessbrainsyndrome
This is not for the financial gain of the oil companies. This has the backing of U.N.



While Libya sells most of its crude and fuel across the Mediterranean to Europe, exports have fallen to a trickle and may be halted for “many months,” because of damage to oil facilities and international sanctions on Libya prompted by Qaddafi’s military assault on opponents, the International Energy Agency said March 15.
...
Qaddafi declared on state-run television March 15 he had “lost trust” in Western nations and companies and would grant future oil contracts only to China, India and Russia. Germany, whose leaders have publicly opposed a military intervention in Libya, has acted differently from other western states, Qaddafi said, and German companies might still be allowed to invest or get contracts.


Source


Yeah. No financial gain for the oil companies here. Move along folks.

And Saddam violated the UN terms that ended the gulf war so we had every right to go in any time we wanted.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Here is a link to "The Nation" and a article on Dennis Kucinich's response to Obama's moves.

The Nation

You are probably correct about Obama liberals. Simply because Obama is no liberal and they can't admit to themselves he has led them down a path and they will follow because he is a "democrat" president just as their blind counterparts did with Bush because he was Republican.

Kucinich though is a real liberal. He opposed the Iraq invasion and is doing so with Libya. Bravo.

Likewise Ron Paul spoke out against Bushes plans in Iraq from the beginning. Bravo

Ron Paul

Two good Americans from opposite ends of the spectrum.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by restlessbrainsyndrome
reply to post by Wolf321
 


Big difference though...this time the whole U.N. agrees on it....Bush ignored the U.N. and went ahead....Even the French led this attack...if he was left alone he would just destroy all of his people. Where Iraq did not ask for our help, was not trying to make their own revolution, this is a bit different. The people of Libya stood up and said "enough of this...we want a democracy." They protested peacefully, no weapons, just protesting...and he open fired on them! Although part of his military crossed over to join with the people, that was the only firepower that they had. He has been beating them down as they pleaded with other countries to help them.

You do know the French helped us obtain our country right? It was just the right thing to do. And again, it is the right thing to do. It sucks, but the rest of the world is backing us this time.



you seem to be misinformed.



Brazil, China, Germany, India and Russia abstained from voting. Germany is ''very sceptical'' about the option of military intervention, Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said in a statement. ''We see significant dangers and risks.'' Russian ambassador Vitaly Churkin said his country abstained because the vote might lead to ''large-scale military intervention''. China, too, said it had serious concerns, despite choosing not to use its veto.


UN Vote

Russia, China, India, Germany, and Brazil do not support this.


edit on 20-3-2011 by Vizzle because: switched articles



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:32 AM
link   
This isn't a war though.

I see no soldiers landing on the beaches of Libya.
I see no American tanks rolling towards Tripoli.
I see no American Air Force jets or bombers flying over the country.
The first nation to officially fire into Libya was France.
The Arab League were the ones to ask for intervention.
The Organization of Islamic Conferences is supporting the move and asking is looking to help.

There are a LOT of things that seperate what happened in Libya yesterday with what happened in Iraq 8 years ago; primarily the overwhelming support of the international community.


Originally posted by Vizzle
Russia, China, India, Germany, and Brazil do not support this.


According to this article:


Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel said she backed the operation but added, “We will not participate with our own soldiers.”

edit on 20-3-2011 by links234 because: Quick replies!



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by links234
This isn't a war though.

I see no soldiers landing on the beaches of Libya.
I see no American tanks rolling towards Tripoli.
I see no American Air Force jets or bombers flying over the country.
The first nation to officially fire into Libya was France.
The Arab League were the ones to ask for intervention.
The Organization of Islamic Conferences is supporting the move and asking is looking to help.

There are a LOT of things that seperate what happened in Libya yesterday with what happened in Iraq 8 years ago; primarily the overwhelming support of the international community.


lol oh really?



More than 110 Tomahawk missiles fired from American and British ships and submarines hit about 20 Libyan air and missile defense targets in western portions of the country, U.S. Vice Adm. William Gortney said at a Pentagon briefing.


skitamarinky linky link

Guess who fired a whole crapload of Tomahawk missiles before those french planes went in? Feel free to retract that previous statement of the USA's non involvement.




edit on 20-3-2011 by Vizzle because: more pwnage, half the calories



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wolf321

Today, President Obama launches his own illegal war.


No war has been launched by Obama.... If you are talking about the missiles that were launched by the US, into Libya... That is not a war... The US has offered there support to France and Britain who are leading this coalition whose purpose is to go in and remove a countries leader from power and replace him with some one else..... Wait a minute....

Well... At least the US is not the leader of the group this time around... *sigh*

I was actually thinking this morning how I was glad the US was not getting all that involved... But here we are launching missiles now... blah...

Speaking as a "dirty Liberal" I was for the invasion of Iraq right after 9/11... It was only after there were discrepancies in the story as to why we were there... After we never really went after those responsible.... that I started having a problem with the way things were being done under the power of Bush.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

No war has been launched by Obama.... If you are talking about the missiles that were launched by the US, into Libya... That is not a war... The US has offered there support to France and Britain who are leading this coalition whose purpose is to go in and remove a countries leader from power and replace him with some one else..... Wait a minute....

Well... At least the US is not the leader of the group this time around... *sigh*

I was actually thinking this morning how I was glad the US was not getting all that involved... But here we are launching missiles now... blah...

Speaking as a "dirty Liberal" I was for the invasion of Iraq right after 9/11... It was only after there were discrepancies in the story as to why we were there... After we never really went after those responsible.... that I started having a problem with the way things were being done under the power of Bush.


So you consider firing missiles in to a foreign country peaceful, and not warlike? Even if they are fired at military targets?



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Vizzle
 


I am deceptive in my tactics...you'll note I never said we weren't involved, but those tomahawks went in after a French warplane blew up a Libyan military vehicle.

From your own article a few paragraphs down:


Earlier, French fighter jets deployed over Libya fired at a military vehicle Saturday, the first strike against Gadhafi's military forces, which earlier attacked the rebel stronghold of Benghazi.


The French fired first.
edit on 20-3-2011 by links234 because: Extra info.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join