Iv'e really fucking had it with being told I support Qadaffi

[cali]

I'll make a deal with you guys who support the Libyan war: I won't tell you that you love bombing the shit out of babies and you refrain from telling me how much I love Qadaffi. Deal?

[Motown_Johnny]

1. easiest deal ever!

[Mnemosyne]

2. Hear, hear! Thank you cali! K&R n/t

[marmar]

3. Agreed. That's rhetoric similar to what we all complained about during the Bush era......

nt

[TorchTheWitch]

7. Exactly so

So much of what is said on here about the Libya war sounds like it comes right out of the mouths of Rumsfeld, Bush, et al. Revolting.

[krabigirl]

24. Yep, but this war is ok because our guy is running it! Lmao.

[madokie]

4. Wake up on the wrong side of the bed or what?

:rofl:

[cali]

6. actually yes.

I had a really hard day yesterday. One of good friends ran over another good friend's dog and it's a painful mess. The dog isn't dead but she's twelve years old with a badly broken leg and my friend has to decide today what to do.

but I'm still sick of being told I support Qadaffi because I don't support the war there.

[madokie]

27. I'm sorry about the friends companion

and would be in one of those moods too if it was ours or one of our friends.
If it makes you feel any better I'm told here daily that I'm all for coal because I dislike nuclear so I do get where you're coming from. :hug:
Peace

[cali]

29. aw thanks.

[mmonk]

5. Civilians are always the politics of both sides of a war.

He will not stop being brutal in his attempt to put down the revolution and NATO will not stop its campaign because its real purpose is globalization.

[Buzz Clik]

8. It's not my style to do that, but I do have a couple of questions:

1. Do you consider Qadaffi a murderous dictator?
2. When you start threads asking those who support action in Libya why we aren't involved militarily in Syria, Yemen, and other places of violent oppression, are you advocating military intervention or simply invoking a rhetorical ploy?

========

On edit: I see that you answered the second question on another thread. That sets you apart from most. :thumbsup:

[cali]

10. glad to answer.

a) yes. one, alas, of many extant today.

2) I'm looking for some kind of intellectual consistency from those who support the Libyan intervention.

[a la izquierda]

9. right on cali!

no one has quite put it to me in the terms you've experienced, but i've heard: "you're a liberal, how can you not support removing this monsters?" or "he's killing his own people, you KNOW we've got to do something, and if you don't support that, the problem is with you!" Um, no, the problem ISN'T with me. I've stopped trusting the US to do the right thing with guns and bombs since the 1950s, when we supported a military coup of a democratically elected leader in Central America. We trained and armed the Guatemalan military. 200,000+ died as a result. We support what is convenient for us, what is expedient for the American government, and innocents be damned.

[ElboRuum]

11. Wait, what?

Is this now a problem? I didn't know this was a problem. Where is this going on?

[Cleita]

12. There's no proof babies were bombed.

If you want to play into Ghaddafi's little sympathy game, you are a fool. Wait until NATO or other independent sources confirm the story before casting blame.

[cali]

14. oh for fuck/s sake. it's a turn of phrase

and anyone who doesn't think children are dying in this conflict is a total fucking idiot.

[GKirk]

15. What babies are we talking about?

I read a headline today saying that some place was bombed and Quaddaffi's son and grandchildren were killed.
Is someone assuming the grandchildren were babies? Does anyone know how old they actually are?

[polly7]

16. Does it matter how old the dead children are? nt.

[Cleita]

18. I'm specifically referring to the three children

under twelve, reputedly to be Ghaddafis grandchildren, who were reputedly killed by a NATO bomb, that everyone has their panties in a twist about. Oh who cares about all those children killed and maimed who aren't related to the Colonel. :sarcasm: My point is that they may not even have been killed or even exist except in his sick, Machiavellian mind.

[GKirk]

21. Under twelve is close enough

to being considered a baby in my book. Knowing Quadaffi's age I assumed they would be older.

[Hotler]

13. k&r n/t

[SidDithers]

17. Sorry, this is DU...

all issues only have 2 extreme sides. There's no middle ground and no nuance allowed.

Sorry.

Sid

[cali]

19. how could I have forgotten?

[Posteritatis]

20. Only a foul commienazi would say such a thing!

;)

[krabigirl]

22. Same here. Reminds me of 2003 when I was told that I supported Saddam.

The ignorance is just astounding, but I am not surprised.

[johnaries]

23. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph

is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke.

How many babies (or children of any age) do you think Qadaffi has killed? Perhaps you don't support Qadaffi directly, but by supporting non-action you are indirectly supporting letting him kill as many children and babies as he wishes. Inaction, as well as action, has consequences.

[cali]

31. so then you support Assad. Not directly of course......

[Odin2005]

25. Too much black-and-white thinking going on.

Yes, there is cynical oil interests involved, but there are a lot of other things, too.

[deaniac21]

26. It's looking more and more to me like the organized anti-war

protests are really just anti-republican protests. It makes me sick.
Back in the 60's and 70's it didn't matter who was in power.

[pampango]

28. Agreed. The "Qadaffi-lover" vs "war-monger" strawmen are quite pointless. n/t

[robcon]

30. You "look the other way" when Qadaffi kills thousands of innocents.

No balance in your posts, IMO, cali.

[StarburstClock]

32. Sounds like you need to look up the word "support"

pal...