• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Your Republican Guide to Criticizing Obama on Libya

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
JohnOfSheffield said:
You know, i hate that fucked up retarded style of pretending that this is a war that was started by someone else than Khadaffi and that it is the same as the war in Iraq.

NO nation wanted this war, not ONE sought it out but the situation escalated and something had to be done.

EVERYONE knows that this is under a UN mandate, that no one wanted it and that's why it took so long, the AU had to request it and the US were reluctant even after that.

But hey, let's pretend reality isn't real and Obama just went up and invaded a nation based on known lies, just like Bush because that way he's just as bad... derp derp...
Click to expand...

How do you like being under UN command? Got any pics of you with the blue helmet?
 
Lemon law said:
Yep, its really strange, when many republican law makers, especially John McCain called for unilateral intervention in Libya, and in instead Obama choose instead to follow the lead of the Arab League, the GOP republirtats choose instead to blame only Omama.

A classic case of Obama, dammed if you do and dammed if you don't. As the republirats have the luxury of taking no position.
Click to expand...

You have isolationist Republicans. Republicans in general were historically isolationist and opposed both WW1 and WW2 until neocons came and political traction was realized and money made by bombing and scaring people.

Today the isolationists only have a small clique in libertarian wing in republican party but they are still there and rank and file is still there.

Most are just playing political games though. If McCain were there tone would be different.
 
Last edited:
werepossum said:
Two points. First, Iraq was a war started by Saddam Hussein, when he invaded Kuwait. That war was never ended, but rather a ceasefire was declared with certain conditions that Hussein unarguably violated repeatedly.

Second, it is not true that "something had to be done." This is no worse than a half-dozen other uprisings concurrent within the Muslim world, for which nothing is being done, and it pales next to Darfur. Clearly this situation is viewed as having unacceptable consequences for Europe, which is why "something had to be done."

I can support Obama's decision to go to war on the grounds of supporting our allies and doing what they cannot. As Nebor said, the EU does not have the C&C for an operation of this size. The EU also does not have the stealth or the stand-off precision strike capabilities of the US, although I fail to see why the EU cannot be handling all the strike and CAP missions at this point. But please, let's not romanticize this and pretend that it's something it's not.
Click to expand...

Weak sauce, You can make an even stronger argument since Kaddaffi actually targeted and killed Americans over the years and Saddam didn't. Obama is just finishing what Reagan didnt.
 
Red Dawn said:
Muslims being killed, you'd think the Republicans would be happy.
Click to expand...

One of Republicans main attack line on O, besides being an African illegal homo commie, is he's weak on defense of USA. It's no accident bolstering Afghanistan was opposed, Libya is opposed, etc. as it shoot holes in that line of attack.
 
Genx87 said:
That is cute. Now back to reality. Lefties supporting attacking a country we have nothing to do with because their guy is doing it.
Click to expand...

You know absolutely nothing about Libya and Gonedaffy, do you? He has been a prime state sponsor of terrorism for terrorism's sake for years. Look up the Pan Am bombing over Locherbie, Scotland (sp?) or the bombing of the disco in Germany that killed a half dozen people (including 2 American servicemen) and injuring 230 people, including 50 US servicemen. Plus his decades long nuclear ambitions, which he apparently gave up a few years ago (GWB buddied up to him then). The guy has been far, far worse than Saddam Hussan ever pretended to be, especially in regards to his direct attacks upon the US.

I wont shed any tears over him when he is gone, and to say it is not in our best interests to get rid of him is just political gamesmanship exercised by the Obama-did-it-so-it-must-be-wrong crowd.
 
Fear No Evil said:
How do you like being under UN command? Got any pics of you with the blue helmet?
Click to expand...

In additional to the usual far-right anti-UN hysteria, this rant also has the distinction of being dead wrong. There are no blue helmets in Libya-those are for peace keeping forces. Secondly, US troops operating in the Libya missions are serving ONLY under US commanders. The UN involvement is limited to setting the terms for the allied side of the engagement-and if our country doesn't like those terms we don't have to participate.
 
zinfamous said:
I seem to recall that Saint Reagan was the first US President to bomb Qaddafi's house.

Was Libya important to us then? If it was, why is it no longer the case?

:hmm:
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges. Libya was supporting organizations that killed Americans abroad and were firing on American planes in international waters. We hit them one night to send a msg. I think for the most part it worked. We didnt hear much from him and Libya after that exchange.

This is an internal struggle that doesnt involve any United States citizens outside the country.
 
Thump553 said:
You know absolutely nothing about Libya and Gonedaffy, do you? He has been a prime state sponsor of terrorism for terrorism's sake for years. Look up the Pan Am bombing over Locherbie, Scotland (sp?) or the bombing of the disco in Germany that killed a half dozen people (including 2 American servicemen) and injuring 230 people, including 50 US servicemen. Plus his decades long nuclear ambitions, which he apparently gave up a few years ago (GWB buddied up to him then). The guy has been far, far worse than Saddam Hussan ever pretended to be, especially in regards to his direct attacks upon the US.

I wont shed any tears over him when he is gone, and to say it is not in our best interests to get rid of him is just political gamesmanship exercised by the Obama-did-it-so-it-must-be-wrong crowd.
Click to expand...

That happened 25 years ago. For him to be as bad as Saddam he needs to kill far more of his own people. And I am confused by you mentioning nuclear ambitions. Is that grounds for regime change? I am curious. Because Saddam had nuclear ambitions and so does Iran. Yet I am assuming you wouldnt support regime change in Iran at the end of a US gun and didnt support Saddam being ousted.

I wont shed a tear if he left this earth either. But I am against us wasting resources and putting our military in danger because of an internal struggle.
 
Candidate Obama: Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. The world, and the Iraqi people would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
Click to expand...

Sounds pretty identical to what is going on today... why the change of heart?
 
Red Dawn said:
Muslims being killed, you'd think the Republicans would be happy.
Click to expand...

And you'd think Democrats would be upset.

Americans voted for change, ironically, this is how it turned out. Democrats are mimicking Republicans under Bush, it's quite bizarre to those who are on the outside looking in.
 
BoberFett said:
Funny. A Democrat president is bombing yet another country that has done nothing to us, and his sphincter suckling sycophants still can't think about anything other than Republicans.

Bravo.
Click to expand...

Just wanted to say I love your signature, but your post is moronic. Obama was/is in a lose/lose situation no matter what he does on any issue.
 
Fear No Evil said:
How do you like being under UN command? Got any pics of you with the blue helmet?
Click to expand...

Blue helmets are for Peacekeeping missions only, the no-fly zone is sanctioned by the UN, but is not a UN mission.

the no-fly zone is not about removing Gaddafi, it's about protecting the civilian population. (and if anybody brings up oil then it is a testament to their own stupidity)
 
PeshakJang said:
Sounds pretty identical to what is going on today... why the change of heart?
Click to expand...

Funny thing is, your Obama quote actually proves you wrong. Saddam's people weren't in the process of rising up to overthrow him. When we went into Iraq we did it without international support, without the mass support of Iraqis, we committed ground troops, and we had no exit strategy. All of those things are different with Libya. In fact we're not even trying to remove Ghadaffi, we're simply supporting his people that are trying to overthrow him by evening the playing field. If we start committing ground troops, then you can use that quote again.
 
thraashman said:
Funny thing is, your Obama quote actually proves you wrong. Saddam's people weren't in the process of rising up to overthrow him. When we went into Iraq we did it without international support, without the mass support of Iraqis, we committed ground troops, and we had no exit strategy. All of those things are different with Libya. In fact we're not even trying to remove Ghadaffi, we're simply supporting his people that are trying to overthrow him by evening the playing field. If we start committing ground troops, then you can use that quote again.
Click to expand...

That tends to happen when Saddam killed enough of them. We had as much international support as we do in this adventure.

If we arent trying to remove him. Why did we bomb his bunker? And why is Eric Holder spouting off about regime change?

How long do you think it will be until we commit ground troops? And why is it out job to level the playing field? Why is a liberal social theory being applied to war?
 
thraashman said:
Funny thing is, your Obama quote actually proves you wrong. Saddam's people weren't in the process of rising up to overthrow him. When we went into Iraq we did it without international support, without the mass support of Iraqis, we committed ground troops, and we had no exit strategy. All of those things are different with Libya. In fact we're not even trying to remove Ghadaffi, we're simply supporting his people that are trying to overthrow him by evening the playing field. If we start committing ground troops, then you can use that quote again.
Click to expand...
As has already been demonstrated, Bush had twice the number of nations for Iraq as Obama has for Libya. Unless like some progressives have you want to argue that Obama's nations are inherently superior, I'd drop that argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top