Its time to Impeach Obama.

This situation is different than the one Geroge Bush Jr. had in 2003.

In 2003, George Bush declared War on Iraq/Hussein without any immediate justification. Saddam Hussein was not actively killing his own people at the time. He did that decades ago during the Carter/Regean years and nobody did anything about it. Bush Jr. decided all on his own to attack Hussein to fullfill a screwup by his father and using the wave of anger from 9/11 to get support. There were no WMDs and Saddam was no threat to anyone since the UN had already installed a no-fly zone over northern and souther Iraq years ago.

In 2011, Muammar Gaddafi is actively killing his own civillians with mercenaries to hold onto his power. ACTIVELY killing them. Obama did not authorize military strikes to get revenge or to punish him for what he did decades ago - Gaddafi is killing his own people RIGHT NOW and the UN had a chance to stop him. The UN voted WITH the US on this one and this time the US has unilateral support from several countries, including FRANCE, which voted against the 2003 Iraq war.

I agree that Obama's own words are hypocritical. However, I support this decision 100% because it is the right thing to do for HUMANITY.

Waiting to get congressional approval would accelerate Gaddafi's desire to kill as many Lybian rebels as possible. There was no time to wait.

Waiting for a vote from a do-nothing House/Senate = more people die due to politics.

If you disagree with that, than you need a reality check.

This situation is different than the one Geroge Bush Jr. had in 2003.

In 2003, George Bush declared War on Iraq/Hussein without any immediate justification. Saddam Hussein was not actively killing his own people at the time. He did that decades ago during the Carter/Regean years and nobody did anything about it. Bush Jr. decided all on his own to attack Hussein to fullfill a screwup by his father and using the wave of anger from 9/11 to get support. There were no WMDs and Saddam was no threat to anyone since the UN had already installed a no-fly zone over northern and souther Iraq years ago.

In 2011, Muammar Gaddafi is actively killing his own civillians with mercenaries to hold onto his power. ACTIVELY killing them. Obama did not authorize military strikes to get revenge or to punish him for what he did decades ago - Gaddafi is killing his own people RIGHT NOW and the UN had a chance to stop him. The UN voted WITH the US on this one and this time the US has unilateral support from several countries, including FRANCE, which voted against the 2003 Iraq war.

I agree that Obama's own words are hypocritical. However, I support this decision 100% because it is the right thing to do for HUMANITY.

Waiting to get congressional approval would accelerate Gaddafi's desire to kill as many Lybian rebels as possible. There was no time to wait.

Waiting for a vote from a do-nothing House/Senate = more people die due to politics.

If you disagree with that, than you need a reality check.

Netherscourge

Link: http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2011/03/21/fact-bush-had-2-times-more-coalition-partners-iraq-obama-has-libya

This situation is different than the one Geroge Bush Jr. had in 2003.

In 2003, George Bush declared War on Iraq/Hussein without any immediate justification. Saddam Hussein was not actively killing his own people at the time. He did that decades ago during the Carter/Regean years and nobody did anything about it. Bush Jr. decided all on his own to attack Hussein to fullfill a screwup by his father and using the wave of anger from 9/11 to get support. There were no WMDs and Saddam was no threat to anyone since the UN had already installed a no-fly zone over northern and souther Iraq years ago.

In 2011, Muammar Gaddafi is actively killing his own civillians with mercenaries to hold onto his power. ACTIVELY killing them. Obama did not authorize military strikes to get revenge or to punish him for what he did decades ago - Gaddafi is killing his own people RIGHT NOW and the UN had a chance to stop him. The UN voted WITH the US on this one and this time the US has unilateral support from several countries, including FRANCE, which voted against the 2003 Iraq war.

I agree that Obama's own words are hypocritical. However, I support this decision 100% because it is the right thing to do for HUMANITY.

Waiting to get congressional approval would accelerate Gaddafi's desire to kill as many Lybian rebels as possible. There was no time to wait.

Waiting for a vote from a do-nothing House/Senate = more people die due to politics.

If you disagree with that, than you need a reality check.

Netherscourge

I agree with this 100%. I just finished watching the Daily Show/Report, and I had mixed feelings about their spin on the situation. For one, like you said, I agree that Obama's words were hypocritical, even if such an action is not all that irregular. Like someone else said,I guess we should have impeached every president that has authorized military action without approval from Congress. Guess what righties, that would have meant that Reagan would have been gone before his full two terms were served, as his administration actually commited an act of treason by trying to circumvent a Congressional order of non-intervention. Anyways, the bit I thought made the best point was one where they ridiculed the tendency of the U.S. to provide assisstance to nations that have strategic resources, but not others. For instance, they mentioned how Darfur didn't even get vocal support, yet Libya gets military support. Probably the most valid point, but the inability of world powers to prevent a genocide for at least the fourth time in history shouldn't be a valid reason for non-action, if anything it shows that the UN and NATO need to be more active in preventing atrocities.

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]

This situation is different than the one Geroge Bush Jr. had in 2003.

In 2003, George Bush declared War on Iraq/Hussein without any immediate justification. Saddam Hussein was not actively killing his own people at the time. He did that decades ago during the Carter/Regean years and nobody did anything about it. Bush Jr. decided all on his own to attack Hussein to fullfill a screwup by his father and using the wave of anger from 9/11 to get support. There were no WMDs and Saddam was no threat to anyone since the UN had already installed a no-fly zone over northern and souther Iraq years ago.

In 2011, Muammar Gaddafi is actively killing his own civillians with mercenaries to hold onto his power. ACTIVELY killing them. Obama did not authorize military strikes to get revenge or to punish him for what he did decades ago - Gaddafi is killing his own people RIGHT NOW and the UN had a chance to stop him. The UN voted WITH the US on this one and this time the US has unilateral support from several countries, including FRANCE, which voted against the 2003 Iraq war.

I agree that Obama's own words are hypocritical. However, I support this decision 100% because it is the right thing to do for HUMANITY.

Waiting to get congressional approval would accelerate Gaddafi's desire to kill as many Lybian rebels as possible. There was no time to wait.

Waiting for a vote from a do-nothing House/Senate = more people die due to politics.

If you disagree with that, than you need a reality check.

YellowOneKinobi

Link: http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2011/03/21/fact-bush-had-2-times-more-coalition-partners-iraq-obama-has-libya

Oh, a Fox News link... yea, I'm totally switching sides now.

Here's a "reality check" for ya..... Bush had TWICE the nuber of countries backing him.

Link: http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2011/03/21/fact-bush-had-2-times-more-coalition-partners-iraq-obama-has-libya

YellowOneKinobi

In terms of Libya, it only lists nations directly participating in the enforcement of the no-fly zone in Libya, excluding nations who have placed sanctions or embargoes against Gaddafi, but who haven't actively participating in the enforcement of the no-fly zone for whatever reasons (take Australia or Japan for example; probably because their air forces and navies are on the other side of the world, and are no necessary when the EU is involved).

In terms of Iraq, it lists all members of the Coalition of the Willing, whether they sent troops to Iraq or not. You've got Eritrea and Afghanistan on that list for goodness sakes!

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]

This situation is different than the one Geroge Bush Jr. had in 2003.

In 2003, George Bush declared War on Iraq/Hussein without any immediate justification. Saddam Hussein was not actively killing his own people at the time. He did that decades ago during the Carter/Regean years and nobody did anything about it. Bush Jr. decided all on his own to attack Hussein to fullfill a screwup by his father and using the wave of anger from 9/11 to get support. There were no WMDs and Saddam was no threat to anyone since the UN had already installed a no-fly zone over northern and souther Iraq years ago.

In 2011, Muammar Gaddafi is actively killing his own civillians with mercenaries to hold onto his power. ACTIVELY killing them. Obama did not authorize military strikes to get revenge or to punish him for what he did decades ago - Gaddafi is killing his own people RIGHT NOW and the UN had a chance to stop him. The UN voted WITH the US on this one and this time the US has unilateral support from several countries, including FRANCE, which voted against the 2003 Iraq war.

I agree that Obama's own words are hypocritical. However, I support this decision 100% because it is the right thing to do for HUMANITY.

Waiting to get congressional approval would accelerate Gaddafi's desire to kill as many Lybian rebels as possible. There was no time to wait.

Waiting for a vote from a do-nothing House/Senate = more people die due to politics.

If you disagree with that, than you need a reality check.

Netherscourge

Link: http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2011/03/21/fact-bush-had-2-times-more-coalition-partners-iraq-obama-has-libya

Oh, a Fox News link... yea, I'm totally switching sides now.

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]

This situation is different than the one Geroge Bush Jr. had in 2003.

In 2003, George Bush declared War on Iraq/Hussein without any immediate justification. Saddam Hussein was not actively killing his own people at the time. He did that decades ago during the Carter/Regean years and nobody did anything about it. Bush Jr. decided all on his own to attack Hussein to fullfill a screwup by his father and using the wave of anger from 9/11 to get support. There were no WMDs and Saddam was no threat to anyone since the UN had already installed a no-fly zone over northern and souther Iraq years ago.

In 2011, Muammar Gaddafi is actively killing his own civillians with mercenaries to hold onto his power. ACTIVELY killing them. Obama did not authorize military strikes to get revenge or to punish him for what he did decades ago - Gaddafi is killing his own people RIGHT NOW and the UN had a chance to stop him. The UN voted WITH the US on this one and this time the US has unilateral support from several countries, including FRANCE, which voted against the 2003 Iraq war.

I agree that Obama's own words are hypocritical. However, I support this decision 100% because it is the right thing to do for HUMANITY.

Waiting to get congressional approval would accelerate Gaddafi's desire to kill as many Lybian rebels as possible. There was no time to wait.

Waiting for a vote from a do-nothing House/Senate = more people die due to politics.

If you disagree with that, than you need a reality check.

YellowOneKinobi

Link: http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2011/03/21/fact-bush-had-2-times-more-coalition-partners-iraq-obama-has-libya

LOL, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Latvia, what major players! For one, most of those countries contributed next to nothing to the effort, whereas most of the countries listed in the current coalition are committing ground forces. Two, most of those countries also probably supported the U.S. in Iraq more for their own personal gain than because they felt that an invasion was morally justified.

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]

This situation is different than the one Geroge Bush Jr. had in 2003.

In 2003, George Bush declared War on Iraq/Hussein without any immediate justification. Saddam Hussein was not actively killing his own people at the time. He did that decades ago during the Carter/Regean years and nobody did anything about it. Bush Jr. decided all on his own to attack Hussein to fullfill a screwup by his father and using the wave of anger from 9/11 to get support. There were no WMDs and Saddam was no threat to anyone since the UN had already installed a no-fly zone over northern and souther Iraq years ago.

In 2011, Muammar Gaddafi is actively killing his own civillians with mercenaries to hold onto his power. ACTIVELY killing them. Obama did not authorize military strikes to get revenge or to punish him for what he did decades ago - Gaddafi is killing his own people RIGHT NOW and the UN had a chance to stop him. The UN voted WITH the US on this one and this time the US has unilateral support from several countries, including FRANCE, which voted against the 2003 Iraq war.

I agree that Obama's own words are hypocritical. However, I support this decision 100% because it is the right thing to do for HUMANITY.

Waiting to get congressional approval would accelerate Gaddafi's desire to kill as many Lybian rebels as possible. There was no time to wait.

Waiting for a vote from a do-nothing House/Senate = more people die due to politics.

If you disagree with that, than you need a reality check.

theone86

Link: http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2011/03/21/fact-bush-had-2-times-more-coalition-partners-iraq-obama-has-libya

LOL, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Latvia, what major players! For one, most of those countries contributed next to nothing to the effort, whereas most of the countries listed in the current coalition are committing ground forces. Two, most of those countries also probably supported the U.S. in Iraq more for their own personal gain than because they felt that an invasion was morally justified.

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]

Oh, a Fox News link... yea, I'm totally switching sides now.YellowOneKinobi

Maybe that's because:

That list is horribly skewed.

Danm_999

If you quote an irreputable source then you have no reason to get angry when people call it into question.

I didn't bring up the topic of the support of other countries. and your second point is laughable, as literally every decision that is made by every country is for "personal gain."

YellowOneKinobi

Yet you're ignoring that the source you provided lowers the bar for what backing Bush meant (you only had to give verbal support to Iraq, you didn't have to send troops apparently) and raising it for Obama and the UN's no fly zone on Libya means (you don't count as an ally unless you send military forces).

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]I must be psychic. I figured you'd attack the messenger yet be unable to attack the FACTS. Typical.theone86

Maybe that's because:

That list is horribly skewed.

Danm_999

If you quote an irreputable source then you have no reason to get angry when people call it into question.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]Here's a "reality check" for ya..... Bush had TWICE the nuber of countries backing him.

Link: http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2011/03/21/fact-bush-had-2-times-more-coalition-partners-iraq-obama-has-libya

YellowOneKinobi

LOL, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Latvia, what major players! For one, most of those countries contributed next to nothing to the effort, whereas most of the countries listed in the current coalition are committing ground forces. Two, most of those countries also probably supported the U.S. in Iraq more for their own personal gain than because they felt that an invasion was morally justified.

So what if you didn't bring up the point, you said that Bush had twice the number of countries supporting him as if it was relevant and it clearly is not the same situation when we're talking about Latvia and Uzbekistan as opposed to a joint UN coalition.

By personal gain, I mean that the countries supporting Bush had no means to project their power in the region and therefore supported the U.S. only in the hopes of increasing their ability to do so. I'm not saying that this decision to engage in a conflict with Libya is completely altruistic, but I can safely say that there is a VERY good reason for us being there, better than phony charges of WMDs that had been called into question by evey other world power, and that were it not for Libya killing their own citizens we would most definitely not be there.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

Maybe that's because:

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

That list is horribly skewed.

YellowOneKinobi

If you quote an irreputable source then you have no reason to get angry when people call it into question.

No, I believe I attacked the messenger IN ADDITION to disproving the facts. And again, attacking the messenger is not a fallacy if the messenger has a history of introducing faulty evidence.

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]Here's a "reality check" for ya..... Bush had TWICE the nuber of countries backing him.

Link: http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2011/03/21/fact-bush-had-2-times-more-coalition-partners-iraq-obama-has-libya

YellowOneKinobi

Oh, a Fox News link... yea, I'm totally switching sides now.

I don't accept anything from Fox News as facts. They are blatantly biased Democrat/Liberal/Obama-haters and nothing you link from their website will ever be taken seriously by anyone except Fox News zombies.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

Maybe that's because:

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

That list is horribly skewed.

YellowOneKinobi

If you quote an irreputable source then you have no reason to get angry when people call it into question.

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

If you quote an irreputable source then you have no reason to get angry when people call it into question.

theone86

No, I believe I attacked the messenger IN ADDITION to disproving the facts. And again, attacking the messenger is not a fallacy if the messenger has a history of introducing faulty evidence.

Isn't he Commander in Chief? :?bbkkristian

Yes, which means that he is the top military authority in times of war, but it does not give him the ability to take military action for reasons other than defense.

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

LOL, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Latvia, what major players! For one, most of those countries contributed next to nothing to the effort, whereas most of the countries listed in the current coalition are committing ground forces. Two, most of those countries also probably supported the U.S. in Iraq more for their own personal gain than because they felt that an invasion was morally justified.

theone86

So what if you didn't bring up the point, you said that Bush had twice the number of countries supporting him as if it was relevant and it clearly is not the same situation when we're talking about Latvia and Uzbekistan as opposed to a joint UN coalition.

By personal gain, I mean that the countries supporting Bush had no means to project their power in the region and therefore supported the U.S. only in the hopes of increasing their ability to do so. I'm not saying that this decision to engage in a conflict with Libya is completely altruistic, but I can safely say that there is a VERY good reason for us being there, better than phony charges of WMDs that had been called into question by evey other world power, and that were it not for Libya killing their own citizens we would most definitely not be there.

And to the point of other nations supporting our military action, whether or not the actual number (which can be manipulated) is twice as many or not, the statement that was made is that our actions in Libya are partly justified because there is mulitnational support, suggesting that was not the case in Iraq.

(And to say that Saddam Hussein was less of a threat to his own people than Ghadaffi is to deny the truth.)

and i do love how theone is using the dailyshow for facts honestly the dailyshow and colbert report arent news sources they have comedies with a slight bit of possible news thrown in skewed in one direction and mostly meant to laugh at conservatives its far from reliable news.kayoticdreamz

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

If you quote an irreputable source then you have no reason to get angry when people call it into question.

kayoticdreamz

Pointing to "Rush" and "Beck" as rational people is not going to prove your point. lol

Seriously, find people in the middle to quote - not extremist Neo-Con lunatics trying to keep the ratings up.

Am I supposed to believe that if Bush were president rather than Obama, the left wouldn't be SCREAMING that "we're there for oil!!!"...?YellowOneKinobi

Yes, the circumstances are quite different from Iraq.

And to the point of other nations supporting our military action, whether or not the actual number (which can be manipulated) is twice as many or not, the statement that was made is that our actions in Libya are partly justified because there is mulitnational support, suggesting that was not the case in Iraq.YellowOneKinobi

Yes, but you've poisoned the chalice by pretending that the support you had in Iraq of about 30 nations (whether they sent troops or not) is the same as the almost 200 nations which support action in Libya (whether they sent troops or not).

So to cook the books, we stack EVERYONE who was in anyway involved in Iraq against only those who are directly involved in Libya, to try and make the support seem lopsided.

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

Am I supposed to believe that if Bush were president rather than Obama, the left wouldn't be SCREAMING that "we're there for oil!!!"...?Danm_999

Yes, the circumstances are quite different from Iraq.

And to the point of other nations supporting our military action, whether or not the actual number (which can be manipulated) is twice as many or not, the statement that was made is that our actions in Libya are partly justified because there is mulitnational support, suggesting that was not the case in Iraq.YellowOneKinobi

Yes, but you've poisoned the chalice by pretending that the support you had in Iraq of about 30 nations (whether they sent troops or not) is the same as the almost 200 nations which support action in Libya (whether they sent troops or not).

So to cook the books, we stack EVERYONE who was in anyway involved in Iraq against only those who are directly involved in Libya, to try and make the support seem lopsided.

if no source can be sited because one side will feel it is bias for supporting an argument there then can be no sources and there for no backed arguments, only invalid opinions.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

Yes, the circumstances are quite different from Iraq.

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"] And to the point of other nations supporting our military action, whether or not the actual number (which can be manipulated) is twice as many or not, the statement that was made is that our actions in Libya are partly justified because there is mulitnational support, suggesting that was not the case in Iraq.YellowOneKinobi

Yes, but you've poisoned the chalice by pretending that the support you had in Iraq of about 30 nations (whether they sent troops or not) is the same as the almost 200 nations which support action in Libya (whether they sent troops or not).

So to cook the books, we stack EVERYONE who was in anyway involved in Iraq against only those who are directly involved in Libya, to try and make the support seem lopsided.

if no source can be sited because one side will feel it is bias for supporting an argument there then can be no sources and there for no backed arguments, only invalid opinions.

surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

Yes, but you've poisoned the chalice by pretending that the support you had in Iraq of about 30 nations (whether they sent troops or not) is the same as the almost 200 nations which support action in Libya (whether they sent troops or not).

So to cook the books, we stack EVERYONE who was in anyway involved in Iraq against only those who are directly involved in Libya, to try and make the support seem lopsided.

Danm_999

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

if no source can be sited because one side will feel it is bias for supporting an argument there then can be no sources and there for no backed arguments, only invalid opinions.

Danm_999

(Of course, I'm making the assumption that it ever truly existed to begin with).

And you actually have a problem with defending the liberty and human rights of others? You are that selfish?

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"] I already conceded that my previously mentioned list can be manipulated, what does that have to do with the fact that there was STILL international support for our actions in Iraq, which the previous poster suggested was not the case, therefore making our actions in Libya somehow more justifiable?

YellowOneKinobi

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

If you quote an irreputable source then you have no reason to get angry when people call it into question.

kayoticdreamz

Lawl, Rush and Glenn said it and therefore it MUST be true. Let me explain something to you, F** and their pundits run on what I like to refer to as bully mentality because it follows the same psychology as your common schoolyard bully. One of the principle traits of bully mentality is to predict your victim's response in order to make yourself look wise. In other words, it is not totally unforseen that if a news company presents completely skewed news on a regular basis that intelligent people will begin to call their credibility into question. Because such a situation is easily predictable for even neanderthals like Rush and Beck they begin by saying that liberals are going to attack their views because they're evil liberals who hate everything that is good and want to supress all speech but their own. Such a statement is most obviously a strawman, constructed so that once intelligent people actually DO start to call their credibility into question because they DO present extremely slanted coverage on a regular basis the strawman will detract from the fact that the criticism of bias is justified.

As for TDS and the Report, for one I didn't quote any facts from them, I simply used the inference from their sketches as a point of discussion. Two, they may be comedy shows, but their reporting is a thousand times more credible than anything that has ever aired on F**, and they don't even try to pose as legitimate news. They freely admit that they are comedy shows and not to be taken as actual reporting, and they STILL do a better job of maintaining credible news coverage than F**, which shows just how big of a joke that network is.

Lastly, if you call every news source that ISN'T F** liberal news then of course you can make the same accusation of liberal news that you can of F**. The problem is that not every other news source aside from F** qualifies as liberal news, at best most of them are corporatist. This is a part of the CONSERVATIVE tactic of setting up every position even slightly to the left of theirs as being horribly slanted to the liberal side no matter what the true degree is, therefore any position that isn't in agreement with theirs is some socialist plot or Obamamania or whatever, which again is completely skewed.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

if no source can be sited because one side will feel it is bias for supporting an argument there then can be no sources and there for no backed arguments, only invalid opinions.

Danm_999

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"] Well, I suppose the point then is that there isn't as much support for Iraq as there is for Libya.Danm_999

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

if no source can be sited because one side will feel it is bias for supporting an argument there then can be no sources and there for no backed arguments, only invalid opinions.

surrealnumber5

And you actually have a problem with defending the liberty and human rights of others? You are that selfish?

foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"] Evidence?

YellowOneKinobi

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"] What happened to news media reporting the facts and leaving the opinions on the editorial pages?Danm_999

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]I didn't bring up the topic of the support of other countries. and your second point is laughable, as literally every decision that is made by every country is for "personal gain."

YellowOneKinobi

So what if you didn't bring up the point, you said that Bush had twice the number of countries supporting him as if it was relevant and it clearly is not the same situation when we're talking about Latvia and Uzbekistan as opposed to a joint UN coalition.

By personal gain, I mean that the countries supporting Bush had no means to project their power in the region and therefore supported the U.S. only in the hopes of increasing their ability to do so. I'm not saying that this decision to engage in a conflict with Libya is completely altruistic, but I can safely say that there is a VERY good reason for us being there, better than phony charges of WMDs that had been called into question by evey other world power, and that were it not for Libya killing their own citizens we would most definitely not be there.

And to the point of other nations supporting our military action, whether or not the actual number (which can be manipulated) is twice as many or not, the statement that was made is that our actions in Libya are partly justified because there is mulitnational support, suggesting that was not the case in Iraq.

(And to say that Saddam Hussein was less of a threat to his own people than Ghadaffi is to deny the truth.)

Yes, you are supposed to believe that. You think that anything that Bush touched turned to ****? Not until he started making **** decisions. He had nationwide SUPPORT for Afghanistan in 2001 from liberals and conservatives, the only sticking point was that he kept the war completely off the books financially. Criticism of him didn't really start to escalate on a large scale until he fabricated claims of WMDs in order to invade Iraq, and if Obama did that I would hope that the left would criticize him for it as well.

Multinational support, as in support from other countries that are going to actually commit troops to the operation so that we don't end up bearing the entire cost ofthe operation; so that we send a message to the world that it's not just the U.S. going into the region for its own personal gain but the entire international community putting a stop to an atrocity. Azerbaijan is not going to commit ground troops to an operation, Uzbekistan and Latvia are not going to send a message that the entire international community is united against the Libyan regime.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

And you actually have a problem with defending the liberty and human rights of others? You are that selfish?

YellowOneKinobi

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"] Well, off the top of my head, France, Germany, Canada, Russia, China, New Zealand and India all not only didn't send troops, but criticised the war in Iraq. I don't think any of these nations oppose Libya, nor do I think any of the Coalition of the Willing countries oppose Libya. It seems, quite basically, a better supported conflict by the international community.Danm_999

See, there's your problem, substantiating your opinion. You know what susbtantiation is? Liberal, evil, commie-nazi, soulless, godless, left-wing bias.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] when has that ever been the case?

surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"] Well, off the top of my head, France, Germany, Canada, Russia, China, New Zealand and India all not only didn't send troops, but criticised the war in Iraq. I don't think any of these nations oppose Libya, nor do I think any of the Coalition of the Willing countries oppose Libya. It seems, quite basically, a better supported conflict by the international community.Danm_999

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

And you actually have a problem with defending the liberty and human rights of others? You are that selfish?

foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

Yes, the circumstances are quite different from Iraq.

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"] And to the point of other nations supporting our military action, whether or not the actual number (which can be manipulated) is twice as many or not, the statement that was made is that our actions in Libya are partly justified because there is mulitnational support, suggesting that was not the case in Iraq.YellowOneKinobi

Yes, but you've poisoned the chalice by pretending that the support you had in Iraq of about 30 nations (whether they sent troops or not) is the same as the almost 200 nations which support action in Libya (whether they sent troops or not).

So to cook the books, we stack EVERYONE who was in anyway involved in Iraq against only those who are directly involved in Libya, to try and make the support seem lopsided.

In 2003, France, Russian and Germany all voted against the Iraq War. France, Russia and Germany are PERMANENT members of the UN, and thus, their votes were both crucial for not only International cooperation, but for their military assets. France also threatened to veto the measure altogether, so Bush was forced to withdrawl the UN proposal and just attacked anyway without their support. Meaning, not all of them agreed that Hussein was an immediate threat.

-ie. There WAS NO OFFICIAL VOTE IN 2003 on the IRAQ WAR IN THE UN - the USA withdrew the proposal because several permanent members of the UN declared their intention to veto it upon arrival. So to say the US had more support back in 2003 is baseless.

In 2011, The UN vote passed 10-0 with five abstentions -- permanent members China and Russia, who did not wield their vetoes, plus Germany, Brazil and India. Meaning, they all agreed Gaddafi had to be stopped. The US, France, Britian, Norway and Qatar all volunteered their countrys' military assets to assist in the no-fly zone and counter-attacks of Gaddafi's merc forces. The rest, like Russia/Germany, etc... chose to abstain rather than committ their troops.

In other words, the 2003 the UN was decidely ANTI-IRAQ WAR and the 2011 the UN was decidely PRO-STOPPING Gaddafi's Advances.

Just so I get this correct, you're opinion is better than mine, despite anything to substantiate it?

YellowOneKinobi

If you presented persuasive facts that the majority of the international community opposed action in Libya; to a greater extent than they did in Iraq, you're argument would be more persuasive.

That'd be hard though; the only countries that criticised the no fly zone in Libya I know of are part of the Arab League, and they also criticised the invasion of Iraq, making that point basically moot.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"] It's been the case in a lot of reputable print media for decades. Television is another matter I suppose.Danm_999

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"] Just so I get this correct, you're opinion is better than mine, despite anything to substantiate it?

Danm_999

If you presented persuasive facts that the majority of the international community opposed action in Libya; to a greater extent than they did in Iraq, you're argument would be more persuasive.

That'd be hard though; the only countries that criticised the no fly zone in Libya I know of are part of the Arab League, and they also criticised the invasion of Iraq, making that point basically moot.

That being said, if you're considering your OPINION as FACT, then I guess that's all there is to say.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] like? i cant think of a single publication that does not target its audience, including those i use

surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

Yes, but you've poisoned the chalice by pretending that the support you had in Iraq of about 30 nations (whether they sent troops or not) is the same as the almost 200 nations which support action in Libya (whether they sent troops or not).

So to cook the books, we stack EVERYONE who was in anyway involved in Iraq against only those who are directly involved in Libya, to try and make the support seem lopsided.

Netherscourge

In 2003, France, Russian and Germany all voted against the Iraq War. France, Russia and Germany are PERMANENT members of the UN, and thus, their votes were both crucial for not only International cooperation, but for their military assets. France also threatened to veto the measure altogether, so Bush was forced to withdrawl the UN proposal and just attacked anyway without their support. Meaning, not all of them agreed that Hussein was an immediate threat.

-ie. There WAS NO OFFICIAL VOTE IN 2003 on the IRAQ WAR IN THE UN - the USA withdrew the proposal because several permanent members of the UN declared their intention to veto it upon arrival. So to say the US had more support back in 2003 is baseless.

In 2011, The UN vote passed 10-0 with five abstentions -- permanent members China and Russia, who did not wield their vetoes, plus Germany, Brazil and India. Meaning, they all agreed Gaddafi had to be stopped. The US, France, Britian, Norway and Qatar all volunteered their countrys' military assets to assist in the no-fly zone and counter-attacks of Gaddafi's merc forces. The rest, like Russia/Germany, etc... chose to abstain rather than committ their troops.

In other words, the 2003 the UN was decidely ANTI-IRAQ WAR and the 2011 the UN was decidely PRO-STOPPING Gaddafi's Advances.

What facts? You complained about a list I provided, while providing nothing of your own. YellowOneKinobi

There was huge support for the invasion of Iraq, as there is for the no-fly zone in Libya. A previous poster said there is only support for the latter, which I said was incorrect, as AGAIN, there was support for both.

That being said, if you're considering your OPINION as FACT, then I guess that's all there is to say.

YellowOneKinobi