No comment necessary

Holy f u c k. RELAX. I simply thought I missed a "They're gettin' on the boat and heading over" news story.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Then why the use of the word "yet"?

Because I have no foreknowledge of the future, and don't pretend to.

Then why use the term "yet" as if you know an invasion is coming?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah, well I guess I'll "spin" it this way then...

We are not invading Libya. We are setting up a no fly zone. If you really are hell bent on parallels, a better one would be when this country imposed a no fly zone in Northern Iraq, which protected the Iraqi Kurds. IIRC, that wasn't exactly a controversial policy.

Get the difference? Just to recap.... invasion vs no fly zone…

Any modern-day invasion is nearly always prefaced by a softening-up bombardment and the dismantling of the air, and other defenses, of the ‘invadees’.
So, no, we’re not ‘invading’ Libya – yet.
And we are not not invading Libya, either, but we are most definitely laying the groundwork for such a contingency.
It remains to be seen.

Yeah, well I guess nothing "remains to be seen" at this point, does it?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah, well I guess nothing "remains to be seen" at this point, does it?

My goodness.
6 billion posts dedicated to my use of the word 'yet', all in the interest of avoiding the actual topic of this thread.

Hardly. I specifically addressed the "topic of this thread" from the outset. You're the poster who has chosen to avoid having a discussion regarding the events between the AUMF resolution on Iraq and the actual invasion of Iraq. I invited you to start a thread regarding it twice already, and both times you ignored the request.

Once again, if you want to have a discussion regarding those events, which is the only way to understand why the Bush Administration lost the trust of the American people during the run-up to the invasion in Iraq, then start a frickin' thread and we'll discuss it.

I can't speak for the other posters here, but in my eyes, it's time for you to either accept the invitation, or STFU about it once and for all.

BigFan wrote:

I believe Bush misled this country that Iraq possessed wmd as a reason to invade. No such tactic has been employed by the current administration. If Obama declares mission accomplished shortly after invading Libya, then start drawing the similarities. Outrage against bush was well deserved. The president lied through his teeth for years and we are far worse off because of it.

And THIS president pretends he knows more than he knows.

Always has a plan, right? His plans right after vacation is to campaign to win again only to tell you about his new plans.

Bush was an idiot, so is Obama. Bush lied; Obama makes up excuses only to execute another "I have a plan..."

Why do you think everyone from Valarie Jarrett on down jumped ship? Because they didn't know what the hell they were doing and knew POTUS wasn't going to get re-elected, because he doesn't know what the heck he is doing.

He has a jazzy smile, but that's only good for Hollywood, though.

As far as wars. the U.S. is no longer in any financial condition to get involved. By this time next year foreclosures will be even more on the rise. We will have already entered a double-dip recession and people think the politicians are going to create jobs?

The billionaires/millionaires are building their own little "cities" on stilts in the ocean, and no taxes, no government intrusion.

Our kids - the bright ones that were fortunate enough to have made it through college without getting shot at, will be speaking Chinese, etc., and will be working overseas.

The U.S. eventually be so in debt, war will be the least on the minds of Americans.

There is NO LONGER such things as having a job for life with a savings nest and medical benefits from a job. There is NO LONGER job security.

It's never coming back.

But you guys are arguing over what?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

My goodness.
6 billion posts dedicated to my use of the word 'yet', all in the interest of avoiding the actual topic of this thread.

Hardly. I specifically addressed the "topic of this thread" from the outset. You're the poster who has chosen to avoid having a discussion regarding the events between the AUMF resolution on Iraq and the actual invasion of Iraq. I invited you to start a thread regarding it twice already, and both times you ignored the request.

Once again, if you want to have a discussion regarding those events, which is the only way to understand why the Bush Administration lost the trust of the American people during the run-up to the invasion in Iraq, then start a frickin' thread and we'll discuss it.

I can't speak for the other posters here, but in my eyes, it's time for you to either accept the invitation, or STFU about it once and for all.

No matter how many threads you demand that I start will change this:

Iraq and Libya are both countries whose leaders were killing their own citizens en masse; they are also countries which allegedly posed no threat to the U.S. but which were nevertheless attacked by the U.S..
Hence, morally indistinguishable.

And no, I will not STFU - but thanks for asking!

Yeah, whatever. As I said early in this thread....

Scorpion wrote:

We are not invading Libya. We are setting up a no fly zone. If you really are hell bent on parallels, a better one would be when this country imposed a no fly zone in Northern Iraq, which protected the Iraqi Kurds. IIRC, that wasn't exactly a controversial policy.

Get the difference? Just to recap.... invasion vs no fly zone...

If you can't see the difference between an invasion and the imposition of a no-fly zone, then I can't help you.

Scorpion wrote:

I can't speak for the other posters here, but in my eyes, it's time for you to either accept the invitation, or STFU about it once and for all.

Seconded.

Heretic wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

I can't speak for the other posters here, but in my eyes, it's time for you to either accept the invitation, or STFU about it once and for all.

Seconded.

The ayes have it. Motion passes on a unanimous vote.

happy jack wrote:

To attack or not to attack wasn't my purpose in starting this thread. The purpose was to illuminate the vast difference in outrage over two morally indistinguishable international incidents.
Iraq and Libya are both countries whose leaders were killing their own citizens en masse; they are also countries which allegedly posed no threat to the U.S. but which were nevertheless attacked by the U.S..
Hence, morally indistinguishable.

Exactly which part of Invasion NOT EQUAL TO No Fly Zone don't you understand? If we had invaded Libya, then perhaps your "argument" might be worth pursuing.

But that's simply not the case.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

.... STFU about it once and for all.

Heretic wrote:

Seconded.

Artie60438 wrote:

The ayes have it. Motion passes on a unanimous vote.

[b]The three self-proclaimed members of Mensa, combined, can’t seem to break this argument ….

I hate to break it to you but you lost the argument the day you started comparing the events in Libya to Iraq..

happy jack wrote:

[b]To date, not a single poster has broken these statements.
Would you like another crack at it, Artie?

Nope. Scorpion has previously destroyed your argument. The fact that you can't accept that is sad.

Quote :

You may make all the apologies and excuses you wish in order to make sure our 44th white president won't look bad, but it won't make a bit of difference.

Look bad? HaHaHa! President Obama has completely destroyed the old wingnut talking point of "we'll keep you safe and the Democrats won't". His foreign policy successes are killing you guys.

Happy jack, according to the Bush administration, Iraq was a threat to the US with their storage of WMDs. That is why Bush ordered the invasion. Obama just answered the call of an international force to help protect innocent people that were being slaughtered by the military. No one has accused Gadhafi of having WMDs and there has been no invasion of Libya, just the enforcement of the UN mandated no fly zone.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

President Obama has completely destroyed the old wingnut talking point of "we'll keep you safe and the Democrats won't".

[b]So we're safe from Libya?
Phew!!!
Maybe now I can get some sleep.

I apologize if that went over your head. I'm referring to the killing of Osama Bin Laden,the fact that there have been no attacks in the US since Obama took office,and the marginalizing of Al-Quada. In fact,on Sunday we just killed their #2 guy in Pakistan.

happy jack wrote:

board monkey wrote:

Happy jack, according to the Bush administration, Iraq was a threat to the US with their storage of WMDs. That is why Bush ordered the invasion. Obama just answered the call of an international force to help protect innocent people that were being slaughtered by the military. No one has accused Gadhafi of having WMDs and there has been no invasion of Libya, just the enforcement of the UN mandated no fly zone.

Once again:

Iraq and Libya are both countries whose leaders were killing their own citizens en masse; they are also countries which allegedly posed no threat to the U.S. but which were nevertheless attacked by the U.S..
Hence, morally indistinguishable.

Like I said, Bush claimed they were a threat that they had WMDs and that was why he ordered the invasion of Iraq. Now, after many years, we found out Bush lied was mistaken and misled, which doesn't change the reasoning.