Anyone but Obama

I wasn't there, and I didn't see the bodies of infants from either action, so I'm taking both claims (of innocent's deaths) with a 'grain of salt'.

My point was to Coin that innocent's deaths happen during sustained missle attacks. I understand why some will disagree with Obama deciding to use military force in Libya, and the point was made by Coin that an innocent died during the action... as did in other actions by previous presidents.

 

Please defend Obama's actions based solely on the recent incident in Libya. Please don't base your defense on the Lockerbie bombing or Ghaddafi's support of terrorism. Those aren't the reasons we went into Libya. Please don't base it on "regime change" or that Ghaddafi is a bad guy. Base your defense solely on the administration's stated reason(s) for invading Libya. Just because Reagan bombed Libya in the past is no defense for Obama's current actions. And it's certainly no defense for killing little babies.

I still haven't heard from you how you're defending Obama's invasion of Libya...

 

I stated my reasons for supporting the action in other threads numerous times. You don't accept the reasoning, or Obama's, or the World's in general. My point is (still) that when you fire a chitload-o' missles at a populated area, the deaths of non-combatants is highly likely. You say it's murder since you don't believe the action is justified. I say it is justified.

 

I don't see how I'm being pompous by stating that the deaths of innocents are unavoidable during a barrage of missle strikes in a populated area. My comment may have come accross as callous to you, but it was more a matter of fact than a lack of sensitivity.

The fact is that you want to ignore anything and everything besides this current mission, since you don't believe America should have had anything to do with it. You believe some other country could have taken action to prevent Gadhafi from slaughtering his own people, or if none had... well it's his country, and it's his business. How many innocent men, women, and children do you think Gadhafi would have killed? I'd guess all of them, or at best the majority of them. So, which would you prefer? The deaths of a few, or the majority?

As for bombings, you should know the military does it's best to minimize the deaths of innocent civilians, but it wasn't always so. During World War 2 the main method of attack was by dropping massive amounts of unguided bombs on a city, blanketing the entire area to destroy a tiny factory, bridge, or rail system. Be thankful that isn't so today.

 

Hey coin, you shouldn't rewrite someone's quotes either. Multi-quote or seperate the quote to reply to a comment. Otherwise your comments can't be replied to. Thanks.

 

I hate Obama, just wanted to let that out. It is like passing gas. If you don't let it out, you will explode.

 

Yes, you're absolutely correct when you say that dropping bombs on a populated area will result in the deaths of non-combatants, too. That's the problem. You say the war is justified - we will just have to agree to disagree on that point.

 

Nah. I haven't rewritten anything, just added my comments. It's easier than multi-quoting. Use copy and paste if you need to, it's pretty easy.

 

Back to the original topic...."Anyone but Obama"...BO was a left wing "feel good" experiment that failed. Time to move on and elect someone anyone with a little intelligence, a little abliity.

 

...as you wish. you will need to scroll up to see context though, and this post is going to be longer than it would be if you'd follow proper procedure lol.... what did we learrrrn?

This is one of the misconceptions about Republicans, that they are the only party capable of defending America or capable of military strategy. You believe Obama, and Democrats in general, are timid or weak. That's your mistake, not mine. I'm not a Republican or a Democrat though, I'm an Independant.

The current action in Libya is what YOU want to focus on, because you know that once other actions in Libya by other presidents are included your point becomes a lost cause. You want to paint Obama as a baby-killer and don't want that perception to include reality.

Oh? Then explain why you believe we should not have been involved, if not that Libya could have been left alone or that other nations could have fought Gadhafi themselves.

Then you would have been fine with all the deaths of infants, women & chilren, etc.... as long as the U.S. wasn't involved? Excuse me, but that's mighty hypocritical coming from someone who hates violence and the deaths of the innocent.

I believe in the ideal that if you are capable of defending someone who doesn't deserve to be attacked (in this case, slaughtered) then to NOT act is reprehensible.

Again with the war hawk bs... If you think war, or defensive actions, can be avoided completely then you are very mistaken. We are on different sides on whether the action was justified or not, but calling me a war hawk is just dumb lol

Got it. You are anti-war, anti-socialist, and most likely an isolationist. I accept that War is a fact of life, I believe in taking care of those most in need, and accept that isolating ourselves from the rest of the World is not an option to be taken seriously.

 

'Little' is an appropriate word to describe the intelligence and abilities of people you would support.

 

A little is better than none, wouldn't you agree? I doesn't take much talent to deep six a country in three short years like BO has.
It's funny that you would so quickly dimiss every conservative when you try so hard to pass yourself off as non-partisan. Odd.

 

Actually I need to correct myself. It does take a certain type of talent to do what BO has done in such a short period of time.

 

The difference between our views is that I include others besides Obama and his party in my opinions of guilt. It's ironic that you fail to see that in youself while commiting the very act you accuse me of. As you've stated, you are partisan... so I baited you a bit. As I've stated, I'm not... though I'll admit I'm far less attracted to the ideas of the typical Republican candidate and more likely to agree with a Democrat's.

 

I hear you think that liberals think Obama can walk on water. Now you claim this. Once again you are guilty of attributing unrealistic abilities to Obama. This is all on you, and your extremist's viewpoints lol

 

David you know as well as I and any other person on this forum that America was in deep finacial crisis BEFORE President Obama took over, have you not considerd that if he and Ex President Bush along with most of the rest of the American political world had not taken the actions that they did with the bailout etc that you might well have been in a heck of a lot worse situation right now? I know that you and others do have a blind spot when it comes to admiting that things could quite possibly been worse but if you take the time to look at the situation then and now you might see it for yourselfs (my opinion is that you might well now be facing a Greek style economic collapse)
I will ask this would you have been happy with the numbers who would have been unemployed if the bailouts had not gone ahead? ok not all the bailout cash has been repaid but one hefty sum of it has, I recall posting figures quite some time back but as usual they were ignored.

 

...but BO ran on the fact that he knew what our problems were & knew how to fix them. I knew he was lying then & I want those who are still in denial to see it as well.

You're asking for speculation. Who knows? I am addressing the facts of our situation.

Once again, pure speculation. BO should be graded on his results, not speculation.

 

Certainly he should David but by the same token you should try blaming him for what he is actualy to blame for and not for things that seem to be beyond the controll of any goverment or for the made up stuff.
You say he lied for saying that he knew what the problems were how is that? everyone had a damn good idea as to what the economic problems were (now if you did not David then that is your problem not his) He also said it would take longer than 1 term to fix them didnt he David (or is that bit missing from your recolection and as we all know you will disregard such things.)
He tried to fix the economy the best he thought he could at the time and in fairness to him he slowed down the the meltdown Now that David is economic fact and a lot of what I said was not suposition if the bailouts had not gone ahead you would have a larger unemployment issue than you now have (thats fact) you would have less of a manufacturing base (that is a fact) your currency would have been worth a great deal less (again a fact) the morgage crisis would be a heck of a lot worse (again fact)
You might not like that David but it is the simple truth
You want to blame him for extending the war in Afghanistan go ahead as he did, you want to blame him fro intervention in Lybia again feel free because he did, you want to blame him for trying to introduce Universal Health care for the American people go ahead he has
But do not lay all the blame for the economic mess your country is in at his door because that sir is a blatent lie and you know it