White House Now Says War in Libya Open Ended

Just goes to show that the power (read: money) behind both parties is mostly from the same folks. They may have obscured the trail but they've acquired ownership of both parties to insure that their agenda is followed. Luckily for us (and for Syria) there isn't enough oil in Syria to override our recognition of their national sovereignty or we be bombing them too.

This has to drive all the anti war bush haters absolutely crazy that their anointed one has created his own war.

All this in the name of oil? Where are the protests?

I wouldn't say that, but I would say it's been festering with at least one particular Bush supporter for a while.

I wouldn't say that, but I would say it's been festering with at least one particular Bush supporter for a while.

It's a clear example of exposing the hypocrites. Morals only come into play if they think it benefits them politically. Like I said why aren't the same people protesting now?

It's a clear example of exposing the hypocrites. Morals only come into play if they think it benefits them politically. Like I said why aren't the same people protesting now?

I would say because comparing Libya with Iraq is apples oranges. Even so, there are those who strongly oppose us getting involved with Libya. We have an opportunity to kick a despot while he's down and weaken him. It's a window of opportunity. That doesn't mean I totally think it's a good idea. There are a lot of risks involved, we already have our hands full with Afghanistan and Iraq. Keep in mind that you're questioning the thought processes of those with a rational perpective.

I would say because comparing Libya with Iraq is apples oranges.

From where I sit, they both look a lot alike (in the beginning before our bombs started falling.) Both countries are/were run by strong-armed despots who terrorize their own citizens and possess oil reserves. Both countries thumbed their noses at the world (and the UN.) In the case of Iraq, our involvement in it was a colossal mistake. It is in the case of Libya too.

We rolled into Iraq without a plan or a clue what would happen. Ditto so far for the air war on Libya. In the case of Iraq we got hundreds of thousands of civilians killed. We are just embarking on that road now in Libya but we'll get quite a few before its over.

The only significant difference now is that while most of Europe skipped Iraq, the side-effect in Libya (ie: refugees entering the EU) is extremely inconvenient for many EU countries so several have decided to be slightly more involved than they were with Iraq. I understand their concern. I just don't agree that it is our concern. In the case of the French, they are even attacking (in as much as that word can be used with their armed forces) Libyans while they chose to just quietly arm Iraq in that war.

From where I sit, they both look a lot alike (in the beginning before our bombs started falling.) Both countries are/were run by strong-armed despots who terrorize their own citizens and possess oil reserves. Both countries thumbed their noses at the world (and the UN.) In the case of Iraq, our involvement in it was a colossal mistake. It is in the case of Libya too.

We rolled into Iraq without a plan or a clue what would happen. Ditto so far for the air war on Libya. In the case of Iraq we got hundreds of thousands of civilians killed. We are just embarking on that road now in Libya but we'll get quite a few before its over.

The only significant difference now is that while most of Europe skipped Iraq, the side-effect in Libya (ie: refugees entering the EU) is extremely inconvenient for many EU countries so several have decided to be slightly more involved than they were with Iraq. I understand their concern. I just don't agree that it is our concern. In the case of the French, they are even attacking (in as much as that word can be used with their armed forces) Libyans while they chose to just quietly arm Iraq in that war.

I disagree, but in any event I don't see the hypocrisy the original poster implied. Some like you, view both conflicts the same, while others like me, see no comparison between the two conflicts. In any event, neither of our views have anything to do with who is president.

I disagree, but in any event I don't see the hypocrisy the original poster implied. Some like you, view both conflicts the same, while others like me, see no comparison between the two conflicts. In any event, neither of our views have anything to do with who is president.

So you're a proponent of invading middle eastern countries in an effort to remove totalitarian regimes, as long as doing so fits with your views on when and why the United States should act as the World Police? If so this validates Iraq. Iraq may not have fit into what you consider a valid case for "police action" on the part of the United States, but you feel we can invoke that right when we feel it's necessary.

I disagree, but in any event I don't see the hypocrisy the original poster implied. Some like you, view both conflicts the same, while others like me, see no comparison between the two conflicts. In any event, neither of our views have anything to do with who is president.

The hypocrisy occurs when someone posits that it makes a difference who is President.

No matter who is President, they dance when their owners pull the strings. The owners say attack Iraq, they do it. The owners say attack Libya, they do that to. Ultimately, the folks with the power (and the money) own the office and pull the strings. That's why "Change you can believe in" turns out to be the S.O.S. As long as this kind of megamoney controls the political process, it won't make a whit of difference which candidate wins.

The same thing to varying degrees applies to the Congress as well.

So you're a proponent of invading middle eastern countries in an effort to remove totalitarian regimes, as long as doing so fits with your views on when and why the United States should act as the World Police? If so this validates Iraq. Iraq may not have fit into what you consider a valid case for "police action" on the part of the United States, but you feel we can invoke that right when we feel it's necessary.

You really should put a question mark after that statement, and the answer is no.

The hypocrisy occurs when someone posits that it makes a difference who is President.

No matter who is President, they dance when their owners pull the strings. The owners say attack Iraq, they do it. The owners say attack Libya, they do that to. Ultimately, the folks with the power (and the money) own the office and pull the strings. That's why "Change you can believe in" turns out to be the S.O.S. As long as this kind of megamoney controls the political process, it won't make a whit of difference which candidate wins.

The same thing to varying degrees applies to the Congress as well.

Exactly. The original poster implied that it made a difference who is president. I'm with you on that.

I don't think we should be involved in either, but at least in Libya we were reacting to a volatile situation and NATO was leading the charge to invade, not us.

Frankly, I think our role in Libya should only be to make $$ selling weaponry to our European allies so they can fight and we should focus our efforts/billions on ending our dependence on oil.

I don't think we should be involved in either, but at least in Libya we were reacting to a volatile situation and NATO was leading the charge to invade, not us.

Frankly, I think our role in Libya should only be to make $$ selling weaponry to our European allies so they can fight and we should focus our efforts/billions on ending our dependence on oil.

If the reasoning for doing this was purely humanitarian, we would also be in about twenty other countries right now, including Syria. Which begs the question, why Libya? Obama hasn't exactly been forthcoming on his reasoning for getting us involved in this particular civil war.

My point was that when we invaded Iraq that was not the case.

Definitely agree that we pick and choose regarding involvement for "humanitarian" reasons. Genocide or massive injustice sans oil reserves seems to not require our assistance. :roll:

If the reasoning for doing this was purely humanitarian, we would also be in about twenty other countries right now, including Syria. Which begs the question, why Libya? Obama hasn't exactly been forthcoming on his reasoning for getting us involved in this particular civil war.

Perceived chances of success I'm sure is a major factor in these decisions, or at least it should be.

Perceived chances of success I'm sure is a major factor in these decisions, or at least it should be.

If those chances are high you feel we should feel free to invade unprovoked? Interesting.

If those chances are high you feel we should feel free to invade unprovoked? Interesting.

In my opinion, there are so many factors in making such a crucial decision. I would never say any country should invade another country, but I also don't think too many people in the world feel unprovoked by Ghadafi.

I'm also not saying I know for sure this was a good move on our part. I'm saying this is no Iraq, and fortunately, Obama is no Bush.

In my opinion, there are so many factors in making such a crucial decision. I would never say any country should invade another country, but I also don't think too many people in the world feel unprovoked by Ghadafi.

I'm also not saying I know for sure this was a good move on our part. I'm saying this is no Iraq, and fortunately, Obama is no Bush.

I think it's a fairly easy decision. We shouldn't be in Libya. Hind sight dictates we shouldn't have gone into Iraq. We shouldn't have gone into Kosovo either. Afghanistan is the only war we are involved currently where we were justified, and I think the time table is ticking down on that as most of the bad guys we went in to get have since been vaporized by very large bombs or Marines. We could have also saved some money in that all the people we fought in Iraq would have eventually come to Afghanistan anyway (like flies to flypaper).

I will add on Libya, and this was my view of Iraq as well, now that we are there we damn well better finish what we started.

I have said on many occasions that Iraq was a bad mistake but for the life of me, I cannot understand why some cannot see the parallels so obvious between Iraq and Libya. There is no reason for us to be there, either.

I have said on many occasions that Iraq was a bad mistake but for the life of me, I cannot understand why some cannot see the parallels so obvious between Iraq and Libya. There is no reason for us to be there, either.

One obvious difference is that with Libya we responded to a volatile situation. In Iraq we created one.