Libya -

[nutzbuster 7]

lol Democrats and facts. And lol short memories. And lol picking out little details to argue while ignoring the thing as a whole.btw Turkey says NATO has taken this over now.uh huh.

[Balloon guy 158]

But was that even a question? Egypt is the only country to actually force the leader out and Obama didn't have anything to do with it.

???Didn't he clearly attend a party during whole event and then play some golf?That's multi-leveled leadership right there.

[Balloon guy 158]

lol Democrats and facts. And lol short memories. And lol picking out little details to argue while ignoring the thing as a whole.btw Turkey says NATO has taken this over now.uh huh.

Guess the ethnic cleansing can begin then

[AmScray 355]

Not as good as listening to him with the radio in your SUV which is idling so you don't wear down the battery while you listen to Rush in your drive way.

I don't have a SUV. I have a truck. White men who own SUVs are the heterosexual equivalent of Prius drivers.

[Roll the Bones 74]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/opinion/...icholasdkristofThis may be a first for the Arab world: An American airman who bailed out over Libya was rescued from his hiding place in a sheep pen by villagers who hugged him, served him juice and thanked him effusively for bombing their country. Even though some villagers were hit by American shrapnel, one gamely told an Associated Press reporter that he bore no grudges. Then, on Wednesday in Benghazi, the major city in eastern Libya whose streets would almost certainly be running with blood now if it weren’t for the American-led military intervention, residents held a “thank you rally.” They wanted to express gratitude to coalition forces for helping save their lives. Doubts are reverberating across America about the military intervention in Libya. Those questions are legitimate, and the uncertainties are huge. But let’s not forget that a humanitarian catastrophe has been averted for now and that this intervention looks much less like the 2003 invasion of Iraq than the successful 1991 gulf war to rescue Kuwait from Iraqi military occupation. This is also one of the few times in history when outside forces have intervened militarily to save the lives of citizens from their government. More commonly, we wring our hands for years as victims are massacred, and then, when it is too late, earnestly declare: “Never again.” In 2005, the United Nations approved a new doctrine called the “responsibility to protect,” nicknamed R2P, declaring that world powers have the right and obligation to intervene when a dictator devours his people. The Libyan intervention is putting teeth into that fledgling concept, and here’s one definition of progress: The world took three-and-a-half years to respond forcefully to the slaughter in Bosnia, and about three-and-a-half weeks to respond in Libya. continued at link...

[Roll the Bones 74]

So you are OK with Obama bombing the shit out of a country (killing many innocent people) to help the rebels because Khadaffi is killing civilians (anyone know how many?) but you're not OK with us going into Iraq, whom at the time we thought had WMD's and had/were killing 10's of thousands of their own people in sort of religious ethnic cleansing?Do I have this correct?

not even close

[Roll the Bones 74]

You're becoming a crazy wacked out old man right before our eyes.ProbablyWere you for getting rid of Hussein? Yes Because he is an exact duplicate of Khadiffi and you seem to be great with bombing him to shit. There are similaritiesI get the feeling that most of the republicans are just saying stuff like "OIL!" and "WAR!" to show how hypocritical dems are... but I could be wrong, because I don't usually read the posts of conservatives in the political forum.That would be pretty accurate.Also, did you just say that you were ok with bombing Libya for oil!?!? I'm going to have to remember that.No, I didn't say that.

[Roll the Bones 74]

You know there was this thing that happened that was kind of relevant to the decision to take on all terrorist states..what was it?...I'll google it later.Here's the basic reality of the thing: Bush didn't have to be right about Iraq, but he could not be wrong!If Bush chose to ignore the 98% of intelligent agency's telling him that Saddam had WMDs, and instead said let's just put sanctions on him ( Like Clinton did ) Then twice as many people would have dies. So Bush, being a compassionate conservative, chose to have less people die and invade.Bush said so many times himself, he could not allow even a 5% chance that someone was going to bring a nuke or WMD into this country. The truth is the dems agree, which is why they not only voted for the Patriot Act every time ( even though they ran against it during elections ) Obama reinstated it when he had a complete democrat majority in both houses, and they passed it.They are changing because of war actually. The war in Iraq and Bush's long term plan of changing the make up of the region from a bunch of petty dictators to a bunch of poorly run democracies with tons of oil money. Pretty sure that isn't true anymore...And the Libyan national democratic union with plans for health care and environmental concerns is sitting in the hallways, ready to jump forward and lead the country into peace....The SINGLE greatest overlooked factor here is that if it wasn't for Bush, then most of these protesters would probably be dead.Bush announced with authority that he was looking for a fight with any country that had WMDs, and Libya turned over massive amounts of mustard gas and dismantled their entire nuclear weapons program ( something they had spent over $100 Million dollars on. Here's what one person said about it;So thank you Mr. Bush for having he foresight to disarm the bullies and then take away their ability to remain in power with your plans to re-establish freedom in an area that didn't know it.and thank you US military for being so bad that Quaddafi peed himself and turned over all the tons of mustard gas that otherwise would be drifting in the winds of all rebel towns killing women and children alike.

LOL at you for saying Bush predicted this. I said I was behind both wars, but in restrospect with what I know now, and he should have, he went about it completely wrong. He missunderstood the entire make-ups of the regions and could have done things much better. I also question his goals as they were probably different from what I had in mind.

[Roll the Bones 74]

Let me clarify. Bush wanted to get involved in their internal affairs and wanted to dictate their lives or social system. He should have involved the Baathist in the process and much of the war would not have been necessary as they wanted peace and a say in the outcome of thier country as well. We were totally clueless as to the tribal influence and poverty in Afghanistan and the culture.If this was about oil, we could have done nothing and after he massacred the rebels the oil would have been flowing alot sooner. Defending the universal principles of freedom is always more important and more beneficial in the long term than few millions of extra barrels on the market.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

But was that even a question? Egypt is the only country to actually force the leader out and Obama didn't have anything to do with it.

Don't forget Tunisia

[El Guapo 8]

Don't forget Tunisia

Who?

[Balloon guy 158]

Let me clarify. Bush wanted to get involved in their internal affairs and wanted to dictate their lives or social system. He should have involved the Baathist in the process and much of the war would not have been necessary as they wanted peace and a say in the outcome of thier country as well. We were totally clueless as to the tribal influence and poverty in Afghanistan and the culture.

So you think Bush should have been controlling in making Iraq a democracy? ( not that it ever will be a true democracy, but just for brevity we'll use that word)Fact is nobody is any good at taking 40 million people with lots of history of hatred and making them a functioning soveriegn country in a couple months years decades. We did our best with what was possible, while lessor countries snipped at our heals like the scum bags they are. ( Yea France Russia and Germany, I'm looking at you )If we could change the past, I am all for invading and securing the oil fields, taking the oil for ourselves and letting them work out their internal issues on their own with big signs that tell Russia France and Germany that if they try to profit from this, we will begin accidentally dropping bombs on their people in country. They weren't worth the lives of the 3,000 soldiers who died for them.But Bush was a nicer guy than me.

If this was about oil, we could have done nothing and after he massacred the rebels the oil would have been flowing alot sooner. Defending the universal principles of freedom is always more important and more beneficial in the long term than few millions of extra barrels on the market.

Easy for us to say that we would have been fine letting Europe and Japan's economy suffer greatly by the sharp increase in oil since they are way more dependent than us. But I'm not saying I would hate your idea.

[Balloon guy 158]

LOL at you for saying Bush predicted this. I said I was behind both wars, but in restrospect with what I know now, and he should have, he went about it completely wrong. He missunderstood the entire make-ups of the regions and could have done things much better. I also question his goals as they were probably different from what I had in mind.

George Bush addressing the UN in 2004:

"For too long, many nations, including my own, tolerated, even excused, oppression in the Middle East in the name of stability," he said. "Oppression became common, but stability never arrived. We must take a different approach. We must help the reformers of the Middle East as they work for freedom, and strive to build a community of peaceful, democratic nations."

The rest is by some blog guy:

Bush was influenced by a book called "The Case for Democracy." Written by Natan Sharansky, a former political prisoner in the Soviet Union, it is a foreign policy guide that states that the primary goal of American foreign policy should be the expansion of democracy. The book demands that the free world should be unflinching in its support of activists who are agitating for freedom and human rights.Critics blasted Bush for his naïveté, saying that it was typical American hubris to dictate to other countries that they must be more democratic. Some even said that Arab people don't even want democracy and wouldn't know what to do with it if they had it. They were wrong. Bush was right.

This is by me:

Ding Dong, You're wrong.

[Balloon guy 158]

not even close

For the record, I prefer the approach Obama took here of simply sitting back while people died and waiting for he UN to 'legalize' the bombings and then go and blow stuff up over all the alternatives.But I'd be out of character to not to politicize this whole thing to defend Bush and make Obama look bad.

[vbnautilus 48]

[spin]Democrats just like to show off their power without actually accomplishing anything while Republicans are willing to get their hands dirty to solve a problem. [/spin]

Like they solved Afghanistan?

So you are OK with Obama bombing the shit out of a country (killing many innocent people) to help the rebels because Khadaffi is killing civilians (anyone know how many?) but you're not OK with us going into Iraq, whom at the time we thought had WMD's and had/were killing 10's of thousands of their own people in sort of religious ethnic cleansing?Do I have this correct?

It's not about when to intervene its about how. Bombing Saddam would have been a great idea. Occupying his country clearly was not.

[nutzbuster 7]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/opinion/...icholasdkristofThis may be a first for the Arab world: An American airman who bailed out over Libya was rescued from his hiding place in a sheep pen by villagers who hugged him, served him juice and thanked him effusively for bombing their country. Even though some villagers were hit by American shrapnel, one gamely told an Associated Press reporter that he bore no grudges. Then, on Wednesday in Benghazi, the major city in eastern Libya whose streets would almost certainly be running with blood now if it weren’t for the American-led military intervention, residents held a “thank you rally.” They wanted to express gratitude to coalition forces for helping save their lives. Doubts are reverberating across America about the military intervention in Libya. Those questions are legitimate, and the uncertainties are huge. But let’s not forget that a humanitarian catastrophe has been averted for now and that this intervention looks much less like the 2003 invasion of Iraq than the successful 1991 gulf war to rescue Kuwait from Iraqi military occupation.

This is a great story. There are no doubt millions who are happy about the thought of the madman leaving. And I've said it before and I'll say it again...I hope this goes well and quickly. Worrying that this could be a horrible mistake is something I would gladly be wrong about.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

George Bush addressing the UN in 2004:The rest is by some blog guy:This is by me:

I believe that more people than not think that promoting Democracy, especially in arab countries, is a lofty goal. Bush was right in his desire to bring Democracies to the Middle East. Having said that, I think recent events have proved him to be more wrong than ever. Democracy didn't come from Bush's doctrine of nation destruction and rebuilding. Instead, it came from internal protests and revolution. It came from the local youth seeing the rest of the world, then looking at the backwardness of their own country, and desiring a change. It is unclear how Obama's doctrine of supporting revolution using targeted bombings will fare. The most successful, quickest, and cleanest changes came when the US wasn't involved.

[El Guapo 8]

Bush was right

BG wins the internet.

[ahosang 0]

BG wins the internet.

/thread/forum/web

[vbnautilus 48]

I believe that more people than not think that promoting Democracy, especially in arab countries, is a lofty goal. Bush was right in his desire to bring Democracies to the Middle East. Having said that, I think recent events have proved him to be more wrong than ever. Democracy didn't come from Bush's doctrine of nation destruction and rebuilding. Instead, it came from internal protests and revolution. It came from the local youth seeing the rest of the world, then looking at the backwardness of their own country, and desiring a change. It is unclear how Obama's doctrine of supporting revolution using targeted bombings will fare. The most successful, quickest, and cleanest changes came when the US wasn't involved.

Yeah but obviously there's a selection bias, right? We didn't need to get involved in the ones that were going to happen on their own quickly and cleanly...

[Balloon guy 158]

BG wins the internet.

Grow up man,....It's not a competition...

[Balloon guy 158]

I believe that more people than not think that promoting Democracy, especially in arab countries, is a lofty goal. Bush was right in his desire to bring Democracies to the Middle East. Having said that, I think recent events have proved him to be more wrong than ever. Democracy didn't come from Bush's doctrine of nation destruction and rebuilding. Instead, it came from internal protests and revolution. It came from the local youth seeing the rest of the world, then looking at the backwardness of their own country, and desiring a change.

Bush's stated goal was to establish a nation in Iraq that the neighboring countries would see and would want to emulate.Bush brought reform and the right of self rule to Iraq.Now the Middle east is demanding reform and self rule.Bush = Winner

It is unclear how Obama's doctrine of supporting revolution using targeted bombings will fare. The most successful, quickest, and cleanest changes came when the US wasn't involved.

I am curious what countries you and vb are thinking of when you point to these quick and clean revolutions.

[vbnautilus 48]

I am curious what countries you and vb are thinking of when you point to these quick and clean revolutions.

Egypt? Tunisia?

[FCP Bob 1,312]

To all the Americans worried about who will be in charge it's a Canadian so your military is safe under our command.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nation...article1956477/Edit: and to make it even better he's French-Canadian

[Balloon guy 158]

Egypt? Tunisia?

You consider them finished?Cause I think they need at least a couple months to determine the results.

To all the Americans worried about who will be in charge it's a Canadian so your military is safe under our command.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nation...article1956477/Edit: and to make it even better he's French-Canadian

Why Bob?Why do you make me hate you?Why?