"As I understand it, the Libyan people will welcome us with open arms..."

[Casper]

I'm not a Democrat or Republican. I am not a Liberal nor am I a Conservative... I am an American.

 

I don't remember Obama lying about nuclear and/or chemical weapons of mass destruction in attempt to gain support, while completely ignoring the UN.

 

Also one could label me a democrat, and I was in full support of the Afghanistan invasion. Most democrats were fine with that campaign.

Things Obama did lie about:

- Close Guantanamo Bay

- Pull the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan

- Enact windfall profits tax for oil companies

- Walk with picketers when collective bargaining rights are threatened

- Establish transparency standards for military contractors

- Give tax incentives to new farmers

- Appoint a federal-level coordinator to oversee all federal autism efforts

- Expand the child and dependent care credit

- End income tax for seniors making less than $50,000

- End no-bid contracts above $25,000

- Increase the capital gains and dividends taxes for higher-income taxpayers

- Repeal the Bush tax cuts for higher incomes

- Phase out exemptions and deductions for higher earners

- Forbid companies in bankruptcy from giving executives bonuses

- Allow workers to claim more in unpaid wages and benefits in bankruptcy court

- Allow imported prescription drugs

- Mandate insurance coverage of autism treatment

- Direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a comprehensive study of federal cancer initiatives

- Create a National Commission on People with Disabilities, Employment, and Social Security

- Change federal rules so small businesses owned by people with disabilities can get preferential treatment for federal contracts.

- Form international group to help Iraq refugees

- Reinstate special envoy for the Americas

- Double the Peace Corps

- Centralize ethics and lobbying information for voters

- Allow five days of public comment before signing bills

- Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials

- Double funding for afterschool programs

- Urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws

- Allow bankruptcy judges to modify terms of a home mortgage

- Re-establish the National Aeronautics and Space Council

- Support human mission to moon by 2020

- Pay for the national service plan without increasing the deficit

- Limit term of director of national intelligence

- Give annual "State of the World" address

- Reduce earmarks to 1994 levels

- Create cap and trade system with interim goals to reduce global warming

- Require plug-in fleet at the White House

- Provide an annual report on "state of our energy future"

- Allow penalty-free hardship withdrawals from retirement accounts in 2008 and 2009

- Recognize the Armenian genocide

- No family making less than $250,000 will see "any form of tax increase."

- Negotiate health care reform in public sessions televised on C-SPAN

- Create a public option health plan for a new National Health Insurance Exchange.

- Introduce a comprehensive immigration bill in the first year

 

Obama promised real change. http://www.ohioriders.net/images/smilies/lol.gif

 

And this attack on Libya doesn't have the UN's approval. Military action by the UN requires an unanimous vote of all security counsel members. Five didn't vote because they don't support it. That's why this is a NATO action, and not a UN action. Eerily similar to Iraq.

 

PS: I'm neither Republican nor Democrat.

[sol740]

While it must be handy to have a list of grievances to copy and paste, and while I'm sure I could find similar lists for every modern president, they would hardly be of topic(ie analogous comparison of one president's military action compared another's, and ones purportedly different ideology, specifically biased as propaganda). My point stands, while the situations may be mildly similar when spun a very specific way, the events surrounding each instance(instance being use of force), differ wildly in regards to local, and global scrutiny.

[Jizzle Juice]

How can one lie about things when there is still time to do such things?

[unfunnyryan]

I don't remember Obama lying about nuclear and/or chemical weapons of mass destruction in attempt to gain support, while completely ignoring the UN.

 

Also one could label me a democrat, and I was in full support of the Afghanistan invasion. Most democrats were fine with that campaign.

 

This is true.

 

Also, you have to keep in mind, there wasn't a revolution going on in Iraq, and they weren't killing thousands of civilians with every sort of military ordinance they could get their hands on. Comparing the two is laughable, so please, do not do it. They are two entirely separate regions.

 

Recognize the Armenian genocide

 

Libyan/Armenian close enough.

 

 

How can one lie about things when there is still time to do such things?

 

Also true, and historically, most presidents accomplish more at the end of their terms. None of that is a lie yet but so far a lot of what he promised, isn't looking very promising. Keep in mind, its not a dictatorship, he can't just say things and make it happen as long as their is opposition in congress.

[Scotty2Hotty]

The past is the past, this I the present. What another man did isn't a valid excuse anymore. The man in charge is the one responsible for his actions or lack there of. We're ok with patrolling a foreign country's airspace, but we can't put near that kind of effort towards patrolling our borders? The Mexican border is a little more pressing than some middle eastern shit hole. Our country would do the same to our citizens if we had an armed revolution.

[Casper]

While it must be handy to have a list of grievances to copy and paste, and while I'm sure I could find similar lists for every modern president, they would hardly be of topic(ie analogous comparison of one president's military action compared another's, and ones purportedly different ideology, specifically biased as propaganda). My point stands, while the situations may be mildly similar when spun a very specific way, the events surrounding each instance(instance being use of force), differ wildly in regards to local, and global scrutiny.

 

And this attack on Libya doesn't have the UN's approval. Military action by the UN requires an unanimous vote of all security counsel members. Five didn't vote because they don't support it. That's why this is a NATO action, and not a UN action. Eerily similar to Iraq.

 

I believe what I posted is VERY relevant to what you said.

[unfunnyryan]

The past is the past, this I the present. What another man did isn't a valid excuse anymore. The man in charge is the one responsible for his actions or lack there of. We're ok with patrolling a foreign country's airspace, but we can't put near that kind of effort towards patrolling our borders? The Mexican border is a little more pressing than some middle eastern shit hole. Our country would do the same to our citizens if we had an armed revolution.

 

I'm not sure what to think about the whole border situation anymore, with tons of evidence piling up that the ATF basically forced weapons dealers to sell to cartels.

 

Also, the difference between here and Libya/Egypt is that Libyans have FAR less guns than we do, and in Egypt, civilians are not allowed to possess long guns at all, and the rest of the firearms are heavily regulated.

 

Needless to say, a revolution in the US would end MUCH quicker. We probably won't have a revolution here any time soon, because the media has too much of the population cowering in fear over trivial and fucking retarded matters.

[mrs.cos]

INB4LOCK!

 

So tired of these threads

 

+1

 

then :gtfo:

 

if you dont care about them.. dont read em..

[Casper]

Also, you have to keep in mind, there wasn't a revolution going on in Iraq, and they weren't killing thousands of civilians with every sort of military ordinance they could get their hands on. Comparing the two is laughable, so please, do not do it. They are two entirely separate regions.

The official death toll in Libya is reported at 300, 111 of those being soldiers. Some news accounts say up to 6,000 have been killed in total, over the 41 years under Gaddafi. But the official count is 300.

 

But either way, how many civilians did Saddam kill? Upwards of one million:

 

According to The New York Times, "he [saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants — friends on friends, circles within circles — making an entire population complicit in his rule". Others have estimated 800,000 deaths caused by Saddam not counting the Iran-Iraq war. Estimates as to the number of Iraqis executed by Saddam's regime vary from 300-500,000 to over 600,000, estimates as to the number of Kurds he massacred vary from 70,000 to 300,000, and estimates as to the number killed in the put-down of the 1991 rebellion vary from 60,000 to 200,000. Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.

 

You're right, comparing the two is laughable. The Libyan civilian death count is minuscule compared to the Iraqis.

 

Also true, and historically, most presidents accomplish more at the end of their terms. None of that is a lie yet but so far a lot of what he promised, isn't looking very promising. Keep in mind, its not a dictatorship, he can't just say things and make it happen as long as their is opposition in congress.

All of those things are lies. Doing the opposite of what you promise makes it a lie, even if you right the wrong later. None of those that I listed were unfulfilled, or pending. Those were all things he promised but then after being elected went against. You can verify for yourself: http://www.politifact.com. Edited March 22, 2011 by Casper

[unfunnyryan]

The official death toll in Libya is reported at 300, 111 of those being soldiers. Some news accounts say up to 6,000 have been killed in total, over the 41 years under Gaddafi. But the official count is 300.

 

But either way, how many civilians did Saddam kill? Upwards of one million:

 

 

 

You're right, comparing the two is laughable. The Libyan civilian death count is minuscule compared to the Iraqis.

 

Also, you have to keep in mind, there wasn't a revolution going on in Iraq, and they weren't killing thousands of civilians with every sort of military ordinance they could get their hands on. Comparing the two is laughable, so please, do not do it. They are two entirely separate regions.

 

I choose my words pretty carefully. Mortars, bombs, and .50 MGs are not poison gas. Saddam was prosecuting people often because of religion or suspicion of crimes. The people being killed in Libya/Egypt are normal (protesting) civilians and news reporters. One is a genocide, the other is mindless massacre.

 

 

 

All of those things are lies. Doing the opposite of what you promise makes it a lie, even if you right the wrong later. None of those that I listed were unfulfilled, or pending. Those were all things he promised but then after being elected went against. You can verify for yourself: www.politifact.com.

 

Ok, I did, and according to http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/ there is 134 promises kept, and 40 broken. So while you made a huge list of promises broken, I could go right ahead and make a FAR BIGGER list of promises kept?

[Jizzle Juice]

[Casper]

Also, you have to keep in mind, there wasn't a revolution going on in Iraq, and they weren't killing thousands of civilians with every sort of military ordinance they could get their hands on. Comparing the two is laughable, so please, do not do it. They are two entirely separate regions.

I choose my words pretty carefully. Mortars, bombs, and .50 MGs are not poison gas. Saddam was prosecuting people often because of religion or suspicion of crimes. The people being killed in Libya/Egypt are normal (protesting) civilians and news reporters. One is a genocide, the other is mindless massacre.

I think you mean ordnance then, not ordinance. Ordinance = "an authoritative decree or direction". Guess you didn't choose your words carefully enough. Military ordinances were used to gas civilians.

 

But I digress, using your reasoning, we had no reason to go after Hitler? LOL

 

Ok, I did, and according to http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/ there is 134 promises kept, and 40 broken. So while you made a huge list of promises broken, I could go right ahead and make a FAR BIGGER list of promises kept?

Sol740 brought up lies. I countered.

[SpaceGhost]

The funny part is that a democrat from Ohio is calling for Obama to be impeached. Obama had no authority to order the missle strike. The president can't do that without congress, because Libya poses no DIRECT threat to America.

[mrs.cos]

The funny part is that a democrat from Ohio is calling for Obama to be impeached. Obama had no authority to order the missle strike. The president can't do that without congress, because Libya poses no DIRECT threat to America.

 

For serious?

 

link?

[SpaceGhost]

For serious, was listening about it on the radio today.

 

Dennis Kucinich

[Mallard]

Beyond the obvious difference that Obama has not authorized the use of U.S. ground forces in Libya, there are other differences to consider:

 

First, the Obama administration was handed a gift by the Arab League, which in its more than six-decade history has garnered a well-earned reputation as a feckless talking shop, but unusually took a stand one week ago by endorsing a no-fly zone over Libya. The unexpected action by the Arab League gave the administration the impetus and diplomatic cover to then go to the United Nations Security Council to secure a broad resolution endorsing not only a no-fly zone, but also allowing member states to "take all necessary measures" to protect civilians in Libya.

 

The unexpected action by the Arab League gave the administration the impetus and diplomatic cover to then go to the United Nations Security Council to secure a broad resolution endorsing not only a no-fly zone, but also allowing member states to "take all necessary measures" to protect civilians in Libya.

 

This U.N. resolution is reminiscent of the one that President George H.W. Bush secured in November 1990, which gave Iraq six weeks to withdraw from Kuwait following Hussein's invasion of that country. The U.N. resolution in 1990 similarly empowered states to use "all necessary means" to force Iraq out of Kuwait if Hussein ignored the deadline.

 

The similarities do not end there. The coalition that massed to drive Hussein out of Kuwait involved significant forces from major Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. So too the Libyan no-fly zone will be enforced by Qatar, along with western powers such as France and the U.K.

 

This is all quite in contrast to George W. Bush's ineffectual attempts to gather international support for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. There was no U.N. resolution explicitly authorizing the use of military force against Hussein, and no Muslim countries participated in the American invasion and occupation of Iraq.

 

Indeed, before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Turkish parliament voted against allowing American troops passage across Turkey to invade northern Iraq, which put a wrench in U.S. military planning.

 

Underlining the fact that the Iraq War was widely viewed as illegitimate by Muslim countries, the same year that Turkey voted against allowing American soldiers to use its soil to attack Iraq, Turkish soldiers were also leading the International Security Assistance Force helping to keep the peace in post-Taliban Afghanistan, a military operation that was also authorized by the United Nations and was not seen as illegitimate by much of the Muslim world.

 

The Bush administration's largely unilateral decision to go to war in Iraq (the U.K. and a few other nations provided troops) undermined America's standing in Islamic countries. A poll taken a few months after the 2003 invasion found that Indonesians, Jordanians, Turks, and Moroccans all expressed more "confidence" that Osama bin Laden would "do the right thing" than that Bush would.

 

According to a poll four years later, America's favorability rating stood at 9% in Turkey (down from 52% before September 11, 2001) and 29% in Indonesia (down from 75% before September 11).

 

Finally, another key difference between the Iraq war and the Libyan operation is that the casus belli for Iraq was based on highly classified intelligence accessible to few people -- later proved to be wrong -- that Saddam Hussein continued to maintain a weapons of mass destruction program. By contrast, the Libyan intervention was caused by the real time evidence provided by the world's leading media organizations -- including, of course, Al Jazeera -- that Gadhafi is massacring his own people.

 

The high level of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world that was generated by the Iraq War is unlikely to be replicated by U.S. military action against Libya, because Gadhafi is widely reviled in the Arab world. His antics on the world stage have earned him the enmity of even his fellow autocrats -- who will not be welcoming him if he chooses to "retire" to Saudi Arabia as other murderous dictators of his ilk have in the past (think Idi Amin).

 

And the fact that both the Arab League and the United Nations have endorsed a military action against Gadhafi strongly suggests that the Libyan intervention will not generate a renewed wave of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world.

 

Instead, it underlines a striking feature of the protests that have roiled the Middle East in the past several weeks: Strikingly absent from those protests has been the ritualized burning of American flags, something that hitherto was largely pro forma in that part of the world. That's because Arabs have finally been able to express publicly that their biggest enemy is not the United States, but their own rulers.

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/03/20/bergen.libya.us/index.html

 

It's yes, it's an editorial, but it's one I happen to agree with and supported by facts.

[sol740]

Sol740 brought up lies. I countered.

 

In all fairness my post was specifically in reply to the picture's "joke". It wasn't just that Bush lied per se(all politicians lie about one thing or another), but what was lied about. The picture insinuates (rather tenuously) that the two situations are interchangeable, and that simply isn't so. Kucinich and company have a much better argument, that Obama may have acted out of order. However past presidents, Republican and Democrat have ordered some degree of military action without Congressional approval before, so this is hardly a first. With no "feet on the ground", and no plans for such, and no plans for anything other than limited campaign, I hardly consider this an outright Declaration of War. This all just reeks of political hyperbole.

[Alex L.]

Hello Vietnam 3.

[Casper]

For serious?

 

link?

 

Lots of them. Watch the news, read any news site, etc. Obama is obviously scared of the "i" word; he handed over all control to congress just a little bit ago.

[Das Borgen]

I support our involvement in Libya just as much as I supported the invasion of Iraq when it began......I do have some reservations but if it necessary and the result proves to be good, so be it

I'm still not convinced the outcome of Iraq was good for us as a country, considering it was certainly a pyrrhic victory....I hope Libya doesn't beget the same feeling from me.....our treasury can't take another hit like that.

 

Nighthawk does have a great point though....at least Bush had the approval of Congress before invading/attacking Iraq

[Guest Spam]

So could someone politely explain how this crisis in Libya came to be? Im really not understanding who we are fighting for, and how itll prove to help us in anyway. I would appreciate it.

[AngryBMW]

I love Stillman.

-Marc

[Das Borgen]

I love Stillman.

-Marc

he gets better after 2 beers

[351mach11647545510]

I support our involvement in Libya just as much as I supported the invasion of Iraq when it began......I do have some reservations but if it necessary and the result proves to be good, so be it

I'm still not convinced the outcome of Iraq was good for us as a country, considering it was certainly a pyrrhic victory....I hope Libya doesn't beget the same feeling from me.....our treasury can't take another hit like that.

 

Nighthawk does have a great point though....at least Bush had the approval of Congress before invading/attacking Iraq

I agree on both iraq/libya, but I diasagree with us actually going into libya for the sheer fact of, we need to get back to worrying about people and our own issues at home. That is unless it poses a direct threat to the U.S. or possibly an ally

[351mach11647545510]

oh, and i laughed.