Libyan War

[Aurielius]

If we remove Gaddafi from power why don't we remove leaders such as Fidel Castro,Hugo Chavez, Frank Bainimarama and Robert Mugabe?

We tried to remove Fidel and failed, Chavez isn't a threat yet, Fiji isn't enough of a concern and Mugabe should be on the list. That is, if there was consistency of intent which there isn't.

[ginnyfizz]

If ever there was a barking mad murdering tyrant, Mugabe is one and I agree that it is time he went and should be on the list. He has assuredly murdered/starved more of his people than Gaddafi has, whether by violence, land grabbing or head in the sand attitude towards disease prevention.

[evilneko]

It is hypocritical to support this war if you did not support the Iraq war, and it is hypocritical to not support this war if you supported the Iraq war.

 

When it comes down to it, they are both for humanitarian reasons. Intel has shown that Iraq never had WMDs before the war.

Don't buy it for a minute, the wars could hardly be more different.

 

Shrub sent us into Iraq for entirely different reasons, and we were the instigators of that action. I may be giving Shrub the benefit of the doubt but I think he and others in his administration believed there really were WMDs. They were fooled. Either that or they outright lied. I think Bush truly believing in WMDs is more likely though. (Cheney, not so much.)

[csgators]

Shrub sent us into Iraq for entirely different reasons, and we were the instigators of that action. I may be giving Shrub the benefit of the doubt but I think he and others in his administration believed there really were WMDs. They were fooled. Either that or they outright lied. I think Bush truly believing in WMDs is more likely though. (Cheney, not so much.)

 

I agree about the WMD's but I disagree that we were the aggressors. For one thing I consider the 2nd Iraq war merely a continuation of the first. Secondly, Iraq was shooting at our planes enforcing the no fly zone. Libya? We have NO business there at all.

Edited April 21, 2011 by csgators

[evilneko]

If you're going that route then we have plenty of business in Libya. We were in Iraq at least in part because Saudi Arabia wanted us there. The Arab League and NATO wanted us in Libya.

[csgators]

We went in to Iraq because they invaded Kuwait (and before that Iran). Sure Saudi Arabia asked us to come or we wouldn't have had bases to use but Saddam had a clear history of invading his neighbors and of using indiscriminate weapons (SCUDS). Libya didn't invade anyone, they are having an internal civil war and we have no idea what new government would take the Colonels place if they succeed in overthrowing the existing regime. Edited April 21, 2011 by csgators

[Aurielius]

It is hypocritical to support this war if you did not support the Iraq war, and it is hypocritical to not support this war if you supported the Iraq war.

When it comes down to it, they are both for humanitarian reasons. Intel has shown that Iraq never had WMDs before the war.

It seems that quite a lot of the left and right are being quite a bit hypocritical.

There is no reason why the left should support the war. The right should support the war if they wanted the Iraq war.

For once I have nothing satirical to say about your post, it actually makes sense..well done lad. Logical in structure, concise and to the point. I do not totally agree with your analogy but find nothing wrong with the way you put it ( see.... nothing rude posted).

Edited April 22, 2011 by Aurielius

[Kendo 2]

I never supported the mission in Iraq, though I support the men and women serving there. America getting involved anywhere in North Africa is a BIG mistake. As England, France and Italy will get the oil, let THEM fight for it. Gaddafi would have a new market in surplus French and Italian service rifles, never been fired and only dropped once. England would end up with the bulk of action and the French and Italians will have plenty of practice waving white flags.

 

ANYWAY, the U.S. has enough problems at home and we don't need to focus on 'humanitarian aid' for foreign countries. That aid could be used to provide for Americans, instead of trying to buy the friendship of people who cheer when terrorists attack the West.

[SilverDNA]

I never supported the mission in Iraq, though I support the men and women serving there. America getting involved anywhere in North Africa is a BIG mistake. As England, France and Italy will get the oil, let THEM fight for it. Gaddafi would have a new market in surplus French and Italian service rifles, never been fired and only dropped once. England would end up with the bulk of action and the French and Italians will have plenty of practice waving white flags.

 

ANYWAY, the U.S. has enough problems at home and we don't need to focus on 'humanitarian aid' for foreign countries. That aid could be used to provide for Americans, instead of trying to buy the friendship of people who cheer when terrorists attack the West.

Thanks for expressing your self that way .

I bet the British and French and Italians will applaud and withdraw at such comments from Afghanistan, Iraq ... ect!

Now if they leave the Germans will leave too and all others

I would call that a grand diplomatic faux pas

What would happen then ?

Edited April 22, 2011 by SilverDNA

[Kendo 2]

Thanks for expressing your self that way .

 

You're very welcome. :thumbsup: