Liberal America is now put to the test

Originally posted by whatukno
What I wonder is, why does the OP want to cow car liberals into one specific anti-war mindset?

But, the fact remains that conservatives wanted this until Obama went along with them.

Just as your first quote suggests, those to whom your refer in the second are not the mouthpieces of all conservatives.

Liberal America has always been tested what is so different now? The man is ok in my book, has my vote all day and twice on Sunday. Mr. President is just doing what he has to do. The right are the war experts, but when you put the chips down, watch out now the eagle will be triumphant in blue too!

Even Biden knew what the deal was going to be in regards to testing Obama's stamina, he stated on national TV during their campaign that, "They(TPTB) are going to test this man like none other!" and he said it with conviction! I see the man as a solid, good character man who is trying to do the world some good, and taking a beating while doing it because he was handed a dry till and a BAD DEAL, hey but heavy is the head right?

Obama do your thing!

reply to post by WTFover


Just showing the "Damned if he does, damned if he don't" mentality in play here.

Some of the same conservatives who were blaming Obama for doing nothing about Libya and not implementing military action are the same people complaining now that this is an illegal war.

Originally posted by Vizzle

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.

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

Nope your wrong bud, The French were in while it was still day light and stopped the Libyan advance on the city. The Tomahawks flew later in the night so they would not be seen in the daylight on approach.

Originally posted by Secularist
If the United Nations doesnt make a stand here and now with the genocide starting in Libya, then other countrys will begin slaughtering their protesters by the thousands, and then NATO would have multiple countries to suppress.

This is what I am referring to exactly. NOW we have to make an exception to what the vast majority of liberals were complaining about for Iraq under GB2.

The US has been able to pick and choose what humanitarian based military actions it takes since WW2. China, Cambodia, Rwanda, Dharfur, Iran, Iraq post gulf war in the 90's, and today Saudi, Bahrain, Yemen, all of these places have violent action taken against governmental opposition or flat out acts of crimes against humanity.

As a veteran who participated in Iraqi Freedom, etc, I was opposed to the first strike concept being utilized for Iraq. When the truth about the WMDs proved to be false, I felt justified, but from a leadership and responsibility standpoint, despite the reason we made the mess, we made the mess and now we had to clean it up. That is all we did in Iraq after that.

How can a person have confidence in a leader or nation if they are inconsistent? They can't. I can't. Obama, based upon his past actions and words, should be against this and speaking out opposing it, but he is not. Why? It is because he is the same type of shill that most of the political leaders are now.

This is one reason I made this thread and titled it as such. If the liberal media and vast majority of liberals aren't all over this calling out Obama, then I say they are hypocrites of the highest caliber.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Let me make one thing crystal yapping clear here and that is that for the next couple of weeks at most will the US be involved with this conflict and will let The UK, France, Germany and England take over.

Oh, so someone has let you in on the military "plan" for Libya?

Interesting, because it's all over the news that we don't actually have a plan beyond firing some missiles or dropping some bombs.

So, please let us all in on the "plan".

Are we trying to kill Gaddafi, or helping the rebels win, or what?

reply to post by Wolf321


Iraq did not ask for our help, the citizens of Libya did. Just because people may be on the left doesn't mean that they are, in general, anti-war or pro-war. If you ask me if we should have invaded Iraq, the answer is no. If you ask me if we should help the libyan citizens, at their request, the answer is yes.

You can't take something this complex and deliver it in a classic fox news "Just answer the question" framing.

Context matters.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Gadhafi is killing innocent people and he seems to be a "very bad man" just like Saddam. So, I ask myself, "what is the difference"? The answer is that, as far as I know, Libya's people have been peacefully protesting, and being killed for it by this very bad man. The reasons we're having military actions in Libya is humanitarian.

So when do we start also showering Yemen and Syria with "humanitarian" missiles? After all, they also have a "bad man" (really, a "bad man"? Sounds like a description a child would use.) killing his own people.

I am on the fence with you, Heff.

Yeah, some liberals now claim not to be obama supporters, you just can't tell it from any of their posts.

reply to post by brianmg5


The Iraqi people in the 1990's did want US help, and expected it because the US had told them to rise up and overthrow Saddam. By 2003, Saddam had killed off, both literally and figuratively, his opposition. We just assumed that when we went in at that time, the people would be as excited by our return as before, but their memories of abandonment were not that short.

reply to post by Wolf321


Your challenge to the left is that they balked at the Iraq invasion and therefore they are hypocrites for supporting the military assistance in Libya. And I'm telling you that context matters. There are wars worthy of fighting and there are wars not worthy of fighting. To say that one is hypocritical for supporting one and not the other completely ignores context.

Bush's war was complete BS and many of us knew it. We come to find later that the basis of the war turned out to be completely false! (WMD).

I see no evidence of foul play with Libya. All I see are people being shot from planes who want freedom. They've asked the world for help and we're going to give it to them. An exciting revolution is taking place in the East and I for one am very happy to see these tyrants taken out of power. Just today the Egyptians voted for a new constitution! WOW. We live in amazing and revolutionary progressing times.

I think if we're all honest with ourselves we'll find that many of those who don't like Obama will always have a biased opinion to anything he does. Like many other posters have said already, first the right is pissed because Obama wont act, now they're pissed that he has. Give me break. I don't speak for everyone, but most of the right clearly will not approve of anything Obama does, even if it's in-line with how they feel or if it's good for the world or our country.

Again, context matters.

Originally posted by brianmg5
Your challenge to the left is that they balked at the Iraq invasion and therefore they are hypocrites for supporting the military assistance in Libya. And I'm telling you that context matters. There are wars worthy of fighting and there are wars not worthy of fighting. To say that one is hypocritical for supporting one and not the other completely ignores context.

Context: People inside a sovereign nation want to rise up and remove a dictator, who in turn murders his people.

Question: Which nation and time am I talking about?

This is not a new story. This is the same rodeo we have been to, just this time we have a different horse.

Bush's war was complete BS and many of us knew it. We come to find later that the basis of the war turned out to be completely false! (WMD).

The justification for the 2003 Iraq war was in error. And while I disagree with it, first strike to prevent WMD production or utilization is FAR more acceptable in attacking a sovereign nation and displacing its government than interfering in an internal political struggle that involves violence, especially considering the precedent set by the US.

If we were lobbing 112 cruise missiles into Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Iran at the same time, then I would not be as concerned with US hypocrisy. In that case, I think the liberal media and majority would be making a bigger stink about it all.

reply to post by Wolf321


Still lying about Iraq eh?

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Wolf321

 

Still lying about Iraq eh?

Could you clarify your question. It almost seems like your asking if I am still lying about Iraq.

Originally posted by Wolf321

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Wolf321

 

Still lying about Iraq eh?

Could you clarify your question. It almost seems like your asking if I am still lying about Iraq.

You just did... You help to ensure that the useful lie is alive long after the lie is still useful

reply to post by Janky Red


What lie did I say was truth? Or is talking about a lie that was told somehow the same as saying it to be truth?

Originally posted by Wolf321
This is not a new story. This is the same rodeo we have been to, just this time we have a different horse.

The very significant difference is that in this case the US is participating in military action, that gathered broad international consensus, pursuant to a resolution and mandate of the Security Council based on the fact of war crimes being committed, whereas in 2003 the US-led Iraq invasion wasn’t sanctioned by the Security Council and the justifications given to us, we eventually found out, were lies.

The justification for the 2003 Iraq war was in error. And while I disagree with it, first strike to prevent WMD production or utilization is FAR more acceptable in attacking a sovereign nation and displacing its government than interfering in an internal political struggle that involves violence, especially considering the precedent set by the US.

I don’t agree with preemptive action, but the second scenario, acting against dictators like Gaddafi when they commit war crimes against their own people, is one of the purposes of the United Nations, required for the maintenance of peace and international security and respect for human rights.

Having said that, Saddam was a dictator and a monster, and I’m of the opinion the international community should have acted with the quickness and determination we are seeing now regarding Gaddafi when Saddam was murdering his own people. But no matter how bad someone is, we can’t unilaterally remove them from power, especially by making up bogus charges and imminent threats, contrary to international norms.

We have to act, through the proper channels, according to existing law, when egregious violations, such as the ones committed by Saddam, and committed by Gaddafi, occur and are occurring.

Originally posted by Wolf321
reply to post by Janky Red

 

What lie did I say was truth? Or is talking about a lie that was told somehow the same as saying it to be truth?

first strike to prevent WMD production or utilization is FAR more acceptable

Are you doing a Rumsfeld impression?

You asserted that the motivation of the "first strike" was out of concern for WMD. You used the lie as a rhetorical
tool to make your partisan enemies look bad, you did so by affirming the lie's validity.

Originally posted by aptness
I don’t agree with preemptive action, but the second scenario, acting against dictators like Gaddafi when they commit war crimes against their own people, is one of the purposes of the United Nations, required for the maintenance of peace and international security and respect for human rights.

When you think about what the idea behind the UN is, it sounds good on paper. Having seen the UN in action throughout its existence, the more I see it as nothing more than a stepping stone to a centralized global oppressive power. I am opposed to international law being forced down the throats of a sovereign nation. The UN should be nothing more than a diplomatic table for talks, not a force of action in any sense.

Before Iraqi Freedom, I believed that the US was obligated to step in and bare force on nations who committed crimes against humanity. Then I saw the US ignore one nation while targeting another, then I realized the politics of picking a target. It was then I committed to the philosophy that your either always going to stand up with force for human rights in foreign nations, or your always going to stand back. I firmly believe that the world would be better if we did sit back more. I liken it "helicopter parents" on a national level. If people were being murdered by dictators, at some point they do rise up and will overcome. Would the US be the USA if someone had stepped in before the revolution and just put in a new king?

But no matter how bad someone is, we can’t unilaterally remove them from power, especially by making up bogus charges and imminent threats, contrary to international norms.

I disagree. The sovereignty of a nation inherently allows it to take unilateral action, especially if it believes there to be a threat against it. If the US truly believed that Iraq was producing WMD's it believed were intended to be used against it, then the UN would be a nice place to find support, but we need no permission. I'm not going to argue on the point of if the US lied about WMDs or was wrong in its assessment.

reply to post by Janky Red


Yes. I said the justification for invading Iraq in 2003 ended up being proven a wrong assessment, although I haven't seen it proven that it was a known falsehood prior to the invasion. My argument was, that if the u genuinely believed Saddam had a WMD program with the intent of using against the US, then that is a better justification for a first strike than to support a democratic uprising under a dictator, based upon US precedent.

In no way is that saying that Iraq had WMDs, which was the lie.

Originally posted by Wolf321
The UN should be nothing more than a diplomatic table for talks, not a force of action in any sense.

The UN is already criticized for not taking enough significant measures, removing the “force of action” component would make it more efficient in helping resolve these complex and delicate world affairs and problems how?

Then I saw the US ignore one nation while targeting another, then I realized the politics of picking a target. ... I firmly believe that the world would be better if we did sit back more.

You shouldn’t take one situation where we were lied to and there wasn’t really any imminent threat, and apply it to all other situations. I believe that is a mistake many are making regarding the on-going action in Libya.

Would the US be the USA if someone had stepped in before the revolution and just put in a new king?

Didn’t the “freedom fighters” of the time have outside help as well?

The sovereignty of a nation inherently allows it to take unilateral action, especially if it believes there to be a threat against it.

This is where I disagree with preemptive action. I agree that nations should take unilateral action in defense, and the United Nations Charter already contemplates such situations. Preemptive wars result in the mess we have with Iraq.

I'm not going to argue on the point of if the US lied about WMDs or was wrong in its assessment.

You shouldn’t in any event, because it’s beyond dispute at this point.