Obama Set A Precedent in Libya. Will He Sit Idly By While Atrocities Occur In Syria?

Pinhead won't call it a war unless missiles are being launched, predator drones are flying overhead, bombs are being dropped, soldiers are being killed, civilians are being killed, babies are being killed, blood is flowing in the streets, homes are being demolished, mass funerals are held every day, mothers and fathers are crying because Coalition warfare accidentally killed their rebel sons... oh, wait... all those things ARE HAPPENING.

Actually, I don't know why pinhead isn't calling it a war. I bet it feels like war to the people actually involved, but I can see that an armchair general such as he is can call it anything he wants. Perhaps, "Grand Theft Auto: The Libyan Initiative 2 for XBOX". Maybe he can call our invasion a "jaunt" or an "excursion". That sounds somewhat more genteel and is less likely to offend voters in 2012.

 

Call it whatever you want you imbecile. I recall you saying a war is defined.................ehhh screw it. Youre an .

 

See, pinhead, I have the ability to observe something and describe it accurately. You're the type to bury your head in the sand and, if not wish it away, at least try to call it something that more suitably fits your sensibilities. War is war, you mental midget. I call it as I see it, but you spin it like a top until you walk away dizzy.

I don't know what you'd call it if a foreign country sent missiles and bombs into your homeland, but I call it an invasion. If those same missiles and bombs are exploding and killing my fellow countrymen (not to mention innocent civilians and babies) what would you classify that if not "war"? A "kinetic military action" or an "international militaristic peace initiative"? You make me sick.....

 

Blah blah. You go on and. And on so much you must be trying to make yourself believe the BS you're spewing. Take your "ifs" and go away. So stupid. Is it invasion or war? You're so full of it you got confused. Or are they now the same? How about.invasion during a war. What that called, idiot?

 

I see... you don't have a point to make, so you blather on. You're just about the dumbest thing I've ever encountered. Well, you and those other idiots on here.

 

Typical.

 

I'm sorry, but you're just so easy to make fun of. And I get such a kick out of it. I really, really do.

 

Then why are you sorry? Be a man and dont apologize that youre such an . If you want to confess about the kind of scumbag you are, talk to a priest.

 

Oh, craig a, you're so pathetic. I've presented a question in this thread asking why Obama invaded Libya, but doesn't invade Syria when the situation in both countries is the same. That's a valid question. But, you don't even try to answer it because you're a hack who goes into attack mode when your bedrock foundations are shaken a little. First, I don't believe you agree with Obama invading Libya. But, you'll defend it nevertheless even if his war machine is killing innocent civilians and babies. Second, you're at a loss for words when Obama doesn't take action in Syria because you begin to see the hypocrisy of his inaction. Third, I believe you've turned a blind eye and refuse to believe that the Libyan people are being warred upon. As I've said previously, you're like an ostrich who buries his head in the sand. At least be a man and discuss the topic rationally by presenting opposing points of view instead of just like a child and playing "gotcha".

 

If you are so concerned about your original topic, why not respond to the posts that explained why Obama can't intervene in Syria?

 

"Humanitarian reasons" ARE "humanitarian reasons" regardless of the geographical location. Would you agree or not? Think outside the box for a moment. If Obama's true reason for going into Libya was to save the citizens from being killed (and for no other reason) then shouldn't that doctrine hold true regardless of what country it is?

 

Yes, there is also a humanitarian element to the situation in Syria, but it's not as simple as that. Saying both situations are equal is like boarding-up your windows before a slight breeze hits the house, since there was a tornado reported yesterday three states away.

 

Ok, maybe not the best analogy lol

 

I don't think that analogy is particularly good. Syria has been as much, if not more, of a slaughterhouse than Libya. The difference is the repercussions of going to war with them. Libya - not much. Syria - huge.

 

Because the US has a tenuous yet friendly relationship with Syria. We've always looked the other on horrific regimes that we get along with. Marcos, The Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein(sic). These were much worse that Qaddafi. Alasad is just another one.

 

The purpose of a humanitarian mission is to save lives. The Libya situation presented a unique opportunity in which military action could easily save the lives of tens of thousands of people. The country was already divided in a civil war and the rebels controlled some areas of the country while the government controlled others. Ghaddafi had stated that it was intention to kill the rebel force and his military was amassing outside the rebel controlled city of Benghazi. It didn't take a rocket scientist to predict what was going to happen next. And it was relatively easy to stop his military from doing so with a minimum of collateral damage. In Syria, the government controls the entire country. Any attack on Syrian military installations would result in a widespread massacre of it's citizens. The only way to preclude that from happening would be a major assault on the country which would result in massive collateral damage. Either way, a humanitarian mission in Syria would have the exact oppositie effect than it's stated goal. It would kill more people than it saved. Add to that the international implications of Iran, China, and Russia, and the idea is an absolute disaster.

What is most disturbing is that if we had a Republican President in office and he followed the same course of action as Obama, you would support his every move. Your refusal to comment on George W. Bush while claiming Obama is a war monger is proof of that fact.

 

A very intelligent response. I agree completely.

 

Its funny that you use the same old cliches. Think out of the box Bury you head in the sand. Plus you feel the need to add ostrich. What a dolt. Now You got Obama killing babies. Christ man your borderline insane. Youre just comparing the two to show your dislike of this Prez. We get it already. Why not use N. Korea or Jakarta as comparisons? I used Jakarta because I cant spell Myanmar(?). And now I'm not alone when I say you'd whistle a different tune if it was someone you liked in office. Hell, you'd want the guy to rape the babies before he killed them. Youre even worse than that idiot who, through erudition, expects everyone to kowtow to him because he did it the hard way. Like he's the only one who worked his way through college. OKC, Youre just a goat roper from some tumbleweed town so act accordingly.

 

In other words, we'll only assist rebels for "humanitarian reasons" if the massacre reaches a certain number of people and if the geopolitical climate makes it easy for us? That doesn't say much for our willingness to intervene for "humanitarian reasons", does it?

Why would you say that? You don't know me very well if you believe that. I've previously said that I'm anti-war. I certainly would not support a Republican had he followed the same course of action as Obama. Is that clear enough for you?

Go back and read my posts. I've answered you. You must have missed it.

 

I don't dislike the man. I dislike his policies. I don't like the fact that he's involved us in Libya. I don't like the fact that his actions led to the death of innocent civilians and babies. Not one bit.

Like I asked Lehigh, "What makes you think that?" I wouldn't support any president who has made the same decision as Obama be he (or she) Democrat, Republican, Independent, etc.

Wow.......... I can't believe you said that. That's very, very sick.

Make fun of me all you want. It's like water off a duck's back to me. With statements like that, you're really just showing your prejudice.