or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Did We Assassinate Gaddafi?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Did We Assassinate Gaddafi?

post #1 of 58
Thread Starter 
Reuters Reports Gaddafi is dead.

It's unclear what happened. Right now the stories are NATO air strike, found hiding in a hole, or killed in combat by rebel fighters. We'll see what the official story is.

Let's assume for a moment that a NATO air strike killed him. Does this qualify has assassinating the leader of sovereign nation? Will liberals condemn the entire Libya operation? Will Obama benefit or be hurt by this?

Those questions aside, I'm glad he's gone.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2 of 58
It doesn't matter what the "official" account is. It's irrelevant, really. What concerns me is that most people think it's okay to invade and occupy sovereign nations that have not attacked us and kill innocent people while claiming we're "liberating" them.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #3 of 58
Next target: Iran?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #4 of 58
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

It doesn't matter what the "official" account is. It's irrelevant, really. What concerns me is that most people think it's okay to invade and occupy sovereign nations that have not attacked us and kill innocent people while claiming we're "liberating" them.

I get it...but I also don't think the world is that simple. I supported the initial NATO involvement until it became clear that the President was violating the War Powers Resolution. The goal of preventing a pre-announced slaughter is one I supported.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #5 of 58
I think Mark Rubio is right when he says the US had nothing to do with the fall, capture, and death of Qaddafi and that credit should go to the British and French.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.co...1343?ref=fpblg
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #6 of 58
Some estimates put the overall death toll in the so-called "2011 Libyan Civil War" at 25,000.

Did 25,000 people have to die to prevent a "pre-announced slaughter"?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #7 of 58
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Some estimates put the overall death toll in the so-called "2011 Libyan Civil War" at 25,000.

Did 25,000 people have to die to prevent a "pre-announced slaughter"?

Did we cause all those deaths? Or even most of them? Might there have been more deaths had we not intervened.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #8 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Did we cause all those deaths? Or even most of them? Might there have been more deaths had we not intervened.

It's just as wrong if we are responsible for one death. Or is the value of a human life arbitrary?

Libya did not attack us. We had no business going in there, spending money we don't have, and participating in the destruction of human life and property.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #9 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

It doesn't matter what the "official" account is. It's irrelevant, really. What concerns me is that most people think it's okay to invade and occupy sovereign nations that have not attacked us and kill innocent people while claiming we're "liberating" them.

Lockerbie? Just to start.
post #10 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Lockerbie? Just to start.

Are you suggesting that was an act of war sanctioned by the Libyan government?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #11 of 58
$5 billion well spent.

Of course, that doesn't include the money spent on our "kinetic military action/non-war" in Libya.

Now we can put in a puppet regime and create even more blowback! Yay!

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #12 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Are you suggesting that was an act of war sanctioned by the Libyan government?

Not a suggestion but point of fact.
post #13 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

It's just as wrong if we are responsible for one death. Or is the value of a human life arbitrary?

Your proposed libertarian solutions also will be responsible for thousands of deaths due to lack of unemployment benefits and healthcare. Is your value of a human life arbitrary?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #14 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Not a suggestion but point of fact.

Really? Where is the declaration of war? Why did we give Libya a $5 billion bailout from our own Federal Reserve if we were at war with them?

You know, the 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia. Why haven't we invaded and occupied Saudi Arabia yet?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #15 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Really? Where is the declaration of war? Why did we give Libya a $5 billion bailout from our own Federal Reserve if we were at war with them?

You know, the 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia. Why haven't we invaded and occupied Saudi Arabia yet?


It's interesting to learn that countries always declare war before they attack. And never fight proxy wars.

We invaded the country the the 9-11 hijackers came from.


Ignorance is bliss ... and deadly.
post #16 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

It's interesting to learn that countries always declare war before they attack. And never fight proxy wars.

We invaded the country the the 9-11 hijackers came from.


Ignorance is bliss ... and deadly.

Our constitution requires Congress to declare war before waging it. Where is our declaration of war against Libya?

Wait, the 9/11 attackers were from Iraq?!

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #17 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Our constitution requires Congress to declare war before waging it. Where is our declaration of war against Libya?

Only when a republican is president. What I mean is when did libya declare war?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Wait, the 9/11 attackers were from Iraq?!

No the other place with brown people we like to kill that are muslins (sic).
post #18 of 58
Chalk up a score for al Qaeda in Libya.

Remember when Gadhafi was a US bitch boy, as was Saddam Hussein, while he was slaughtering his own, and other people?

Well done, NATO and Obama. May the filthy scum asphyxiate in the foul gasses of their endless duplicity and lies.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #19 of 58
Two points. One, it seems we don't need the Hague anymore. Just go out and kill the fuckers. Saddam, Osama, Gadaffi.

Next, why stop now? Just draw up a "World's Most Wanted" and go for it. Ahmadinejad, Kim, Castro, Hamas top brass. Not necessarily in that order.

Fuck the CIA, just openly use US, UK, Nato and Allied troops.

Milosevic and Mubarak must be laughing their asses off right now.

Am I being sarcastic or facetious or otherwise? I leave that for you to decide.
post #20 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

No the other place with brown people we like to kill that are muslins (sic).

I thought the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi? Doesn't seem to have been invaded by anyone recently.
post #21 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

I thought the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi? Doesn't seem to have been invaded by anyone recently.

Yes, the majority of the hijackers were Saudi. Does FloorJack care? Oh... Tim McVeigh was white conservative Libertarian. Let's bomb Texas!

Not to mention Lockerbie was in 1988. We're justified in bombing Lybia 23 years later?
post #22 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

It's interesting to learn that countries always declare war before they attack. And never fight proxy wars.

We invaded the country the the 9-11 hijackers came from.

Of the alleged hijackers, 15 were Saudi, 2 from the UAE, 1 Egyptian and 1 Lebanese. In "response", we invade Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan (all planned a long time *prior* to 9/11). Then the US and NATO gives aid to al Qaeda in Libya.

A parallel would be the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor being countered by an invasion of Argentina.

Quote:
Ignorance is bliss ... and deadly.

Enjoy the bliss, and watch your back.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #23 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Of the alleged hijackers, 15 were Saudi, 2 from the UAE, 1 Egyptian and 1 Lebanese. In "response", we invade Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan (all planned a long time *prior* to 9/11). Then the US and NATO gives aid to al Qaeda in Libya.

A parallel would be the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor being countered by an invasion of Argentina.



Enjoy the bliss, and watch your back.

Actually, that's an idiotic parallel because the Japanese Government and military were directly and openly involved in Pearl Harbor. Both 9/11 and Lockerbie were secular acts. You can't invade a country and depose/assassinate its ruler for a secular act.
post #24 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Actually, that's an idiotic parallel because the Japanese Government and military were directly and openly involved in Pearl Harbor. Both 9/11 and Lockerbie were secular acts. You can't invade a country and depose/assassinate its ruler for a secular act.

Apparently under Obama, yes you can.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #25 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Apparently under Obama, yes you can.

Yup, and under GW, Clinton and Reagan too. Props have to be given to HW for keeping our hands relatively clean.
post #26 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Reuters Reports Gaddafi is dead.

It's unclear what happened. Right now the stories are NATO air strike, found hiding in a hole, or killed in combat by rebel fighters. We'll see what the official story is.

Let's assume for a moment that a NATO air strike killed him. Does this qualify has assassinating the leader of sovereign nation? Will liberals condemn the entire Libya operation? Will Obama benefit or be hurt by this?

Those questions aside, I'm glad he's gone.

I am a Liberal and I am glad this piece of turd is dead.Obama will benefit from this as he was part of this operation from the start behind George Soros backing.
post #27 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yes, the majority of the hijackers were Saudi. Does FloorJack care? Oh... Tim McVeigh was white conservative Libertarian. Let's bomb Texas!

Not to mention Lockerbie was in 1988. We're justified in bombing Lybia 23 years later?

Were you born where you live now?
post #28 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Two points. One, it seems we don't need the Hague anymore. Just go out and kill the fuckers. Saddam, Osama, Gadaffi.

Next, why stop now? Just draw up a "World's Most Wanted" and go for it. Ahmadinejad, Kim, Castro, Hamas top brass. Not necessarily in that order.

Fuck the CIA, just openly use US, UK, Nato and Allied troops.

Milosevic and Mubarak must be laughing their asses off right now.

Am I being sarcastic or facetious or otherwise? I leave that for you to decide.

When did we start needing The Hague
post #29 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Were you born where you live now?

Were the Saudi hijackers born in Afghanistan?

And you ignored the next question: Were they working on official orders of the Taliban?
post #30 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Were the Saudi hijackers born in Afghanistan?

And you ignored the next question: Were they working on official orders of the Taliban?

Why does that even matter? They were the "guests" of the Taliban.
post #31 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Why does that even matter? They were the "guests" of the Taliban.

And Tim McVeigh was a guest (citizen) of the US Government.

Question: Did the Taliban host the hijackers as official guests after 9/11?

But really, it doesn't matter, as far as four of the last five US presidents, and you, are concerned. If you want to bomb the fuck out of someone, it doesn't matter one iota if there's really a connection there or not. You'll just do it and claim some sort of (weak; disproven; unlikely; impossible) link, and call anyone who questions your link "against America".
post #32 of 58
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

It's just as wrong if we are responsible for one death. Or is the value of a human life arbitrary?

Oh, stop. You know the world doesn't work in absolutes like that, and you know that's not what I'm saying. I am merely arguing that we may well have prevented deaths by getting involved.

Quote:

Libya did not attack us. We had no business going in there, spending money we don't have, and participating in the destruction of human life and property.

1. I don't agree that a nation has to directly attack us for us to get involved. And really...they "didn't attack us?" Sure they did. They did by sponsoring terrorism for the last 30 years.

2. I do agree about the money. This should be paid for with frozen assets of the Gadaffi regime.

3. Military force causes the loss of life and property. You make it sound like we just went in there and started carpet bombing for fun. You know this is not true.



Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

I am a Liberal and I am glad this piece of turd is dead.Obama will benefit from this as he was part of this operation from the start behind George Soros backing.



Put down the shrooms.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #33 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Oh, stop. You know the world doesn't work in absolutes like that, and you know that's not what I'm saying. I am merely arguing that we may well have prevented deaths by getting involved.

And I am merely arguing that we may have caused more deaths by claiming to prevent them.

Quote:
1. I don't agree that a nation has to directly attack us for us to get involved. And really...they "didn't attack us?" Sure they did. They did by sponsoring terrorism for the last 30 years.

I don't see where the Constitution grants authority for the federal government to wage war without an official declaration from Congress. Can you point it out for me?

Quote:
3. Military force causes the loss of life and property. You make it sound like we just went in there and started carpet bombing for fun. You know this is not true.

The only legitimate use of American military force and aggression is in defense of American life and property. Libya was not attacking us. Heck, up until a year or two ago Quadaffi was our buddy and the Fed gave him billions of dollars to bail out his bank.

Claiming our "kinetic military action (non-war)" was in response to "terrorism" makes it as illegitimate and immoral as our invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #34 of 58
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

And I am merely arguing that we may have caused more deaths by claiming to prevent them.

That doesn't even make sense. So us claiming to prevent them actually caused more? The fact is that neither one of us knows exactly. It certainly seems on the surface that thousands of lives were saved. Gaddafi was going to essentially wipe out entire towns.

Quote:

I don't see where the Constitution grants authority for the federal government to wage war without an official declaration from Congress. Can you point it out for me?

That's really not the question. Congress was practically begging Obama to let them authorize this action. He refused. Would you agree agree that a congressional authorization of force is tantamount to declaration of war? And if not, isn't the War Powers Resolution unconstitutional because it allows the President to use troops without approval under certain time constraints?

Quote:


The only legitimate use of American military force and aggression is in defense of American life and property.

I disagree. That is, assuming you mean direct threats to American life and property.


Quote:
Libya was not attacking us. Heck, up until a year or two ago Quadaffi was our buddy and the Fed gave him billions of dollars to bail out his bank.

And why do you think that changed?

Quote:

Claiming our "kinetic military action (non-war)" was in response to "terrorism" makes it as illegitimate and immoral as our invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Immoral? That's just nuts. There were a dozen reasons to invade Iraq, not the least of which is that they violated the 1991 ceasefire about 4,000 times.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #35 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That doesn't even make sense. So us claiming to prevent them actually caused more? The fact is that neither one of us knows exactly. It certainly seems on the surface that thousands of lives were saved. Gaddafi was going to essentially wipe out entire towns.

Thousands of lives were saved by ending 25,000 of them? That makes no sense.

Quote:
That's really not the question. Congress was practically begging Obama to let them authorize this action. He refused. Would you agree agree that a congressional authorization of force is tantamount to declaration of war? And if not, isn't the War Powers Resolution unconstitutional because it allows the President to use troops without approval under certain time constraints?

Why all the side-stepping and dancing around the issue. If "authorization of force" by Congress is tantamount to a declaration of war, then why not issue an official declaration of war?

And yes, the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional.


Quote:
And why do you think that changed?

Because Quadaffi wanted to nationalize his oil industry and cut off the UK and Italy.

Quote:
Immoral? That's just nuts. There were a dozen reasons to invade Iraq, not the least of which is that they violated the 1991 ceasefire about 4,000 times.

Yes, immoral. Iraq did not attack the United States. That's why this whole idea of a "preemptive war" had to be concocted as justification for our invasion and occupation.

Why don't we invade and occupy North Korea in the name of "liberating" the people, removing a brutal authoritarian regime, and "establishing democracy"? Oh, that's right, we can't bully NK around like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya because NK has nukes.

Do you not see why Iran could possibly want nukes, too? We're invading and attacking countries all around them. Why should they not be expected to try to defend themselves by any means possible from what they see as a threat to their sovereignty and way of life?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #36 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

When did we start needing The Hague

Henry Kissinger, for one.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #37 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And Tim McVeigh was a guest (citizen) of the US Government.

Question: Did the Taliban host the hijackers as official guests after 9/11?

I think Tim McVeigh met the same fate as Bin Laden.


AFAIK the Taliban did not turn over bin Laden et. al.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

But really, it doesn't matter, as far as four of the last five US presidents, and you, are concerned. If you want to bomb the fuck out of someone, it doesn't matter one iota if there's really a connection there or not. You'll just do it and claim some sort of (weak; disproven; unlikely; impossible) link, and call anyone who questions your link "against America".

When you ignore the facts and embrace the conspiracy proof is irrelevant. vis a vis Truthers.
post #38 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

When you ignore the facts and embrace the conspiracy proof is irrelevant. vis a vis Truthers.

Exactly.
post #39 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

I think Tim McVeigh met the same fate as Bin Laden.

AFAIK the Taliban did not turn over bin Laden et. al.

The Taliban did offer to arrest, detain and hand over Osama bin Laden, if US provided relevant evidence that OBL had a part in the organizing and and funding of the attacks, and his possible whereabouts. The Bush Administration refused.

The popular notion of Osama bin Laden's involvement was a media creation. The media pundits were repeating bin Laden's name every minut, ad infinitum, from when the 2nd plane went in to his alleged recent assassination, some 10 years later.

The FBI, on the other hand, did not share that conspiracy theory. The FBI's "most wanted" list included OBL but with no mention of 9/11: "we have no hard evidence linking OBL to the attacks of 9/11". Similarly with the US Department of Justice: OBL was never indicted on charges related to 9/11. Same with the CIA: "there is no evidence linking OBL's considerable wealth to the funding for 9/11.

The implication, is that Bush Administration knew quite a lot more about the reality of OBL's involvement with 9/11, or lack thereof, than what the corporate media was feeding the masses: (OBL was being anointed as the "King of Islamic Bogeyman To Be Scared Of"). And to add that to the fact that the Afghanistan war (alongside Iraq War, the Patriot Act (sic) etc. etc.) was planned and written up long before 9/11, the entire scenario looks even more bogus and fabricated.

It's hardly a wonder that the Bush Administration refused the Taliban's offer.

Quote:
When you ignore the facts and embrace the conspiracy proof is irrelevant. vis a vis Truthers.

It's the American thing to ask questions of one's government, and demand proven answers, as opposed to easily digestible baby formula platitudes and propaganda. That is, if we Americans remain free to ask less than comfortable, soft-soap questions without being tarred and feathered by our own, current equivalent of the BrownShirts, of course. We, not they, are the bosses. They are our representatives. In theory of course.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #40 of 58
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Thousands of lives were saved by ending 25,000 of them? That makes no sense.

Can you show me that our actions caused the deaths of 25,000? You'e confusing correlation with causation, even assuming the figure is correct.

Quote:



Why all the side-stepping and dancing around the issue. If "authorization of force" by Congress is tantamount to a declaration of war, then why not issue an official declaration of war?

That's what it's become. I suppose there may be certain legal advantages to not calling it a "war."

Quote:

And yes, the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional.

I'm betting we agree, but for different reasons. I think it unconstitutionally limits the President's power to use the armed forces.

Quote:

Because Quadaffi wanted to nationalize his oil industry and cut off the UK and Italy.

And this is OK?

Quote:


Yes, immoral. Iraq did not attack the United States. That's why this whole idea of a "preemptive war" had to be concocted as justification for our invasion and occupation.

Iraq did attack the United States...multiple times and in multiple ways. We've been through this.

Quote:

Why don't we invade and occupy North Korea in the name of "liberating" the people, removing a brutal authoritarian regime, and "establishing democracy"? Oh, that's right, we can't bully NK around like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya because NK has nukes.

I've never understood this argument. What you are essentially doing is calling for war with one country just because we invaded another. It's fantastically stupid to imply the two situations are the same.

Quote:

Do you not see why Iran could possibly want nukes, too? We're invading and attacking countries all around them. Why should they not be expected to try to defend themselves by any means possible from what they see as a threat to their sovereignty and way of life?

And..yet another absurd, flawed argument. It's the Ron Paul vision of "if we just leave everyone alone, they'll stop hating us." Iran was going to pursue nukes regardless of whether or not we invaded Iraq. Why? Because Iran wants nukes so it can dominate the Middle East. Iran is not pursuing nukes just to deter us...they are pursuing nukes because they resent the "Great Satan's" power and influence in the world. The same applies to China's military buildup. They are not concerned we might invade them. They simply don't want us dominating the Pacific forever. They resent our influence. The only difference is that the Chinese are not anti-Western, religious zealots.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Did We Assassinate Gaddafi?