I oppose "operation Libyan Freedom"

[Cali_Democrat]

The US launching cruise missiles against an Arab country that has large oil reserves with the stated goal of helping the Libyan people resist against a brutal dictator.

Where have I seen this movie before?

We need to stop meddling in the affairs of other countries. Should we get involved in every civil war in the world?

No.

:thumbsdown:

[The Northerner]

1. K&R nt

[MadBadger]

2. Those two movies are really nothing alike

[Cali_Democrat]

7. 3 wars....

and counting.....

[ClarkUSA]

8. False meme. There's one war and it will soon end.

[Exilednight]

15. Really? So we still don't have armed soldiers firing on targets in

which of the following countries; Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya? And what exactly aren't we firing at in Yemen and Pakistan?

[ClarkUSA]

18. Prove that we are at war with "Iraq... Libya... Yemen and Pakistan."

Facts only, please. I am sure PM Maliki and the leaders of Yemen and Pakistan would dispute your characterization. Even Quaddafi hasn't gone that far. Thus, your subjective opinion is worthless to me.

[Exilednight]

36. My subjective opinion? When presented with facts, you argument

holds about as much water as a well bucket with the bottom missing.

A few definitions of the word "War":

a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations

active hostility or contention; conflict; contest

armed fighting, as a science, profession, activity, or art; methods or principles of waging armed conflict

to be in conflict or in a state of strong opposition

[ClarkUSA]

39. No proof? Not surprising, since there isn't any.

[Exilednight]

40. Oh yeah, there's no evidence that we're firing missiles, dropping bombs,

firing on hostiles. All of that stuff they show on TV is a figment of our imagination.

[ClarkUSA]

42. You clearly implied we were at war with those nations. Backing off now?

Smart move.

[Exilednight]

44. Not at all. Dropping bombs and shooting people are the definition of war. You just choose to

use your own subjectivity and ignore the facts.

[ClarkUSA]

45. lol! You have zero proof of your claims. Just because you say so doesn't make it so.

Biden was ever so right awhile back.

[Exilednight]

53. So you believe that there is no proof of us dropping bombs? That says a lot about you. n/t

[Fuddnik]

27. Horseshit.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Columbia.....Just to name a few.

We've got wars up the wazoo with no end in sight.

[BklnDem75]

50. Horseshit is right

Let's not invent wars now. :eyes:

[Marblehead]

3. they got away

with it many times, what's different now.

[gateley]

4. The difference to me - in this instance, is that we are not meddling,

rather responding to a plea for assistance.

But on the whole, I totally agree.

[ProSense]

5. "The US launching cruise missiles against an Arab country that has large oil reserves "

"Where have I seen this movie before?"

Not in Iraq since the goal was to get Iraq's oil. Also, unlike Bush's illegal invasion, the Arab league backs the no-fly zone

Libya is NOT about oil

[vaberella]

6. "cruise missiles" and "oil"---we don't use Libyan oil.

That is hardly the cause. I find the cause now to be entirely genuine even if I'm not 100% on board. But I guess you're on your own in your interpretation. If you were just opposed with a reasonable argument against it. As in this may lead to an extended war. Okay, but you're basically taking the Iraq story under Bush II and putting Libya and Obama in the respective roles---which is entirely false on many accounts. Obama tried to stay as much away from the Arab revolts as possible. However, none of them had this much citizenry killing. Secondly...the Iraq war was never backed by the UN. And this is being run by France, not the US---we're taking a back seat in this one. But you seem to have mixed up the entire story--actually but an old book you have in your library and changed book covers with a completely different story.

Not the same situation and definitely not the same intentions.

[krabigirl]

35. We don't use their oil..yet. That will be fixed soon I am sure.

Nice to see the Obama supporters banging the war drums! Never again will I vote for him.

[ClarkUSA]

9. Wrong. I don't recall France taking the lead in attacking Iraq.

[Cali_Democrat]

10. France is taking the lead on this?

Whew. I guess it's OK then. Forgive me. This is good military action :thumbsup:

I mean it's not like France has a history of colonialism or anything like that.

[ClarkUSA]

11. Yes. Moving the goalpost now? Dredging up the past without basis can become a habit, eh?

It is hypocritical to constantly decry the accidental killing of civilians in Af-Pak yet be completely dismissive of Quaddafi's purposeful and promised Rwanda genocide of his own people because they dared wanted democracy.

I for one am glad that France and Britain took the lead in pushing for the protection of hundreds of thousands of defenseless rebels who just want a better life than the one under Quaddafi is offering them.

[Cali_Democrat]

13. Yes!

This is a good war! These are freedom missiles hitting Libyan targets.

Rah rah sis boom bah!

[ClarkUSA]

14. False meme again. Facts don't seem to have any bearing on your rhetoric.

Here are the facts in case you're at all interested (after all, it's a Supermoon today):

A U.N. resolution is not a unilateral U.S. action.

President Obama didn't take unilateral action and certainly didn't declare war.

The U.S. is a signatory of the U.N. Charter. A unilateral declaration of war is different from a U.N. sanctioned action under its Charter.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=633053&mesg_id=633053

[Exilednight]

17. Hey here's a few facts for you

The U.N. resolution for Iraq was not a unilateral U.S. action.
President Bush did not take unilateral action and didn't declare war on Iraq.

[ClarkUSA]

19. Wrong again. There was no U.N. resolution approving the Iraq invasion.

See Reply 20.
Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=633085&mesg_id=633205

[vaberella]

22. Don't waste your time, energy, or typing fingers on the argument with some here. n/t

[Exilednight]

26. UN resolution 1440

Although it did not state the use of military force in the face of noncompliance, there was no wording to prevent the use of military force. This was the caveat that Bush used as a pretext for starting the war. The Bush administration spent 2 weeks making sure that the wording to prevent military force was not included in the resolution.

A little homework and research go a long way.

[ClarkUSA]

28. You're wrong. I repeat, there was no UN resolution approving the Iraq invasion.

Proof here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=633085&mesg_id=633245

[Exilednight]

32. Your link is to someone I have on ignore. How about just posting something to an outside link.

[ProSense]

30. "A little homework and research go a long way."

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1440

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441

Oposition to invasion

<...>

There were serious legal questions surrounding the launching of the war against Iraq and the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war in general. On September 16, 2004, Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, said of the invasion, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the Charter point of view, it was illegal."

<...>

[SpartanDem]

43. "did not state the use of military force in the face of noncompliance"

Which means that Bush did act unilateral and the UN said as much when it declared to Iraq war illegal

[ProSense]

20. What?

"The U.N. resolution for Iraq was not a unilateral U.S. action.
President Bush did not take unilateral action and didn't declare war on Iraq."

There was no U.N. resolution approving the Iraq invasion. It was a unilateral action by Bush. He ordered the invasion and rounded up whatever support he could get.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Aren't you going to post some pictures of Libyan suffering

and let us know that this is what America is doing?
Cause that's what Khaddafi wants you to do, cause
that's what he said.

[David__77]

16. I hope this ends in total failure.

It's the only way to safeguard world peace.

[vaberella]

23. Are you joking?! OMG! Most disgusting post on this board yet. n/t

[David__77]

52. Far less disgusting than the blood lust on display here..

...

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

31. There were plenty of people who felt the same way when France helped the American colonists too.

They were wrong, too.

[Exilednight]

33. Let's think this through.

If we had lost the war, how many more Native Americans would be alive today?

[ClarkUSA]

38. Hypotheticals don't interest me.

But if American colonists had lost the War of Independence as many monarchists wished, I'd wager that just as few Native Americans would be alive today under British rule (see Australia, Canada, and New Zealand for how the British Empire has treated native populations).

[Union Scribe]

48. Failure hasn't stopped our hyper-aggressive military adventuring

in the last few decades, so I don't think it matters. It isn't about winning or losing. It's about the industry of perpetual war.

[jenmito]

21. You're 100% WRONG. As I said on another thread:

There is no comparison between Iraq and Libya. Bush lied us into war with Iraq, claiming they had WMD and we couldn't wait "for a smoking gun which could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." He also said Iraq was somehow involved in 9/11-at least it was strongly implied. And we sent in ground troops.

That's a totally different scenario from Obama getting a UN resolution with the support of the Arab League to help the people of Libya who WANTED our help. Obama didn't lie to us to send our troops into Libya (the resolution specifically states there will be NO ground troops sent in).

Trying to compare the two is ridiculous.

[Top Cat]

37. Thanks you the original post is ridiculous..

[DevonRex]

24. Talk to the UN then.

[RollWithIt]

29. You oppose the United Nations passing a resolution Unanimously

To provide a no fly and no attack zone around the city of Benghazi. It is an order to protect the lives of nearly a million civilians.

It provides for no ground invasion of the country. The order, led by the French, provides for a 150km circle around Benghazi. It does not provide for ground invasion of that area.

[Exilednight]

41. It was not passed unamimously. 15 nations sit on the UN Security Council and only 10

voted for the resolution.

Adopting resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation), the Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory — requesting them to immediately inform the Secretary-General of such measures.

[krabigirl]

34. me too. k & R.

[Hippo_Tron]

46. Saddam was not actively engaging in the mass slaughter of his own people in 2003

Yea I'm ambivalent about this one and I'm sure out mission isn't purely humanitarian. But regardless of what Bush said or Obama says now, the fact is that Iraq could not possibly have been a mission to stop genocide since Saddam hadn't engaged in a mass slaughtering of his people for over a decade. Ghaddafi is engaged in it now and that is a fact.

[Union Scribe]

47. Obama's doing it. It's okay.

It's just chess, with bombs.

[wisteria]

49. Were you opposed to helping the rebels in Egypt too? n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

51. Through military action?

Yes

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.