- Joined
- Oct 17, 2009
- Messages
- 3,928
- Reaction score
- 1,559
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
You have not expanded upon your position, all you are saying is that you support the troops, but not in what capacity or sense.
U.S. Seeks UN Resolution Authorizing Strikes on Libya - FoxNews.com
If we go into Libya, I wonder if the 'no blood for oil' people will come out and protest, hanging Obama in effigy, burning his photo, calling him Hitler, etc., like they did for Bush? I think not.
Also, if the Obama administration goes into Libya without UN authorization, what will the general reaction be here in the states?
Is this the same UN that has done such a great job in protecting humanity in Africa? Not to worry...there were millions of people who died...not because of weapons of mass destruction but simply because of weapons of antiquity like BLADES and CLUBS, I am sure the people of Libya who are seeking democracy have nothing to worry about since the United Nations is on the JOB as usual and this GREAT LEADER in the United States is...err....planning another weekend get a way, once again exhibiting his famous or infamous characteristic of VOTING...."present".
Funny as hell. THE PEOPLE who voted for this character just so they could become part of American History indeed have gotten their wish, THEY ARE INDEED A WITNESS AND PARTICIPANT....to the worst presidential administration in US HISTORY.
I sense a sternly worded letter in Libya's future...
Written by someone else, and left on his desk to sign, when he gets back from playing golf .
HAAAAAAAAAA! Logic is not what drives liberals. Emotion is. They'd be out in the streets raising their default Hell. I just wonder if they'd figure some way to blame Bush for that too.Ah logic dictates the reaction would be different because the two situations are differentrof
HAAAAAAAAAA! Logic is not what drives liberals. Emotion is. They'd be out in the streets raising their default Hell. I just wonder if they'd figure some way to blame Bush for that too.
So the usefulness and meaningfulness of your comparison of Iraq and Libya comes from the fact that the situations are so different?I was comparing the reactions of the masses between what happened when Bush went into Iraq, and what might happen if Obama goes into Libya... not the conflicts themselves.
I was NOT a pre-emptive attack. It was a preventive attack.The major difference is that we went into Iraq as a preemptive attack because of poor intelligence that said that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
I really live this "Obama plays golf" knock.
Does "now watch this drive" mean anything to you?
Some people will get upset with you pointing out that the Bush Admin was a liberal one. I think the bed-wetting comment is a little over the top, though.Just not the massive quantities the liberal bed-wetters wanted to see.
The difference between preventive war and pre-emptive war is a wide one that's been recently blurred by certain parties. The invasion of Iraq was preventive, not pre-emptive. Now pre-emption has become newspeak for preventive.
If Iraq had been an imminent threat to the US then the war was not an agressive war. It is part of a long sanctioned tradition of "preemption "Upon detecting evidence that an opponent is about to attack, one beats the opponent to the punch and attacks first to blunt the impending strike."
As we all know, "For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack."
Preventive war is based on the concept that war is inevitable and that it is better to fight now while the costs are low rather than later when the costs are high. It is a deliberate decision to begin a war."Pre-emptive strikes need no justification. They've been recognized as legit for centuries. Invading Iran would be preventive, not pre-emptive.
LOL good things cuz the links have been moved and I forgot to leave out the part about Iran.I learned something there. Nice post.
Ok. Where/What were the WMDs? Do you have any pictures or other info?
Are you allowed to tell which year this was?I was in southern Iraq, near the Kuwaiti border. we found several small caches of chemical rounds. the exact type and agent they contained is classified info. I have a great picture of myself standing in a bunker surrounded by chemical muntions, if you are still interested I'll send you a copy in about 25 years when it becomes declassed.
I was in southern Iraq, near the Kuwaiti border. we found several small caches of chemical rounds. the exact type and agent they contained is classified info. I have a great picture of myself standing in a bunker surrounded by chemical muntions, if you are still interested I'll send you a copy in about 25 years when it becomes declassed.
Are you allowed to tell which year this was?
LOLZ Please, we cannot judge if Obama is the worst president in US history as he has not even finished his term. We need to wait at least 10 yrs before passing judgement to see how history will judge him. To say that he is currently the worst president in US history is idiotic and childish at best.
The Left has decided that his Chemical Munitions do not count.
LOLZ Please, we cannot judge if Obama is the worst president in US history as he has not even finished his term. We need to wait at least 10 yrs before passing judgement to see how history will judge him. To say that he is currently the worst president in US history is idiotic and childish at best.
What wmds were there? How did being there give you an advantage of knowing what wmds were there?
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?