Obama Admin: Goal to "Install Democratic System" (Afghanistan, weapons, revolution)

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

I personally think we have no business being there...but if the UN decides it needs to act, we need to help the UN. That means flying bombing missions and launching cruise missiles. That doesn't mean boots on the ground.

And then we need to help the UN leave NYC and the US.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to take this headline on Drudge Report and create a thread here.

Out of the following possibilities...
1- Ignore Gaddaffi's actions (Technically support Gaddaffi)
2- Weaken Gaddaffi's use of military over the rebels (Technically, support the rebellion)
3- Direct engage in war with the government in Libya

I support #2. What do you?

Couldnt the same argument be said about Saddam? Oh I see.. you now support it because its Obama..

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

happens once in a blue moon.

But it happens. That is important.

Originally Posted by bluebeard

1.
If that sounds callous, than did it sounds callous to not intervene in Iraq when Saddam was gassing his people, etc...?

What do you think? Should we have done something about it?

[burdell]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Couldnt the same argument be said about Saddam? Oh I see.. you now support it because its Obama..

Did Saddam have an active rebel force opposing him that made option #2 a viable choice?

Or did you just feel like a little apples/oranges snack?

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by burdell

Did Saddam have an active rebel force opposing him that made option #2 a viable choice?

Yes.. Saddam indeed had active rebel forces opposing him
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_up...#The_uprisings

Originally Posted by burdell

Or did you just feel like a little apples/oranges snack?

Its not apples/oranges.. I havent criticized Obama taking action either..

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Couldnt the same argument be said about Saddam? Oh I see.. you now support it because its Obama..

Actually, Reagan should have done something about Saddam when he was gassing Iraqis. No? HW Bush (and later Clinton) engaged in the same way in post-Gulf War Iraq and that made sense. No? And what do you think of this? Somehow, it appears, this nation is at greater comfort supporting the rogues or at least their causes.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Its not apples/oranges.. I havent criticized Obama taking action either..

But EG said he supported option #2 while Bush clearly took option #3 in Iraq. Alleging EG supported Libya because it's Obama just doesn't hold water, two DIFFERENT actions being compared.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

Actually, Reagan should have done something about Saddam when he was gassing Iraqis. No?

Well he did try arming Saddam's enemy, Iran

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

Actually, Reagan should have done something about Saddam when he was gassing Iraqis. No?

Yep. I believe he did take steps like your #2, it just failed. So are you now justifying Obama to invade if #2 fails now?

Originally Posted by burdell

But EG said he supported option #2 while Bush clearly took option #3 in Iraq. Alleging EG supported Libya because it's Obama just doesn't hold water, two DIFFERENT actions being compared.

#2 was taken.. it failed.. So what do you do then? What happens if #2 fails now as well? You may not jump to #3 first but the other steps were taken with Iraq as well.

[california-jewel]

Originally Posted by Sunny-Days90

How can Obomba install a democratic system in Libya when he is trying his hardest to destroy our democratic process here in America.

Amazing.

Really good point and well taken. And our economy at the same time.