Town Square

Post a New Topic

WAR - number 3

Original post made by Terascale Idiocy, another community, on Mar 19, 2011

WAR

U.S. military officials have confirmed today the "first" American tomahawk cruise missiles have been fired on targets inside Libya from ships in the Mediterranean Sea.

The empty suit has now just started the THIRD WAR.

American citizens are now in harms way.

You people who voted for this guy now have blood on your hands.

How about that! 'Obama doctrine' starting US combat in Libya

Comments (24)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Al Norte
a resident of another community
on Mar 19, 2011 at 2:10 pm

"Terascale Idiocy":

Am confused. You are against this?

Were you similarly against Iraq? Afghanistan?

It seems clear by what you wrote that you only detest one thing: our President. Hate without an inkling of what you think the correct choice was.

Please enlighten. What was the right choice: ignore? International coalition? Nothing?

Thanks for sharing!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Terascale Idiocy
a resident of another community
on Mar 20, 2011 at 9:51 am

You are against this? YES

Were you similarly against Iraq? Afghanistan? YES & YES

What was the right choice: STAY HOME

Hate? That's what you liberals jump to second. You missed the racism step, sport.

Ask youself - why do we need to be killing Iraqis, Afghanis and now Libyans?

Why after 15,357 days (42 years) of Colonel Gaddafi killing his people, is now the time to attack?

How did we go from a no-fly zone to 112 missiles at cost of $200,000,000.00 for the first salvo?

Who is next?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Al Norte
a resident of another community
on Mar 20, 2011 at 11:49 am

Terascale:

"Hate?"

Yes, you clearly don't like the guy, I chose the word because we see comments like yours all the time disguising thinly veiled hatred. You brought up race, brother.

Re-read your post. Five lines. Three of which take shots at him. So if you don't detest the man, tell us what you really do think of him.

Short of that, we're on the same page re: military choices.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 20, 2011 at 1:19 pm

> You people who voted for this guy now have blood on your hands

Nothing like emotionally provocative overstatements to get people arguing. That is a very "lacking in information and good sense comment" and I am really surprised this post was allowed to stay.

The statement and the post does not make arguments pro or con on the issue of US foreign policy and military engagement, or differentiate between unilateral war and multilateral air patrol of a failing regime - no, what this post does is to claim that those who voted for Obama have blood on their hands ... which I find a poor way to conduct one's self in a public forum.

This whole post should be deleted.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Community Center
on Mar 20, 2011 at 5:54 pm

Can someone please explain to me why the military action in Iraq was bad and the military action in Lybia is good? Both were supposedly to help democracy in these countries...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 20, 2011 at 6:33 pm

I applaud obama's actions. He had done the right thing. Terascale idiocy's post is way off the mark. Wasn't he posting a different thread complaining that obama was not doing enough in egypt/iran/libya? Check the style of writing, the names are different but the message is the same.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 20, 2011 at 6:46 pm

Just to be aware: I do not criticize an American President's foreign war policy, in times of of war, even if I think the president is an empty vessel, as I do with Obama.

I am not the "Gary" from "Downtown North", just above this post. I am the old Gary, who has long defended and supported the liberation of Iraq. Good job, GWB!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 20, 2011 at 7:49 pm

We are part of a global community. There are a coalition of countries who have decided it is time to act. There are times when it is not appropriate to allow humanity to suffer under tyranny just because "it is not our business".

If we look out of a window in our home and see our neighbor beating his wife and kids do we sit back and do nothing because it is none of our business, or do we interfere through compassion for the victims?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 20, 2011 at 8:01 pm


The Petraeus Doctrine is the Arab League policing the region in alignment with American interests

UAE, Qatar, Jordan, Egypt and KSA have now committed combat forces to the Libyan matter.

The Arab League will be the dominant force in MENA moving forward--in alliance with NATO the member and American ally-- Turkey--moving forward


 +   Like this comment
Posted by PA res
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 21, 2011 at 12:31 am

Oil - that is the real reason for the international intervention in Lybia. Now compare it to Rwanda where millions died in civil war. Did US and Europe care for Rwanda's population being exterminated? No way, they coudl care less. But they do care about Lybia because it produces oil.
Follow the money! I am so tired of hypocricy everywhere!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Meadow Park
on Mar 21, 2011 at 6:44 am

To Resident who wrote
"f we look out of a window in our home and see our neighbor beating his wife and kids do we sit back and do nothing because it is none of our business, or do we interfere through compassion for the victims?"

That, combined with the well known WMD ( no, I reaaallllly don't care that there is the myth that 'we didn't find any so it was never there', that is false and circular thinking) that were a threat to everyone including us, and the fact that 35 FREE nations supported the effort ( the Coalition of the Willing, I believe it was called), along with a clearly defined goal ( out when Iraq has the ability to defend its own freedom/constitution, ...time to get out, been waiting!!)..well, I supported our going into Iraq.

The no-fly-zone in Iraq was dithering and useless, the "sanctions" by the UN were useless because they were undercut non-stop by Russia and France ( surprise), and all either did was give the appearance of doing something while Saddam continued to torture, kill and try to advance his WMD program. There was no goal, no way of enforcing anything.

I find this, Libya, is just repeat of what the "UN" did in Iraq...I see no goal, no "end", no strategic purpose.

I am all for stopping atrocities, from Sarajevo to deep Africa, to China to Russia..but the problem is that we CAN'T stop it all, there must be a strategic USA interest, not just humanitarian, and there must be an "end goal" that is achievable.

Please find what either the strategic interest or the end-goal is in Libya for me. I can only conclude it is a Somalia...which scares me.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Al Norte
a resident of another community
on Mar 21, 2011 at 8:53 am

Resident:

I don't follow: "combined with the well known WMD ( no, I reaaallllly don't care that there is the myth that 'we didn't find any so it was never there', that is false and circular thinking) "

What about the inspectors and such that TOLD us there was no WMD?

That it took Cheney a dozen visits to CIA to twist arms to manufacture a suspicion?

Help me out with your circular thinking on that, please...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 21, 2011 at 5:47 pm

There is an old saying that one needs to "cut the head off the snake", in order for the snake to be finally dead.

GWB understood this, in Iraq. Neither Saddam, nor his sons were ever going to become nice guys. In Libya, it is nowhere as brutal as Iraq, but is has become somehat brutal in spots. President Obama wants Gaddaffi out, thus he will need to decide how to do it. I support his goal...just wish I could feel that there was a there, there. When a U.S. president puts process over policy, it can produce major consequences, not all of which are positive.

BTW, I am the old Gary, not the new one.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by US World Nice Guy sc
a resident of Atherton
on Mar 21, 2011 at 6:02 pm

Gary:

So Saddam was not a nice guy, and that's the reason we went in, according to you. So what about the "not nice guys" in, oh, lets say, China?

Torture. Slave camps. Repression. Murder of protesters. Censorship.

Communism, ferchrissakes.

That's your standard. Go end evil everywhere, even sovereign nations?

Or only the ones with oil?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 21, 2011 at 6:31 pm

US World,

"So Saddam was not a nice guy, and that's the reason we went in, according to you"

I am rewinding some old stuff, here, in order to address your charge.

Who attacked the USA in 1941? Last I heard it was Japan, not Germany. However, FDR, having provoked both Japan and Germany, decided to go to war, primarily, against Germany, instead of Japan. To put it in simple terms, FDR pulled military assets out of the Pacific and sent them to the Atlantic. Hitler was very eager to cut a deal with America, but FDR rejected him. FDR was right IMO, because Hitler was a bad guy, like Saddam and Stalin. FDR even hooked up with Stalin (who was worse than Hitler, in terms of the number of his own people he killed), in order to defeat Hitler. The USA could have signed a deal with Hitler, and probably have done pretty well. The question is: Would this have been a deal that we could explain to our children and grandchildren?

Allowing Saddam to stay in power would be very hard to explain to any grandchild, given his record, and given the circumstances. Gaddafi is not quite in his class, but he does have some similar characteristics. However, to my knowledge, Gaddifi did not use WMD against, and he did not commit mass murder against his own people, as Saddam did. Correct me if I am wrong.

GWB will have history on his side, because he cut the head off the snake in Iraq. I would hope that BHO will fulfill his rhetoric against Gaddafi, and take him out. Perhaps his cautious and reluctant approach will work, and I hope it does, but I am not aware that such an approach works, historically. Chamberlain comes to mind....

Again, this is the old Gary.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by US World Nice Guy sc
a resident of Atherton
on Mar 21, 2011 at 6:43 pm

Old Gary: Nice try, but ya can't handle it, can ya?

"Allowing Saddam to stay in power would be very hard to explain to any grandchild, given his record..."

But explaining China is easy?

Torture. Slave camps. Repression. Murder of protesters. Censorship.

Communism, ferchrissakes.

That's your standard. Go end evil everywhere, even sovereign nations?

Or only the ones with oil?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 21, 2011 at 7:19 pm

"Go end evil everywhere, even sovereign nations?"

No, but there are times to pick our spots, considering our own capabilities, and our own interests, as well as our own ideals. And then there are circumstances and context. Saddam fit all of them.

Thank you, GWB. Your critics are behind the curve of history, and you were in front of it, but that is their problem.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by US World Nice Guy sc
a resident of Atherton
on Mar 21, 2011 at 8:19 pm

Gary:

Cool.

So now that you admit it isn't "the evil", and admitting there never was a WMD case, it's all:

"..pick our spots, considering our own capabilities, and our own interests, as well as our own ideals"

So dubya picked:
- taking away the one counterweight in the neighborhood to Iran, also making Iran stronger by removing a secular enemy and creating a Shia friend for Iran.
- driving oil from the teens in the 1990's to +/-$100 a barrel
- killing 5,000 Americans, injuring tens of thousands, with the signature injury of the war being TRAUMATIC HEAD INJURY.
- allowing ethnic cleansing of Baghdad and other large Iraq cities, which, along with the war accounted for UNKNOWN deaths - probably hundreds of thousands, and a million refugees
- loot the American treasury of a couple trillion dollars, much to private contractors, some that went around building such crap they electrocuted our soldiers
- well, strike the last one, we actually BORROWED FROM CHINA and others (including oil states like Iran, oddly enough) for this war. Can you imagine the "patriotism" of borrowing from China for tax cuts for the rich IN A TIME OF WAR?!?!?
- this war was so unconscionable, that, other than Britain, no country sent more than a thousand troops. We had to bribe the "coalition of the willing" partners like Poland (with arms contracts) and Palau to send a couple dozen jeep drivers. The second largest group of guns was actually private - mercenaries (Blackwater, et al..)

The list goes on.

You, sir, should well consider that everyone ELSE is correct and reevaluate where you are in error.

Consider those that said at the time it was wrong because there was no WMD. That sanctions DID have Saddam boxed in (history proves it - he was a weakling.) They listened to the inspectors. They listened to the rest of the world. They evaluated the baloney from dubya and his club. They were right.

And it drives the right bonkers as history proves them correct. You know the list, you laughed at them at the time, and try to hide now by still laughing and belittling them.

Al Gore. Druggie Rush listened to Gore's speech at the time and said Al was off his meds (was that before or after rush's drug arrests?)

Howard Dean. History proves him correct, also.

Half a million protesters in Central Park.

They were correct, but you still cling to:

"..pick our spots, considering our own capabilities, and our own interests, as well as our own ideals"

Great. Thanks to that logic, we owe China another trillion, making us weaker against them. Five thousand dead, thirty thousand wounded. And we have yet to rebuild our military from this fiasco, which means we borrow more.

Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. Although I have to question whether I should replace that word with "treasonous".

History will never "catch up with" George W Bush.

If you stepped back and looked at a scenario with results like that, and applied Obama's name, my guess is you'd be looking to have a criminal court "catch up with" that perpetrator.

Criminal.

So now you want boots on the ground in another Middle East country?

Dude, try this one on for size: Those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Outside Observer
a resident of another community
on Mar 21, 2011 at 8:26 pm

What is our possible interest in Libya? The oil?

If so, the only means to secure it long-term is to enslave and/or exterminate the indigents. We have the means to do that.

Iraq and Afghanistan should prove that is the only way it could possibly work.

Is it spreading democracy? Look at history and human nature, All democracies have failed long-term, and ours in in the midst of failure now.

If the reason is oil, then do what it takes to be successful. If it's democracy, then we are insane. We are repeating the same action we've taken numerous times elsewhere and expecting a different outcome.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 27, 2011 at 11:33 am

Since the U.S. maintains a large standing army, they have to use it. Using it on Libya is a great way to keep all our military guys and their equipment busy. This is all part of Eisenhower's famous statement that the U.S. will be taken over by a military/industrial complex. Just think of all the Tomahawk missiles that will now have to be replaced at huge expense; but it keeps people employed!!

It was David Cameron who talked Obama into this war. David Cameron believes he is the second coming of Winston Churchill!! He constantly reminds the Brits of their wartime leader in the most flattering terms.

When the House of Commons voted on going to war in Libya only seven far left members voted against it; even Ed Milliband voted for it!! Meanwhile the U.S. has obligations to Britain for backing them up in both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Also, Sarkozy was pushing hard for the U.S. to be involved in Libya, and that is the price you pay for having allies.




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 28, 2011 at 3:33 pm

US World,

"So now that you admit it isn't "the evil", and admitting there never was a WMD case"

Where did I say that?

Saddam was evil, he had and used WMD, there was a WMD case (did he still have them, or did he have his program on hold, but ready to start, again?). He was corrupting Europe with his oil-for-food campaign (whle continuing to build his own palaces), he slaughtered over 300,000 of his own people (after his capitulation in the Gulf War), he was shooting at our planes, which were enforcing the no-fly zone, he tried to assasinate our former president, he was a coninuing threat to the region, his sons were as bad as he was.

GWB decided to pull the tigger on him. This will go down as an historical, world-changing decision. The liberation of Iraq is one of those things that will makes the leftists, in this country and Europe, choke on their own words of indignation.

GWB cut the head off the snake in Iraq, and the world will be much better off for his having done so. I hope BHO will cut to the chase and just admit that he wants to cut off Gadaffi's head. A stalemate in Libya is worse than not going in. I hope BHO has a magic formula to make it happen.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 28, 2011 at 7:06 pm



The next logical step for Rice/Clinton/Powers is a No Fly Zone over Gaza and the West Bank

--enforced by NATO and the Arab League


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 28, 2011 at 7:43 pm

addendum

The UN Security Council will support a No Fly Zone over Gaza and the West Bank
--we may abstain for the last time
--and the resolution will go through

NATO and the Arab League will protect the Arab civilians through fire power.


--No Fly Zone over Gaza and the West Bank

That will be a game changer--


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The real sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 29, 2011 at 6:39 am

Here we go again, Sharon is back with her one-sided biased comments against Israel. What does it have to do with the discussion on this thread? Nothing.
No mention of course, about the continued shelling of Israel from Gaza by Hamas.
The attempt to compare Israel to Khaddafi is despicable, but not surprising considering the source.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


To post your comment, please click here to Log in

Remember me?
Forgot Password?
or register. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Company partners with Coupa Cafe to launch mobile payment app
By Elena Kadvany | 5 comments | 1,595 views

All Parking Permits Should Have a Fee
By Steve Levy | 18 comments | 1,249 views

For the Love of Pie
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 1,205 views

Ten Steps to Get Started with Financial Aid
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 1,182 views

Labor vs Marathons
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 571 views