and yet, as I've laid it out.. it was... it just wasn't the only reason.
do you disagree with what I have said about the oil stability being in our national and security interests?
I agree in general. But specifically, I don’t see exactly how that applies to us taking up arms against Libya. We’ve prolonged a civil war that would have been over by now. How does that add to oil stability?
In fact, I think you’re the first person to mention “oil stability” as a basis for our intervention. Usually it’s been humanitarian reasons. Is that a White House reason? If so, I’ve not heard it.
yep, what I expected.. it's the (R) thing again.. that's all, no need to explain this mysterious 'questions' and 'inability to understand' any more..
btw, it's the Bosnia thing that gave it way.. I guess going with example from the Bush era was too much to ask for..
so here's something, it turns out that Bush went after Saddam for humanitarian reasons, the same reasons we're in Libya, one day the Bush admin will find out the real reason and stick with it, instead of just giving out reasons du jour when asked....So yeah, this should help your understanding, since you had not a single question when it was Bush/Saddam.. Per Condi Rice, The Saddam thing is just like the Ghaddafi thing, he was killing his own people and that presented a security for us that we just couldn't stand..
Odd that he allowed Dafur to happen tho, how many of their people had died in comparison to Iraq.. since you're all about making comparison and all..well heh, comparisons to (D) actions that is..
I'm sure Iraq had nothing to do with oil or the vendetta against Saddam..or to keep the stability in the area.. nooooo, that was a good, unquestionable choice for you that had nothing to do with the (R) after the decider in chiefs name..
Jesus, do you see how partsian and childish you are being yet? Like it's been explained to you already,
Given your behavior this week, I think your credibility to call someone else partisan is rather weak.
Let’s start with Bosnia. You say that “gave it away” that it was all about partisanship. In recent history, which intervention is the best example of a humanitarian intervention without a strong US national interest?
In the former Yugoslav Republic you had a civil war/war of secession within the borders of the former Yugoslavia. The Europeans, again lead by the French worked the diplomatic strings to get us involved. For the Europeans, it was in their interest to get involved (I mean get us involved) militarily. They didn’t want tens of thousands of refugees fleeing into their countries.
So we got involved and actually brokered a peace treaty, which you can clearly count as a diplomatic success. But US national interest?
If you think the Bush era offers a better example, I’d like to hear it. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq was presented as a humanitarian mission. Those reasons were way down the list. US national interests were presented in as the primary reasons for intervention in both cases. So your re-writing of history into turning Iraq into a humanitarian intervention is kind of odd. I’ve posted the resolution that passed the Congress authorizing use of force in Iraq numerous times. Do I really need to do it again? There were multiple reasons and the majority related to US national interest.
There is no overall marching plan. There hasn't been for decades. We base our foreign policy on the current political situation and then we change it.
pull your head out of the partsian feeding bag already..
Uh… that was quoted from Jukebox Guy. Is his head in a partisan feedbag, or did you quote it by accident thinking I said it, and therefore it just sounded to you like a “partisan feed bag?”
See? Fairly conclusive proof that if you think I say something, your mental filter tells you it’s a Republican talking point. Welcome to the Republican Party JBG!
here's what Rice has said..
why didn't we go into Syria under Bush? Why didn't we go into Iran? Why not NK? oh wait, you don't have any questions for that president.. only this one..
There was not a popular revolt in Syria. Iran or North Korea during Bush’s term.
There has been a popular revolt in Iran and Syria in Obama’s term though. Iran? We already know how that turned out.
As for Syria, we already know what the Syrians will do. They’ve massacred before, and so far in this latest rebellion it looks like they’ve racked up a bigger body count than the Libyans.
so, ok how about you let that Condi answer, answer all these mysterious Libya questions for you... and hey, let's take this from the other POV, where were the ppl today who are questioning and complaining about Libya(that would be you btw), when Bush did the same exact thing for Iraq? Like Condi said..I really think you have a lot of explaining to do
or you could just go with what we both know to be true and that's the (R) thing..
Answered above. We didn’t go to war with Iraq because they had massacred and gassed, their own people.
You’re turning into quite the neo-con aren’t you? I’ve no doubt that Condi supports the intervention, the same as the neo-cons down at the Weekly Standard who are also cheering Obama on.
are we going to kill Ghaddafi? Maybe you missed the news, but we almost did last week... killed his son and grandson instead, so to me that question is answered..
are we going to stay? who is this 'we'.. us? the US? Or the rest of the countries and arab league who are involved? I assume 'we' as in the US, will be there in some fashion in the background, or in a 'support' position..for many a year.. it's what we're all about now since Iraq, nation building.. seems a little extreme, but whaddyagonnado? you broke it, you bought it right? You're happily committed to Iraq for another 10-50 years, Afghanistan for the same.. so maybe you can tell me why you're so worried about being in Libya? One would think this is a pretty prize for you..even if the gift came from a Muslim,Liberal,secular, socialist..
Of course I meant the US by “we.” Do you think the rest of NATO is buying to a long term commitment?
And as I’ve already stated, I bet I’ll be supporting a longer commitment to Libya long after you have moved on. As you restated, if we broke it we bought it, which is why I supported staying in Iraq and finishing the job. Even though I opposed the invasion of Iraq. Once we invaded and overthrew the government, it became our problem and our responsibility.
Now if we hadn’t stayed and we had left when you wanted us to leave, what kind of shape would the middle east be in now?
If we succeed in overthrowing Ghaddafi, the same rules would apply.
I wouldn't say that, I'd say its more like I find it difficult to believe that you can have anything but a partsian slant on any policy or topic, not just the foreign ones..since you've yet to prove you have the ability to be bipartsian on anything.. this thread being just another nugget of proof in the long line of many..
I don't remember a single question about Saddam, a single mystery that needed to be solved before you could see just exactly what that admin was doing and what their long term goals were..I don't seem to remember theses time-table issues, our commitment issues with any of that.. even tho, IIRC, those timetables were something like, 24 months weren't they? Greeted as hero's and saviors or something? and yet, silence from you, no questions asked..
I see you are still stuck in Kaz-bot mode.. repeating the same thing over and over even though the facts have proven you wrong over and over..I'm pulling for you to to overcome that deficit... but I do find it funny to see just how much it bothers you that Obama was the one to actually finish the job.. so there's that.. and considering you had no problems when this was Bush/Saddam but have a whole bunch of them only when it's Obama/Ghaddaf .. I think this is partsian-kettle calling..and you're partsian-black..
Well you’re wrong in just about everything you’ve stated.
Partisian? As you already knew, and reposted yet again, I opposed the invasion of Iraq, but once we were in I saw no way to get out other than to make the place a success since the options included leaving a civil war raging, an Iranian client state, or a radical muslim dictatorship. So in spite of what you wanted, we stuck it out and are now leaving the place actually in better shape than we found it.
Saddam? Answered above. Yes I opposed timetables. They are a valuable weapon that we give to the enemy.
If I’m repeating the same thing over and over, it’s because you are asking the same things over and over. You won’t believe me the first, third, or thirtieth time I state them, and I except this post to be no different.
Just tell me what are goals and timetables are for Libya. Since you seem to know much more of what the administration has in mind (rather than just winging it like I think), I would like to hear the administration vision for Libya for a year from now.
