There is no particular reason why we've chosen Libya over the many other countries currently going apeshiat in that part of the world. As far as I know, we don't even really have a clear goal there.

Why are we there? Is it to destroy Ghadafi? If so then we should get on with it. If not, we should leave. It's a clear choice. But our governments (both Dem and GOP) have an excellent history of making stupid decisions like this.

Frankly I think this one is a distraction. Common tactic to take people's attention away from problems at home.

Obama had no choice in the matter, despite lying teabagger claims to the contrary.

That was a really forced headline subby. Don't try so hard. Everyone gets "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

Ral: There is no particular reason why we've chosen Libya over the many other countries currently going apeshiat in that part of the world.

I don't know of any other country that used the airforce to bomb protesters. Just Libya.

wingnutx: Obama had no choice in the matter, despite lying teabagger claims to the contrary.

HAHahahahahahaha. The President of the United States is under the control of the UN. He has no choice but to comply. AHHQAHAHAHAHahahahahahahaaaa.... Ahhhhhh.

Thanks. I needed that.

Ral: There is no particular reason why we've chosen Libya over the many other countries currently going apeshiat in that part of the world

Other than the reasoning that Libya was specifically using their air force to kill civilians, you're absolutely right.

Why are we there

To make the air force inoperable and let the rebels do their thing.

Ral: There is no particular reason why we've chosen Libya over the many other countries currently going apeshiat in that part of the world. As far as I know, we don't even really have a clear goal there.

Why are we there? Is it to destroy Ghadafi? If so then we should get on with it. If not, we should leave. It's a clear choice. But our governments (both Dem and GOP) have an excellent history of making stupid decisions like this.

Frankly I think this one is a distraction. Common tactic to take people's attention away from problems at home.

The reason is because its Ghadafi, who is a lunatic, and much like Saddam and the Iraqis, we need to put him in his place, which is hopefully in the ground.

"but I don't think that this kind of internationally authorized intervention where we are one of a number of countries participating to enforce a humanitarian mission is the kind of unilateral action that either I or President Obama was speaking of several years ago."

"I think that this had a limited timeframe, a very clearly defined mission which we are in the process of fulfilling," Clinton said.

Unlike the proposed military strike on Iran's illegal nuclear facilities... which had a very clear and defined mission of physically destroying their nuclear capabilities...

I see her point. It's full of derp, but I see it.

personally I think Hillary has bigger balls to stand up for herself and her platform, provided Obama was ever even sincere in his election time promises

Sock Ruh Tease: Ral: There is no particular reason why we've chosen Libya over the many other countries currently going apeshiat in that part of the world

Other than the reasoning that Libya was specifically using their air force to kill civilians, you're absolutely right.

Why are we there

To make the air force inoperable and let the rebels do their thing.

So we are taking sides in this civil war? That's reassuring.

YoMammaObama: HAHahahahahahaha. The President of the United States is under the control of the UN. He has no choice but to comply. AHHQAHAHAHAHahahahahahahaaaa.... Ahhhhhh.

Thanks. I needed that.

Possible complaints from the GOP:
If Obama followed the UN resolution: Why are we in Libya? This has nothing to do with us, and we're already in two wars!

If Obama did not follow the UN resolution: Why is the United States sitting back and letting helpless people get killed while the French lead the attack?

Sock Ruh Tease: Ral: There is no particular reason why we've chosen Libya over the many other countries currently going apeshiat in that part of the world

Other than the reasoning that Libya was specifically using their air force to kill civilians, you're absolutely right.

I just figured that was because Libya is the only country currently experiencing an uprising that has any appreciable-size air force.

Interestingly, of all the videos I have seen showing governments opening fire and killing their protesters in the past few months, Pakistan seems to be the one using non-lethal force (hoses and tear gas).

When did Obama send the secretary of state to the UN to spread lies about Ghadafi trying to acquire uranium?

Is this another stupid thread where morans compare the unilateral invasion of a country with some token paid "allies" vs a UN peacekeeping operation?

Obama had no choice because vital national and humanitarian interests are at stake, as well as the credibility of the United Nations.

Of course the teabaggers who normally love to bomb brown people are suddenly calling for restraint as soon as a black man becomes Commander In Chief.

Ral: There is no particular reason why we've chosen Libya over the many other countries currently going apeshiat in that part of the world. As far as I know, we don't even really have a clear goal there.

Why are we there? Is it to destroy Ghadafi? If so then we should get on with it. If not, we should leave. It's a clear choice. But our governments (both Dem and GOP) have an excellent history of making stupid decisions like this.

Frankly I think this one is a distraction. Common tactic to take people's attention away from problems at home.

I'm putting it down to media frenzy. The story of the year at that point was 'the Arab Spring'. When one of the revolts, which were generally viewed favorably in the press, started to go awry, the call to do something!!! grew too loud to ignore, and we charged in without a plan. Meanwhile, what's happening in the Congo or Ivory Coast hasn't gotten nearly the same press attention, they're not part of the same neat little narrative, therefore they get no support.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: So we are taking sides in this civil war? That's reassuring.

We actually do that quite often, and again, its Ghadafi, whom we have a long history with.

lohphat: In the conservative mind, these scenarios are identical.

Of course they aren't. We know Bush went to congress and got congressional approval for his actions. Obama did not.

Obama couldn't be bothered to go to congress. He also did not take the lead in anything. He acted because france and the UK were going, with or without the US. At least Obama was smart enough not to stand on the sidelines and watch, I'll give him that. Guy knows how to keep his own ass out of the fire. Obama is just a big hypocrite who didn't go to congress for approval. And everyone knows it.

lohphat 2011-03-28 01:32:43 PM

Bush invades Iraq on trumped up lies of 9-11 involvement and WMD. The UN sees through the façade and mostly withdraw support -- except fir a lapdog Blair who pays fir it with his political career.

Obama goes to the UN when Quahdaffi opens fire on his own people protesting for freedom, gains consensus and backing and shuts down the Libyan air force in days and is in the process of handing the operation over to NATO.

In the conservative mind, these scenarios are identical.

They are identical. Neither were any of the US' business, and neither were about "protecting civilians." If Obama was worried about "protecting civilians" why havent we helped the North Koreans? Egyptians? Iranians? Syrians? Yemenies? Sudanese?

In the mind of an idiot, this is really about protecting civilians. Not that i really care about the true nature, just pointing out much of a tard you are. And just to make a point abotu "protecting civilians," Saddam killed more civilians than Khadafi could ever have and Bush save more lives in teh long run than had the US did nothing.(Again, not that i rally care, just a point)

As somone opposed to both the Bush wars of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Obama war of Libya, I'll just sit back and watch the political football match.

Sock Ruh Tease: Possible complaints from the GOP:

Why not list some real ones?

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: As somone opposed to both the Bush wars of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Obama war of Libya, I'll just sit back and watch the political football match.

Why? Are you suddenly incapable of voicing your opinion and pointing out hypocrisy? Can't say I ever saw you ease off before... why now?

keylock71: So what are all the dipshiats in the GOP biatching about?

Obama's the best Republican president we've had in decades...

Agreed.

Then again only difference between Republicans and Democrats these days are the lies they tell to get into office, and whose knobs they have to shine once they get there.

This better end with Moammar in the ground 'cause he is gonna be PISSED at everyone if he survives.

//I mean pissed!

The rebels won't be able to take Tripoli alone, and NATO won't be able to help with air support.

So unless Obama wants to set himself up for "look what a pussy he is, Gaddaffi's still in control of Tripoli", ground troops are getting sent in.

This is a guess, of course.

YoMammaObama: Sock Ruh Tease: Possible complaints from the GOP:

Why not list some real ones?

Sure.

omg liberal and libya both start with lib, ba-roke husane fartbongo must be up to somethign

While I am not thrilled about the current situation, there is a major FARKing difference between a full scale ground assault and relatively limited air assaults.

How about we start comparing the two if we are still militarily occupying Libya in large scale in say, 6 years from now.

Of course there are other slight differences as well....like this being based from the outset on the concept of protecting innocent civilians within their Country from being slaughtered by an evil dictator, rather than being sold as Libya/Gaddafi having the potential for creating a "smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud on US soil" in the near future....among other things.

keylock71: "Obama's the best Republican president we've had in decades..."

You're assuming two things there.
1. That the Republican party of 2011 would approve of, say, Nixon's or Eisenhower's platform today. Their rhetoric certainly suggests they would not.

2. That they actually -believe- their own rhetoric. Evidence suggests they don't. They just automatically disagreeing with anyone who stands in their way, and sex up that disagreement as much as necessary to boost their tabloid circulation.

Who the fark cares what conservatives and tea baggers think? Those bigoted, xenophobic, obstructionist, racist, power hungry asshats don't deserve anyone's consideration at this point. Some foolish and gullible idiots voted a few of them into office and what did they do? They started trying to undermine women's rights, tried to defund our least biased news agency, are trying to push their religious views on everyone, and have willfully tried to undermine the President through lies, bullshiat, and willful ignorance.

Fark them... the lot of them.

BravadoGT: The main difference is that, in Iraq, we (thought we) were fighting for our oil interests, and in Libya, we're fighting for European oil interests.

Please, if oil was all anyone cared about, we would've been supporting the dictator who kept the oil flowing.

The Europeans had hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts with Gadhafi's government for various projects. Contracts that cease to exist if his government does. Arguing that Europe and the US were just following the money is a non-starter.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: So we are taking sides in this civil war? That's reassuring.

Remember when the French sided with the colonists in the American Revolution? Getting involved with another country's "rebels" isn't always a bad thing.

isn't this still about oil?

3 G's: While I am not thrilled about the current situation, there is a major FARKing difference between a full scale ground assault and relatively limited air assaults.

How about we start comparing the two if we are still militarily occupying Libya in large scale in say, 6 years from now.

Of course there are other slight differences as well....like this being based from the outset on the concept of protecting innocent civilians within their Country from being slaughtered by an evil dictator, rather than being sold as Libya/Gaddafi having the potential for creating a "smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud on US soil" in the near future....among other things.

Those are differences in degree. The primary similarity is a similarity in kind: US Presidents who order the US military to use force and intervene in a sovereign foreign conflict based on reasons other than national defense

Sure, you could say, "Well, Libya is in Africa, Iraq is in the Middle East, they're not exactly the same!" but that's not the point.

It is also worth noting that this current excursion clearly cannot be a "war", since the GOP made it clear from 2001-2008 that Citizens cannot EVER criticize the Commander in Chief during a time of war, or they are essentially committing treason.

Since many GOPers are currently openly criticizing the Commander in Chief, either this clearly is not a "war", or they are intentionally and knowingly committing "treason", according to their own professed standards.

Given that the new bush is a lot thicker and fulla curls,
The nuclear option will be used.
Then everybody gets a curly bush.

ProTip:
Radiation and Chemo make straight hair curly.

I_C_Weener: YoMammaObama: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: As somone opposed to both the Bush wars of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Obama war of Libya, I'll just sit back and watch the political football match.

Why? Are you suddenly incapable of voicing your opinion and pointing out hypocrisy? Can't say I ever saw you ease off before... why now?

Because its not racist to hate Bush's wars.

I disagree. Many people hated the Bush wars because they felt it was just Whitey killing the Brown People. It does not get more racist than that.

Of course now that it is Obama that "killing brown people" meme does seem a biatchallenged. I'm sure someone will explain why it's all Bush's fault. Maybe it's Clinton and Gates fault. It's still Whitey McGeneral's fault. Not The Obama's fault. Never The Obama's Fault. He's only the president of the United states... He CANT say no to the UN!!! And of course he doesn't need to go to congress because I SAID SO THAT'S WHY!

Unlike Iraq, Libya is based on an obvious humanitarian need instead of a temper tantrum disguised as a national security threat.

Additionally, I haven't heard about any American soldiers who have died or any pallets of cash that have gone missing.