Egypt and Arab States circle toilet bowl

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

What are you talking about?

We have already lost one aircraft in this boonedoggle.....

[TheMercenary]

The hypocrisy of the American left

Self-righteousness is a dangerous vice. It breeds arrogance and moral blind spots for those who come to believe they are superior to those who share different worldviews.

Televangelists have fallen prey to this feeling of superiority, until the time they are caught crawling on the ground outside a hooker’s hotel room. Politicians have also wallowed in the grandiosity of their moralistic worldview, until they too fall prey to the hypocrisy that eventually snags all self-righteous moralizers.


For a decade now, we have been told of George W. Bush’s and Dick Cheney’s moral failings. They have been regularly compared to Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini and every other tyrant of the past century. Bush has been damned by the ministers of the far left as a war criminal, a fascist and a Nazi when labeling his policies as overly ideological and deeply flawed would have sufficed.

But that was never enough for the carnival barkers on cable news or the blogosphere. For the American left, Bush had to be condemned as an immoral beast who killed women and children to get his bloody hands on Iraqi oil.

That extremism required that the Bush years be filled with images of CODEPINK protesting on Capitol Hill, anti-war activists clogging the streets of New York City and left-wing commentators beating their chests with the self-righteous indignation of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker.

But in the morally murky afterglow of the Obama years, the certainty of these secular saints has melted away.

President Barack Obama bowed to his generals’ demands by tripling troops in an unending war. CODEPINK did nothing.

Obama backed down on Guantanamo Bay. Anti-war protesters stayed at home.

America invaded its third Muslim country in a decade. The American left meekly went along. Without the slightest hint of irony, liberals defended the president’s indefensible position by returning again to a pose of moral certainty.

Democrats streamed to the floors of the House and Senate to praise the president for invading Libya. It was, after all, a moral mission that would stop the slaughter of innocent civilians. Whether protesting for peace or calling for war, these liberals once again convinced themselves of the moral superiority of their positions.


While one can make the moral argument that countries can be attacked strictly on humanitarian grounds, that argument is laughable when it comes to Libya.

How can the left call for the ouster of Muammar Qadhafi for the sin of killing hundreds of Libyans when it opposed the war waged against Saddam Hussein? During Saddam’s two decades in Iraq, he killed more Muslims than anyone in history and used chemical weapons against his own people and neighboring states.


With the help of his equally despicable sons, Uday and Qusay, Saddam devastated Iraq, terrorized his people and destroyed that country’s environment. By the time American troops deposed him in 2003, Saddam had killed at least 300,000 of his own people — and human rights groups say that tally does not even include the million-plus casualties his invasion of Iran caused.

If Obama and his liberal supporters believed Qadhafi’s actions morally justified the Libyan invasion, why did they sit silently by for 20 years while Saddam killed hundreds of thousands?

And how do they claim the moral high ground in Libya while not calling for the immediate invasion of Syria? The monstrous Bashar al-Assad regime is slaughtering his own people by the hundreds. More killings are sure to happen as that corrupt regime teeters on the brink of collapse.

In Yemen, the situation is no better. Government snipers shoot unarmed women and children from the rooftops of Sanaa. Should we follow Obama’s example in Libya and invade that country in the name of humanitarian relief? Or should we step into the breach in the Ivory Coast, where a terrifying civil war has led to a million refugees fleeing that country. And why do we not enter Sudan, where hundreds of thousands of innocents have been slaughtered over the past decade in a civil war of horrifying proportions?

Katrina vanden Heuvel, one of the few liberals to take a principled stand against what America is doing in Libya, has written in The Nation that the anti-war left has been silent since Obama took office because they don’t want to hurt the president’s reelection chances.

In defending Obama’s Libya offensive, they are compromising their own morals. The American left is also making it abundantly clear that it does not find all wars morally reprehensible — only those begun by Republicans.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1I62TZwZB

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

In fact, it was Bush who ignored the slaughter in Darfur that began in 2003.

And Clinton stood by while 800,000 people we hacked, burned, and stabbed to death in Rawanda. So what's your point?

But Reagan did win the war in Grenada with the US invasion, despite having no Congressional approval and near unanimous opposition of the UN for flagrantly violating the sovereignty of an independent nation that, btw, was neither a threat to the US or massacring its own people.

The threat was from the Cuban and other Com-block nations who were getting a foot-hold in our back yard, but that was in a different time. And it was quite limited in scope and operation compared to many other military events since then.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

We have already lost one aircraft in this boonedoggle.....

Yes, but it appears to have been an equipment malfunction. The only way you can blame this on the Libya operation is if it comes out that the plane was flown without being inspected properly because we were in a rush to attack.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by glatt

Yes, but it appears to have been an equipment malfunction. The only way you can blame this on the Libya operation is if it comes out that the plane was flown without being inspected properly because we were in a rush to attack.

It is easily blamed on the Libya operation. It was flying there under orders to do so when it crashed. What made it crash is immaterial. Out military is pretty damm good about maintaining multi-million dollar aircraft. We will never know because they bombed the crap out of it most likely to protect TS data which may have been salvaged.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

And Clinton stood by while 800,000 people we hacked, burned, and stabbed to death in Rawanda. So what's your point?

I agree

Different time, different place, different circumstances.

Still no reason for all the histrionics.

Like suggesting that the limited killings in Egypt (where the military refused to support Mubarik) were comparable to the killings or potential massacre (if the UN had not acted) in Libya

Or suggesting that the limited actions were siding with (arming?) the rebels rather than protecting civilians.

Or raising the specter of rebels being al queda supporters (the same propaganda as Ghaddifi is spouting).

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

WOW, really we "won" in Bosnia? that was a US victory? How do you figure that?

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

We achieved our objective, and it's over.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Really? Ok, until the next multi-million dollar plane becomes a dirt dart.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

What are you talking about?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

We have already lost one aircraft in this boonedoggle.....

So you weren't actually responding to the message you quoted, then? Or have we actually won in Bosnia only until another plane crashes somewhere else?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

So you weren't actually responding to the message you quoted, then? Or have we actually won in Bosnia only until another plane crashes somewhere else?

I have no idea why you posted a string of my replys, I was responding to your one question, "What are you talking about?".

[infinite monkey]

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

I agree

Different time, different place, different circumstances.

So why bring up Grenada?

Still no reason for all the histrionics.

What histrionics?

Like suggesting that the limited killings in Egypt (where the military refused to support Mubarik) were comparable to the killings or potential massacre (if the UN had not acted) in Libya

How many people have to die before it meets your threshold?

Or suggesting that the limited actions were siding with (arming?) the rebels rather than protecting civilians.

It is a fact that the "limited actions" are not really limited and that the attack on ground forces that have nothing to do with preventing aircraft from flying. Attacks on the ground forces have allowed the rebel forces to advance in an offensive manner, which they otherwise would not have been able to do. How is that protecting civilians again?

Or raising the specter of rebels being al queda supporters (the same propaganda as Ghaddifi is spouting).

I didn't raise the spector, the media in the area did.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

Why did you change your name?

[infinite monkey]

Cause it's funny.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

So why bring up Grenada?

You felt the need to bring up Darfur (and blaming Obama) as well as suggesting that Obama's action did not have Congressional approval.

I was simply providing context.

What histrionics?

Dramatic exaggeration of facts..claiming the UN resolution was only for a No Fly Zone to the comparison to Egypt, with lots of name calling in between.

How many people have to die before it meets your threshold?

Situations such as Ghaddfi threatening to send troops door-to-door and bombing civilians in major cities.

It is a fact that the "limited actions" are not really limited and that the attack on ground forces that have nothing to do with preventing aircraft from flying. Attacks on the ground forces have allowed the rebel forces to advance in an offensive manner, which they otherwise would not have been able to do. How is that protecting civilians again?

We differ on the meaning of protecting civilians. I would rather do more than less if thousands are threatened by the military.

I didn't raise the spector, the media in the area did.

So did Ghadaffi.

And US intel suggests otherwise.

[infinite monkey]

Ruh roh

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The hypocrisy of the American left

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1I62TZwZB

Dont you think there is equal hypocrisy on the right?

Those who were all gung-ho to invade Iraq at the cost of $billions and thousands of US lives are so reticent to support a much less costly and much more limited action in Libya.

But then again, in a recent Gallup Poll, more Republicans support Obama's actions in Libya (57 approve - 31 disapprove) than Democrats (51-34)