Councilman
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2009
- Messages
- 4,454
- Reaction score
- 1,657
- Location
- Riverside, County, CA.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Looks like a war to me."The targets struck included military vehicles, military equipment and fielded forces" of the Qaddafi regime, said the statement, without detailing exactly where the strikes had taken place.URL="http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/06/04/nato-uses-attack-helicopters-for-first-time-in-libya/"]http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/06/04/nato-uses-attack-helicopters-for-first-time-in-libya/[/URL]
NATO announced Saturday it had for the first time used attack helicopters in Libya, striking military vehicles, military equipment and forces backing embattled leader Colonel Muammar al-Qaddafi.
"Attack helicopters under NATO command were used for the first time on 4 June, 2011 in military operations over Libya as part of Operation Unified Protector," the Atlantic Alliance said in a statement.
Μολὼν λαβέ;1059540253 said:I'm confused... Wasn't Obama highly critical of Bush invading Iraq? But now isn't Obama part of a coalition invading Lybia? Is this hope and change we can depend on?
I guess this message turned out to be true after all.
No. Don't you see that if you understand and can recognize reality you will never get it, you like me are doomed to think that we got it wrong.
As long as Obama is around we cannot let logic, honesty, the truth, or facts get in the way of our belief that he can do no wrong.
Lest we be deemed some kind of racist, or other dumb-ass by the Leftists.
Ex-Press Aide Writes That Bush Misled U.S. on Iraq - washingtonpost.comWednesday, May 28, 2008
Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan writes in a new memoir that the Iraq war was sold to the American people with a sophisticated "political propaganda campaign" led by President Bush and aimed at "manipulating sources of public opinion" and "downplaying the major reason for going to war."
I'm confused. Maybe that is the way it is for Independents. It seems to me that a hell of a lot of conservatives and Republicans were damn near joyous over Bush's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Democrats, by and large, were opposed. Many said they voted for Obama, in part, because he promised to fully withdraw US troops from Irag. Many believed he would de-escalate the war in Afghanistan. As a point of clarification, I did not vote for Obama though I would have supported complete withdrawal of all US troops from the Gulf and Middle East.
To date Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan, has not withdrawn all troops from Iraq, has increased hostile actions in Pakistan and has attacked Libya and now has troops in-country there. Now the Republicans are opposed to increases in hostile actions. Democrats, as always, can't seem to decide what it is they want or when they want whatever it is they want. What an effing mess! AND we cannot afford any of it!
You see its because IN MY HEAD liberals are HIPPY DIPPIES who would never support war. Therefore IN MY HEAD they appear to be hypocrites when its actually the principles behind the war and the pursuit of JUST WAR that is the issue. Cant get my head around the JUST WAR thing where they think they are better than conservatives for not supporting UNJUST WARS. And btw I dont support this war cause the liberals do....
:roll:
increased hostile actions in Pakistan and has attacked Libya and now has troops in-country there.
an attack on Libya because they have a brutal dictator is a 'just war'?
So...endorsing an attack on Libya because they have a brutal dictator is a 'just war'?
You see its because IN MY HEAD liberals are HIPPY DIPPIES who would never support war. Therefore IN MY HEAD they appear to be hypocrites when its actually the principles behind the war and the pursuit of JUST WAR that is the issue. Cant get my head around the JUST WAR thing where they think they are better than conservatives for not supporting UNJUST WARS. And btw I dont support this war cause the liberals do....
civil war, whereas in Iraq we created one
Sharp of you. But last I checked they were having a civil war, whereas in Iraq we created one.
Apples and oranges.
Bush said Iraq had WMD, but Hans Blix went in and inspected and found NONE. Powell went to the UN, said Iraq had WMD, but Powell lied like the rest of the Bush admin. The problem with Iraq was not that we invaded, it was that we invaded under false pretense. Cheney irroneously tried to make the case that Iraq was linked to 9/11, but the 9/11 commission found "no collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda".
Ex-Press Aide Writes That Bush Misled U.S. on Iraq - washingtonpost.com
That condemnation form Bush's own longtime friend, who could not stand the lies any longer.
On Libya, there was an uprising going on, that is not a lie. The US chose to support it, and to involve NATO in support of the rebels. You will note, those are NATO attack helicopters, not US.
It appears so.I'm confused.
increased hostile actions in Pakistan and has attacked Libya and now has troops in-country there.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Milita...s-Kashmiri-reported-killed-in-US-drone-attackIlyas Kashmiri, a top Pakistani militant and senior Al Qaeda operative, reportedly has been killed in a US drone strike in the tribal territory of South Waziristan, according to press reports and a statement from the group he headed.
Kashmiri is believed to be behind some of the deadliest attacks in India and Pakistan, including a 2009 suicide attack on Pakistan’s spy agency and attacks on US forces in Afghanistan.
He is the operations chief of a group called Harakut-ul Jihad Islami, which has some 3,000 militia members and is classified by the US as a terrorist organization tied to Al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and the Punjabi Taliban.
A Newsweek profile headlined “Is Ilyas Kashmiri the New Bin Laden?” said he “has the experience, the connections, and a determination to attack the West – including the United States—that make him the most dangerous Qaeda operative to emerge in years.”
Indeed. Valid point. In Iraq, their brutal dictator slaughtered his people at will
whereas, in Libya, this brutal dictator has been slaughtering people in active rebellion to his government. And we jumped in...on...who's side exactly? We are engaging in the ouster of a government...and thats OK...just cause. Just not in Iraq. Wait...what?
Also, you cant help others make war on a country and say you aren't part of the war. If you peel a potato and feed a combatant you are just as much a part of the war as a missle strike or laser painter.
3) I'm not sure what the presence of attack helicopters has to do with anything. I don't think they are ours (American).
In the 90s where NATO and the UN established no fly-zones and stop the killings (largely). Had we gone in during the 90s, there wouldn't of been much of a valid complaint. Timing matters
Your facts are a little wrong. The rebels took refuge in towns that tacitly supported their cause and then were bombed and sieged.
Total war means everyone is a target, that means terrorist can be justified for killing anyone.
They are not, people obviously haven't been paying attention to international politics or are being willfully ignorant. The helicopters are NATOs and the rebels have been asking for NATO to either give them to the rebels or use them with in a coordinated effort with the rebels. The reason being is that attack helicopters are better for the theater and would cause less collateral damage and/or civilian/rebel casualties.
Repubs just want to attack Obama for anything. Granted, we should not be directly promoting regime change. I'm not sure if the objectives could have been met any other way though.
"Qaddafi bombed his own people" ..... so did we starting in 1861. Its what happens in a Civil War.
Democratic peace theoryCan anyone who supports this Libya escapade tell the rest of us which of our vital national interests were threatened in any way ? Heck, a good lie might suffice. Just tell us.
Citation. Last I checked, they had installed local tribunals and were committed to democracy - this is why the euros recognize them as the government of Libya.The rebels, who we are providing air support for, have a definite Al Qeada contingent.
In Yemen, we aim our bombs at Al Qeada. In Libya, we aim them at the enemies of Al Qeada, as directed by Al Qeada. :roll:
Funny tho that even though we as the president says, dont stand for povernments killing their citizens, we havent said **** in Syria, Saudi, Bahrain, Yemen...the hit list goes on.
"Its a matter of days, not weeks ............. " Mar 21, 2011.
Can anyone who supports this Libya escapade tell the rest of us which of our vital national interests were threatened in any way ? Heck, a good lie might suffice. Just tell us.
The rebels, who we are providing air support for, have a definite Al Qeada contingent.
Repubs just want to attack Obama for anything. Granted, we should not be directly promoting regime change. I'm not sure if the objectives could have been met any other way though.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?