HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Contrasting Bush/Iraq &am...

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 06:29 AM

Contrasting Bush/Iraq & Obama/Libya

Bush to remove dictator of Iraq: Large scale invasion, trillions of dollars, breaks economy, thousands of Americans dead (possibly millions of Iraqis), occupation/war last over a decade with fierce resistance, scandals, international shame and embarrassment.

Obama to remove dictator of Libya: No large scale invasion, joint effort with cooperative allies as was originally suggested for Iraq by John Kerry and others, no troops on the ground or occupation and therefore no funneling off of large amounts of money and no resistance, regime and dictator taken down in months, battle lasts months not a decade, no thousands of dead Americans, no millions of dead civilians, no scandals, no embarrassment of misbehaving troops, no prisoners being tortured, no puppies being thrown off cliffs, no truck bombs or suicide bombers, etc.

End result of both: dictator gone.

What else?

5 replies, 1077 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 5 replies Author Time Post
Reply Contrasting Bush/Iraq & Obama/Libya (Original post)
Shankapotomus Dec 2011 OP
Kurmudgeon Dec 2011 #1
NNN0LHI Dec 2011 #2
vaberella Dec 2011 #3
Shankapotomus Dec 2011 #4
MisterP Dec 2011 #5

Response to Shankapotomus (Original post)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 07:15 AM

1. That's it, you summed it up nicely!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shankapotomus (Original post)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 07:29 AM

2. Truth be known on the lead up to the Iraq invasion many liberals were asking this question

"If Saddam has to go, rather than have a long drawn out costly invasion and occupation, wouldn't it be better to just hit him with a cruise missile and be done with it?"

True story.

Don

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shankapotomus (Original post)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 07:58 AM

3. You missed something or twisted something. Obama wasn't set to remove Gaddafi.

If Gaddafi was ousted it would have been a bonus. Actually they wall went in--excluding France and England who had that agenda (particularly France) to oust Gaddafi--Obama went in for the people who were being attacked. We didn't get our oils from Gaddafi that was entirely European thing. Our main focus or based on what Obama has said was the protection of the people of the people of Libya. Gaddafi was asked to turn himself in. But he didn't and died....not without taking a few hundred of his citizens with him.

In summary Obama went in for the people and nothing else when they were persecuted for rebeling. Bush went in with an agenda not for the people but for the head of SH.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vaberella (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 08:52 AM

4. Good points

I think despite the different relations we had with both countries, Bush was advised by many dems to take a more diplomatic approach. He didn't and we got all that comes with an invasion. But the option was there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shankapotomus (Original post)

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 05:21 PM

5. end result of both: war-criminal West gets off scot-free and control of oil

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread