Your Republican Guide to Criticizing Obama on Libya

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
The ink barely dried on the Republican talking points about Obama driving the country into another quagmire. Now what horse shit will they scramble together that NATO is taking lead? The French are pussies? The English are imperialists? The UAE are Muslims?

The right-wing is weak. Impotence through incompetence. This is what the Afghanistan war should have a been...a 5 minute war with the whole world lending a hand. But as we know the Republicans weren't in it to win it. We will never get a real answer out of these Republicans why they had to lie the country into a choice war. I hope at least somebody got fucking rich!

lol... Republicans not getting the world to help us with Afghanistan isn't the reason it wasn't a 5 minute war. All the treaties and war conventions we have signed made it that way. Could have been over in a couple days if we would have taken our kid gloves off. You don't give the enemy an opportunity to make their own decisions. You kill them until they see shit your way. If they all die, oh well at least you have the land.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Thanks for making my point. Vietnam was another half-assed Republican started war to back up the French colonizers for corporate monies and JFK and LBJ tried to surge to end it finally. (and we kicked ass fwiw) Nixon cut and run. Like cowardly Reagan in Libya and Beirut.

I am just using you guys same logic on Kerry's view of Iraq for example. ():)

Update: U.S. military advisors arrived beginning in 1950 under Harry S. Truman *cough* a Democrat
 

sunzt

Diamond Member
Nov 27, 2003
3,076
3
81
lol... Republicans not getting the world to help us with Afghanistan isn't the reason it wasn't a 5 minute war. All the treaties and war conventions we have signed made it that way. Could have been over in a couple days if we would have taken our kid gloves off. You don't give the enemy an opportunity to make their own decisions. You kill them until they see shit your way. If they all die, oh well at least you have the land.

Stupid kids gloves... real men use nukes and napalm.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
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:

A better question would be: If it was the other "team" (or party) doing it, would you still hold the same opinion?
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Update: U.S. military advisors arrived beginning in 1950 under Harry S. Truman *cough* a Democrat

That was assisting a ongoing powers war that they lost, Ike was the one that took the action of putting advisors into and working with south vietnam directly after the french defeat and complete pullout of the war.

When you are helping with fallout of WW2 or another colonial power that is one matter, when you continue unilaterally for your own imperialist interest to paraphrase street lingo: "rollup on someone elses money" (French former colony), thats starting a war. The Truman/French advisors had left Vietnam with the French. Ike brought them back in to try his hand at imperialism with the s Vietnamese government as our puppet instead of the French, and failed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

GodisanAtheist

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2006
7,138
7,632
136
Have we gotten any confirmation on McCain calling for a ground war in Libya? That just reeks of something taken horribly out of context and my query looking for "McCain Ground War Libya" brings up a bunch of this:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., on Tuesday morning urged against using ground forces in Libya should the U.S. get involved in the escalating crisis there, calling it “counterproductive.”

so yeah...
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
Thanks for making my point. Vietnam was another half-assed Republican started war to back up the French colonizers for corporate monies and JFK and LBJ tried to surge to end it finally. (and we kicked ass fwiw) Nixon cut and run. Like cowardly Reagan in Libya and Beirut.

I am just using you guys same logic on Kerry's view of Iraq for example. ():)

There's absolutely no "logic" in there at all. :thumbsdown:
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
That was assisting a ongoing powers war that they lost, Ike was the one that took the action of putting advisors into and working with south vietnam directly after the french defeat and complete pullout of the war.

When you are helping with fallout of WW2 or another colonial power that is one matter, when you continue unilaterally for your own imperialist interest to paraphrase street lingo: "rollup on someone elses money" (French former colony), thats starting a war. The Truman/French advisors had left Vietnam with the French. Ike brought them back in to try his hand at imperialism with the s Vietnamese government as our puppet instead of the French, and failed.

Just stop it already. Ike had all of 900 people in there. You claimed it was a Republican war but under Republican leadership they added 900 troops and only in 1959 and 1960. Democrat leadership added 536,000 and had it for 10 years. You lost this one. MOVE ON!!
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,898
7,426
136
Repubs in Congress doing to Obama what they've been doing to him since he tossed his hat in the ring....nothing new.

Repubs in this forum doing to Obama what they've been doing to him since he tossed his hat in the ring....nothing new.

Based on the FACTS that I'm aware of, it seems Obama is looking out for the US's interests in this matter in good order.

He's handling it. He hasn't bungled it....yet. He hasn't mired us in another war...yet. He hasn't done a whole lot of things that got Bush ducking incoming wing-tip rounds nor has Obama had to justify his actions with incessant lies about WMD's, yellow cake, aluminum tubes and mobile bio/chem/nuke labs.

Not the same? Absolutely not the same.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
Iraq attacked the US? No.
Libya attacked the US? No.

Iraqi regime brutal to its people? Yes.
Libya regime brutal to its people? Yes.

Oil in Iraq? Yes.
Oil in Libya? Yes.

US killing brown Muslims in Iraq? Yes.
US killing brown Muslims in Libya? Yes.

Nah....not the same as Iraq at, nope, derp de derp...not the same!

Buwhahahahaah...bu bu buh the vaunted UN said it was ok to explode cripple maim incinerate and detonate brown Muslims this time, so it's OK!!!

Blood for Oil!!! Blood for Oil!!!

The left has totally disintegrated, it is so F'ing amusing to watch, it's almost as awesome as a fundi family who's daughter gets knocked up and then goes and gets the daughter an abortion, yet comes up with some F'ing idiotic reason on why in this case, it's justified...

Chuck
 
Last edited:

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Repubs in Congress doing to Obama what they've been doing to him since he tossed his hat in the ring....nothing new.

Repubs in this forum doing to Obama what they've been doing to him since he tossed his hat in the ring....nothing new.

Based on the FACTS that I'm aware of, it seems Obama is looking out for the US's interests in this matter in good order.

He's handling it. He hasn't bungled it....yet. He hasn't mired us in another war...yet. He hasn't done a whole lot of things that got Bush ducking incoming wing-tip rounds nor has Obama had to justify his actions with incessant lies about WMD's, yellow cake, aluminum tubes and mobile bio/chem/nuke labs.

Not the same? Absolutely not the same.

I want some of what you're drinking. That kool-aid must taste reaaaal nice.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,671
28,824
136
Iraq attacked the US? No.
Libya attacked the US? No.

Iraqi regime brutal to its people? Yes.
Libya regime brutal to its people? Yes.

Oil in Iraq? Yes.
Oil in Libya? Yes.

US killing brown Muslims in Iraq? Yes.
US killing brown Muslims in Libya? Yes.

Nah....not the same as Iraq at, nope, derp de derp...not the same!

Buwhahahahaah...bu bu buh the vaunted UN said it was ok to explode cripple maim incinerate and detonate brown Muslims this time, so it's OK!!!

Blood for Oil!!! Blood for Oil!!!

The left has totally disintegrated, it is so F'ing amuzing to watch, it's almost as awesome as a fundi family who's daughter gets knocked up and then goes and gets the daughter an abortion, yet comes up with some F'ing idiotic reason on why in this case, it's justified...

Chuck

Libya: We were told the truth as to the rational for our actions
Iraq: We were told the t..... ooops!!

Also your left-right argument when the US goes into war kinda falls apart if you bring in Kosovo
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
We're killing brown Muslims who never attacked the US!!!

EDIT: We're attacking a peaceful soverign country who never attacked any country to bring this conflict upon itself, this war on Muslims!!!

Blood for Oil!!! Blood for Oil!!!

Murderous, Traitorous, Liar-In-Chief!!:thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::mad::mad::thumbsdown::thumbsdown:

Blood for Oil!!! Blood for Oil!!!
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
It's like a symphony of rw stupid all wrapped up in one troll. Nice one!

I really think some don't get it and not really playing dumb for political points about the issue.
wow
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Meh, I'd just rather stay out of civil wars. Also, if we're going to continue to police the world we can at least try not to be hypocritical about it.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Both of which I believe are in the place called africa as I recall speaking of idiots.

Never said a majority of the parties don't support it, which also makes it that much more amusing.

By your logic, a Croatian would consider Luxembourg to be their homeland.
 

BladeVenom

Lifer
Jun 2, 2005
13,365
16
0
lol... Republicans not getting the world to help us with Afghanistan isn't the reason it wasn't a 5 minute war.

But the Bush administration did get international assistance from:
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Belgium
Canada
China
Congo
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Egypt
Estonia
France
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Jordan
Kuwait
Kyrhyzstan
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Malaysia
Montenegro
New Zealand
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Korea
Spain
Sudan
Sweden
Switzerland
Tajikistan
Thailand
Turkey
Turkmenistan
UAE
Ukraine
UK
Uzbekistan
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
One can question anything including the wisdom of this action, but the problem with powerful partisans doing so is that not only do they have no clothes, but what lies beneath is obscene in its ugliness. I'll judge this based on its merits, not on the the condemnation of hypocrites and liars.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
lol... Republicans not getting the world to help us with Afghanistan isn't the reason it wasn't a 5 minute war. All the treaties and war conventions we have signed made it that way. Could have been over in a couple days if we would have taken our kid gloves off. You don't give the enemy an opportunity to make their own decisions. You kill them until they see shit your way. If they all die, oh well at least you have the land.

It's not that simple. The USSR was never kind or gentle. Neither were any of the other invaders. The land defeated them, and it isn't impressed with us either.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
It's not that simple. The USSR was never kind or gentle. Neither were any of the other invaders. The land defeated them, and it isn't impressed with us either.
This is why Bush did not go in with a massive army, and why the US has (so far) succeeded where every other invading army has failed. Afghans are very tough, very warlike people ruled mostly in tribal hierarchies, and had we gone in militarily against the Taliban as against Saddam we'd have been fighting the entire country. And no doubt we'd have been run out by now, as the USA doesn't have the public fortitude and tolerance for casualties as does a totalitarian Communist regime. Afghans are quite willing to suspend their internal feuds to attack outsiders, and you can't simply bomb them back to the Stone Age because most of them are already there and the rest and quite willing to follow.

We're playing a very delicate game here, and even the most favorable outcome possible is not likely to be very pleasing to Western sensibilities.

EDIT: While I'm expounding, I think people tend to overestimate the value of ferocity and lack of restraint. Sherman's March is often held up as an example of how total war brings victory, but if you study his campaigns, he was a brilliant general. The secret of his success was not his brutality, but that he had the knack of locating multiple things that his opponent had to defend, and planning his operations so that each threatened two or more. Thus the South was forced to either split its forces to defend both, or to give up the benefit of prepared defenses until Sherman committed. Look even at the Mongols; although the terror they inspired was a major factor in their victories, much more major was establishing a mode of fighting that avoided the defense's strengths while leveraging the defense's weaknesses and carrying out their operations with extreme discipline. We do go to extreme measures to avoid civilian casualties, and that can be (and is being) exploited as a weakness, but the more savage force is by far not necessarily the more effective force.
 
Last edited: