If you criticized the Iraq war...

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by rbell, Mar 22, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    ...then you MUST criticize the Libya intervention.

    Two thoughts:

    1. Crabby? Where are you? Where's that intellectual honesty?
    2. Have you ever seen a President who was willing to commit us to a war, and go on vacation in the same day? What a piece of work...
     
  2. North Carolina Tentmaker

    North Carolina Tentmaker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,355
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is really unbelievable. Where is our exit strategy? What are our goals? It looked like Qaddafi had his insurrection about crushed and now we have brought them back to life. What is our goal, to draw the conflict out as long as possible? If we want Qaddafi out then why not target him and get it over with? Is killing a few thousand of his followers somehow more humane than just killing him? If the rebel force gets close to winning will we switch sides and bomb them? Keep them fighting till they kill thousands more? I don’t understand.
     
  3. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0

    He most certainly could not cancel the trip because it was his daughters spring break.
     
  4. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    I believe the goal as I have said (here) is to save the petrodollar from extinction.

    Oh yeah, and I was a critic of the Iraq debacle long before it became fashionable. As it turns out Iraq and Libya aren't different "wars" they are just different theaters of the same long running ongoing crusade to save the petrodollar from becoming extinct. Does that make it any easier to understand North Carolina Tentmaker?
     
    #4 poncho, Mar 22, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 22, 2011
  5. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,429
    Likes Received:
    72
    Not necessarily. I was not a fan of the Iraq War because I thought it was unwise to get involved in a ground war when we had Afghanistan still going on.

    With Libya, I think the president made the opposite mistake--waiting too long. We could have intervened earlier, and Gadhafi would already be gone.
     
  6. North Carolina Tentmaker

    North Carolina Tentmaker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,355
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess that makes sense, scary though. But if we are in a war for oil then why are we not pumping our own?
     
  7. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    As soon as President Obama puts troops on the ground in harms way I will oppose this action as well. I don't like action do far, but it is not yet the same as sending in combat troops.
     
  8. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,927
    Likes Received:
    296
    It is exactly the same to our people who are risking their lives and to the Libyans they are killing.
     
  9. Ed B

    Ed B
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2010
    Messages:
    302
    Likes Received:
    0
    Look, its clearly time for this Islamo-Fascist dictator to go. We need a new Islamo-Fascist dictator in Libya. This guy's act grew tiresome decades ago.

    Meanwhile, in Rwanda.....
     
  10. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,129
    Likes Received:
    221
    Well, there is one slight difference, those who are being killed - are not able to see the face of the individual dropping the bomb.

    Reminds me of an episode of M*A*S*H. An air force pilot is mended at MASH - and learns the cruelty of war - on the ground

    (if someone knows the exact episode, please post)

    Sarge Salty
     
  11. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,927
    Likes Received:
    296
    Well, I just don't believe we can excuse the illegal killing of foreign nationals in their own homeland just because we don't put boots on the ground.

    If we do, then we might as well just nuke 'em and go on about our business.

    And I don't use the term "illegal" lightly. With Libya representing no danger to the security of this country and no Americans to protect, we shouldn't be there without congressional approval. We don't even know who we're fighting for. But we chose up sides and started killing anyhow.

    The president must believe he is above the law. He should be impeached.
     
  12. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    When the left uses this kind of anti-war talk they are accused of not supporting the troops.

    I am glad to see that folks realise that speaking against the war does not mean a lack of support for the military, but is an attack on bad policy.
     
  13. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,644
    Likes Received:
    158
    Yes, I have been criticizing the war. It is an ill founded adventure and again the folk in our gov. seem to have a limited understanding of the mid-east, how they view us from past history, and how this will influence their view of us in the future. I hope I am very wrong on the future part of this sentence.

    I have not posted on the BB on this topic until now.


    I do feel that so many presidents have violated the Constitution in taking us to war that it has become, sadly, meaningless.

    I have wondered why he agreed to help the British and French. I can think of two reasons, neither of which may have played a part.

    1. They called in some chips, especially the British, for helping in Iraq.
    2. To build up good will that he or a future president can call in sometime during the future.

    I do not see these as compelling reasons.

    C4K said:
    Amen!
     
    #13 Crabtownboy, Mar 23, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 23, 2011
  14. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,258
    Likes Received:
    4
    Obama made his choice, without congressional approval.

    Bush had congressional approval.

    Obama acted because of the criticism he was recieving,

    Bush acted his despite it.

    That's how I see it.
     
  15. Paul3144

    Paul3144
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,378
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, opposition to the Iraq war does not mean you must criticize the Libya intervention. However, I'm going to do so anyway. President Obama, by acting without congressional approval, has violated the Constitution and has led us into what may become another quagmire.
     
  16. Chessic

    Chessic
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    426
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not in favor of the expense in lives, money, or national morale that military conflict involves, accept as a last resort against a direct attack against us. I also reject the notion that conflict between armies is somehow more moral than assassination. Both are murder, and murdering 10 leaders responsible for a decision is always more moral that killing 5,000 troops that are forced to obey orders.

    If a situation arises where action is required, I am in favor of covert operations as a first response, whether it be political assassinations, spy infiltration, paramilitary operations, or stealthed missile or similar attacks.

    I am in favor of devoting much more of our efforts to border security and much less to policing the world. There are great financial and political considerations for such a move, such as leaving allies we have previously protected to build their own defenses, and they should be addressed now.

    How many Muslim nations will we attack? What are we up to now? 4 that we know of? Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, not counting the weapons we have supplied to Israel. Did I forget any?

    It's disgusting for a president to go on vacation or play golf with 4 wars/conflicts happening at the same time, a nation budget deadlock, the largest national disaster in their history affecting one of our closest allies (and a nuclear disaster a possibility, with unknown implications for our western states). Mr. Obama is now challenging Jimmy Carter for running the most passive administration of the modern era.

    Imo it is illogical and usually an attempt to vent or stir up anger to claim that these conflicts are all because of oil. These conflicts have harmed the flow of oil, not secured it. They have damaged our economy both in the costs of the conflicts and in the slowing of the economic growth and recovery that escalating energy prices cause. In other words, fighting for oil is counter-productive.

    Lastly, while I have no proof, it is my firm assertion that these regimes we are forcefully changing in several Islamic countries will sooner or later be replaced with regimes every bit as anti-American as those replaced, and with more money, better infrastructure, and more capable militaries than previously.
     
  17. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,927
    Likes Received:
    296
    The difference between the two is a good example of a leader with character and respect for the law and a wannabe without either.
     
  18. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I agree with the general consensus. The problem with the president is not his birth cert or supposed Muslim ties or picking his NCAA bracket or any of that nonsense. The problem is that he is not a leader. He has no experience in executive leadership. That was always going to come out eventually. The situation in Libya is a prime example.

    First he did nothing. Then he acted arbitrarily by ordering bombings. Now he wants to turn it over to NATO.

    This lack of leadership ability has been my problem with President Obama since the campaign.

    If this had been the focus during the campaign instead of whether or not he would take the oath on the Koran he might not be president today.

    Of course, was the alternative a whole lot better?
     
    #18 NaasPreacher (C4K), Mar 23, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 23, 2011
  19. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,258
    Likes Received:
    4
    Nice swipe, but there was a lot of talk about the comparison of executive experience between him and the Palin. There was also a lot of talk about his philosophy. Certainly, as moderator, you remember me being called a racist for bringing this up. We exposed his racist writings, we exposed who his mentors were, and yes, we brought up how he likes to hide his past.

    The main stream media did not vett this guy, they covered for him. I really don't think you can blame the birthers for this mess.
     
  20. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Because we aren't in a war for oil. We're in a war to maintain the global oil trade in dollars.

    The dollar is all but washed up. The oil producing nations know this and they may wish to start trading their oil for other currencies besides the dying dollar. In November of 2000 Saddam Hussien announced his plan to do just that. Result? Regime change!

    Saddam was an example to the rest of the oil producing nations of what might happen should they also decide to accept other currencies or move away from the dying dollar altogether.

    Why is it so important that the globalists (think, "international community") maintain the global oil trade in dollars? Because they have the ability to create them out of nothing! Not only do they have the ability to create the dollar from nothing, they have a blessed monopoly on it's creation. Our congress blessed them with this monopoly in 1913 with the Federal Reserve Act.

    Is it getting any easier to understand?
     
    #20 poncho, Mar 23, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 23, 2011
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...