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.

 

10 Congressmen sue Obama over strikes in Libya

page: 3
23
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Indigo5
 





No, I wouldn't support spending billions and invading another country that was not an immediate threat to us against the wishes of the international community based on falsified evidence for the agenda of "spreading democracy" by force.


Yah, see, like I said, you are all about the Intl community and not American sovereignty. Are you American?


Your vision is blurred. Are those the choices? Our sovereignty vs. NATO?

This is a false binary argument. It is premised on the idea that taking into consideration any other nations opinions equates to sacrificing sovereignty. It is a false argument.


Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
So why would you support a "genuine military revolution" in Iran, but not the genuine student revolution?
edit on 17-6-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


The Obama administration took a long time to come out and support the revolution in Libya, then it went all-in.

Why?

Because American policy in the Middle East has always been security and power in the region trumps "Democracy".

We happily support dictators as long as they do our bidding.

Libya was difficult policy choice and a very important one. It scares the crap out of other American supported dictatorships in the Middle East. The message is that our support is not limitless and if a Middle East country reaches a tipping point we will side with the people, not the dictator.

The difference between Iran and Iraq vs. Libya is the people revolted rather than the USA deciding the future for them via invasion and occupation.

That is why in Iraq we were attacked not by just "insurgents" but by a huge segment of Iraqi nationals that were opposed to US occupation. People that hated Al-Qaida were shooting at our troops.

Imagine if we lived in a similar dictatorship and the people revolted...then Russia invaded and toppled our government and occupied us for years on end? You have to understand the difference.

During the American revolution France supported us by supplying cannons, muskets, powder, shot and other supplies. Do you think we would have tolerated them invading and occupying us?

It is a huge...HUGE difference in philosophy, cost, cost of lives, time and outcome. No boots on the ground.

You can never "free" a populace via invasion and occupation.

Lastly...you asked what I supported..MY opinion. Congressional approval for those actions is a different question.

And please save the false binary argument of Sovereignty vs. Giving a crap about the rest of the world. It is not an either/or equation and that simplistic thinking is what turned the global community against us during the last administration.

Our sovereignty is more secure with allies than without.
edit on 18-6-2011 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)


edit on 18-6-2011 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
heres some cherrypicking of the numbers.

from world war 1 to present day more americans and more foreign nationals have been killed by democratic presidents and the only party to use nuclear weapons not once but twice.



Interesting. Does the republican party now disown Abraham Lincoln? Does the civil war not count?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


didnt matter if i included lincoln or not.

doesnt change the fact the left has more blood on their hands that any rightwinger.
edit on 18-6-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Indigo5
 


didnt matter if i included lincoln or not.

doesnt change the fact the left has more blood on their hands that any rightwinger.
edit on 18-6-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


Incorrect. The numbers often cited by GOP pundits do not include the civil war and when they do they omit Confederate deaths.

WW2 can hardly be considered a war that a Democrat started. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor as I am sure you are aware.

Even so. The nuclear bombs in Nagasaki and Hiroshima killed roughly 200,000 people. While horrific, still much less than the civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan by even the most conservative estimations.

Any way you count the numbers with actual totals, your claim is false.
edit on 18-6-2011 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Wow... does it really matter who was what political party at any given point in history. What part of US Government are we not comprehending people?

The Democrats didnt fight the NAzi during WWII, and neither did the Republicans. The armed forces of the United States did.

You guys really need to take a step back and take a look at what your arguing about, and realize just how assinine the argument actually is.

Which party killed more people than the other....

For the love of God....




 
23
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join