Libya Obama Strategy Your Opinion

Yoiur kind loves to re-write history. The facts are that Bush had nearly unanimous support both at home & abroad based on the intelligence available at the time- intelligence supported by international & Clinton-era sources.

 

No, Obama Derangement Syndrome is practiced by the same people who came up with all this:

View attachment 213 View attachment 214 View attachment 215 View attachment 216 View attachment 217 View attachment 218 View attachment 219 View attachment 220 View attachment 221 View attachment 212

 

True, he had quite the support... most was due to the overwhelming 'patriotic spirit' present in America after 9-11. But that doesn't last forever, which is why they ram-rodded the the threat of Saddam through the U.N. and invaded as fast as they possibly could.

The truth was they manipulated Americans into believing Saddam was a threat using information they knew was not credible. Their main source of info came from a man who wanted Saddam out of power, who has since admitted that he lied in the hope that America would remove Saddam. Other information was fabricated, or enhanced to look more reasonably threatening... but even that was flimsy, and nowhere near enough of a reason to invade a country and remove it's leader from power.

The truth is: The Bush admnistration manipulated the information, deceived patriotic Americans, and bullied the U.N. into allowing an invasion of Iraq to take place.

 

Yes but if the ends justify the means... As they always do for Right-wingers.

 

How would you possibly know that? Oh yeah, you wouldn't really have any idea.

 

Go back to your history and see just exactly who, shall we say, developed this information that Bush manipulated and deceived patriotic Americans with. You might be surprised to learn that it did not even come from the Bush era.

 

Absolute nonsense. The rest of the world wanted to continue to contain saddam with the no-fly zone not attack him. You are the one re-writing history here. What planet are you from anyway?

 

I am aware that Clinton's administration gathered some of the info, and had acted on some of it. I am also aware that Clinton had several chances to take out Bin Laden, even had him surrounded once (aborted the mission), but failed to kill him. The point I was making was that Bush's administration manipulated that information to look more credible, when they knew it wasn't. They used 9-11, and the patriotic spirit afterwards, as leverage to convince everyone that Saddam must be removed from power. You say 70% of Americans agreed with him... I won't dispute that number... but I wonder how many of those people now realize they were manipulated... or are too ashamed to admit it to themselves that they were. And out of the 30% that disagreed with him, I'd guess half of them were partisans who were more interested in disagreeing witht he administration, but the other half (15%) were smart enough not to get caught up in a patriotic frenzy and saw through the administration's manipulations.

 

When I compare the two actions, the Iraq invasion and the Libyan bombardment, I see two completely different mentalities.

On the Iraq-side (with a republican administration), there was deceit (see my comments above), manipulation, (again, above), and invasion to remove Saddam from power.

On the Libya-side (with a democratic administration), there was no deceit necessary (Ghadafi was murdering everyone opposed to him), no one needed to be manipulated into believing that Ghadafi was on a mission to murder the opposition (it was visible for all to see), and an invasion was unecessary and avoided.

Iraq was unjustifiable. It was unnecessary to remove Saddam. He may have been belligerant and a tyrant, but that was not justification for what Bush's administration (after months of propaganda) did in Iraq. Ghadafi, on the other hand, was in the act of wiping out all opposition to his rule. Yes, it would have been nice if some other country was capable of dealing with him, but who? ...and when? The slaughter was happening NOW, and needed immediate action to prevent Ghadafi from completing it. There was little time for debate (unlike Iraq). I find it was a justifiable action.

While this has been my opinion, I'm certain there are some who will disagree with me. To them I say... "Am I wrong? Convince me!" lol

 

Remind me again what the UN vote was when they authorized our invasion of Iraq. Oh, and IQless1, you need to remind me just exactly what that vote said Iraq had done to permit the invasion.

 

So I guess you are saying Saddam did not do this;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
He did not have the WMD he used here?. He did not kill the people who died? He was not killing his own people, really?

And this did not happen either?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War

He did not have the WMD he used here?. He did not kill the people who died?

Now show me where Gadaffi has used WMD's.

 

You apparently already know. My point is that Bush's administration manipulated the information used to bully the U.N. into allowing the U.S. to invade. I find that reprehensible.

 

You still need to tell me why that vote was taken. It really had nothing to do with the information you accuse the Bush administration of manipulating.

 

You know full well that (the Kurdish event) was in the late 80's, and that Iraq was forced to destroy it's WMDs in the 90s. As I am aware the information Bush's administration used was manipulated to make it appear Saddam had more WMDs and may use them in the future, but wasn't at the time. Ghadafi, on the other hand, was in the process of slaughtering any Libyans who rebeled against his authority. There are substantial differences between the two, and you know it.

 

I do? IMO, the vote at the U.N. was taken because they were deceived into believing a lie. "Saddam (may) have WMDs!... He (may) use them again!"... compare that to the reasons for the U.S.'s bombardment of Libya, to avoid the current and ongoing slaughter of Libyans... with actual facts instead of mear suspicions.

 

You keep propounding all of these "facts" about Iraq, but I see no references. Just you opinions. Show me how many people were killed in Saddam's torture chambers in 2000. In 2001. In 2002. If you can find the info, I am guessing that you will be unpleasantly surprised. BTW, if you don't believe the news reports about his torture chambers, I have talked to an army infantry man who was there.

 

That is why you need to look it up because you are wrong.

 

As far as the Kurdish slaughter goes, it also can't compare much to Libya, but is far closer than Bush Jr's Iraq invasion. It was a horrible series of attacks (via gas), and was reprehensible, but was short-lived. I forget who was in office (either Reagan or Bush, Sr.), but they would have been unable to stop the slaughter if Saddam really wanted to push it. Who knows? What if Saddam HAD continued to use gas to slaughter the Kurdish minority? Would either Reagan or Bush Sr. have stopped him by force? No one can say for sure, since the threat of the World attacking Saddam made him stop. But that didn't occur in Libya, did it? Ghadafi knew the World was pissed, and threw out some propaganda from time to time calling for cease-fires and stuff... but continued the slaughter. The World saw that and responded.

 

I've stated these were my opinions, I assumed correctly you would ask for proof. So, here's the dilemma, how do I go about proving my opinion? You want hard facts? No, you don't lol... what YOU want is for me to jump through hoops to provide what factual information I can find that would support my opinion, then you would call that information inaccurate, out of context, or misleading.... in short, there is no evidence that could possible convince you that my opinion is correct, you just want me to go fishing.... nah

 

I'm certain you believe that, but why? What is YOUR opinion?