Libya Vs. Iraq: So True

Submitted by: 5cats 6 years ago in Funny

Just a couple of co-workers comparing Libya and Iraq.
There are 176 comments:
Male 5
GO microsoft voice
0
Reply
Male 3,147
@mildcorma.......... yeah, I thought you`d go drating quiet when confronted with logic and facts.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@Crakr

Now that I think about it your assertion earlier regarding my "oil disruption chart" is also flawed, as that would mean all production within a nation would be disrupted. If that were true it would be bring the war in Libya to a grinding halt.

Also Nigeria produces more oil than Libya does and as well as more LSC so why aren`t we involved Nigeria then hmm? We also get plenty of LSC from Mexico and Canada and produce plenty of it ourselves.

Since we do buy sour crude as a matter of fact more than we do we rely on Persian Gulf for oil from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the UAE. If anything strategically we should be more worried about what`s going on in Bahrain than Libya.

As a matter of fact sweet crude is more expensive than sour crude.
0
Reply
Male 40,728
vv My point exactly @cajun! This is WAR not `response to a threat` at all. Bush was HUGELY criticized by the MSM for his wars even though he asked (and recieved) congressional approval. Bi-Partisan approval I might add! Obama? NOT!

That`s the WHOLE POINT of this video, the very definition of hypocracy, a sad state of affairs...
0
Reply
Male 17,511
5Cats: The `Threat` is to our economy and by that metric Obama`s chances at getting re-elected are threatened as well.

Obama wants the economy to improve, as it did for Bill Clinton, If it doesn`t he will face the specter of a famous Reagan line "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?" which will lead to his defeat in 2012.

Fuel price increases lead to inflation in most other sectors of our economy and the Fed has no more room left to lower interest rates to combat it.

This war is about oil, Obama knows it`s also about his re-election campaign. He will not get elected if gasoline goes over $5 a gallon, which would then trigger double digit inflation. He has to get rid of Gaddafi fast or he`s doomed to be another Jimmy Carter.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Only congress can Declare war:

Art 1 Sec 8 USC

The POTUS legally do whatever the hell he wants to do with the Army and Navy.

Art 2 Sec 5
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]IF (and only if) there is an IMMEDIATE THREAT to the USA - then the POTUS can declare war.[/quote]

Ironically 5Cats that`s not true either. The POTUS IS Commander-in-Chief of the Military making him able to "act with dispatch" something a legislature simply can`t do.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
So lets see:
Saudi Arabia
Iran
UAE
Kuwait
Iraq
Algeria
Nigeria

All of these are more strategically important than Libya, except for Iran of course. Hell Algeria is just West of Libya and they definitely produce and export more, there`s unrest there too.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]is NOT a small producer[/quote]


Except that they are only the 17th largest producer in the world coming in behind:
Saudi Arabia
Iran
United Arab Emirates
Kuwait
Iraq
Algeria
Angola
Nigeria

...and the 15th largest exporter coming in behind:
Saudi Arabia
United Arab Emirates
Iran
Kuwait
Nigeria
Algeria
Iraq
0
Reply
Male 40,728
IF (and only if) there is an IMMEDIATE THREAT to the USA - then the POTUS can declare war. Was there, from Libya? Less than from Iraq (which I agree was tiny, eh?)

Obama in 2002:
Now let me be clear; I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors... and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

Funny how it`s the opposite now...
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: 1.6 million barrels a day is NOT a small producer, That`s more than the Saudis sell to us.
0
Reply
Male 546
I don`t care. GW was a liar. I don`t care. Your side did it first and your side does it worse. I don`t care.

Somehow was that not the point?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@Crakr

Be that as it may Libya is still a very minor producer of oil including light sweet crude. Algeria, Norway, Nigeria, Venezuela etc produce more all produce more LSC than Libya does.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]It`s Obama`s illegal war because he violated the US Constitution[/quote]


Last I checked Article 2 Sec 2 Clause 5 clearly states that the president is the commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy (and Air Force). While he cannot declare war he can certainly commit acts of war. Also every president since the inception of the War Powers act has ignored said act.
0
Reply
Male 328
I support Obama and yet I agree with this video %100. This "no fly zone" was undoubtedly the dumbest thing that Obama has gotten involved with during his time in office and it can only come back to bite the rest of us in the ass.
0
Reply
Male 5,163
Hmm explain how Obama violate constitution please. I suggest you to read article VI of U.S constitution before reply.
Article VI say "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land". So the treatie done wit U.N
automaticaly legitimate the intervention.
I suggest you to revisit this link and if you find is to long for you can just skip to mins 3:50.Link
0
Reply
Female 2,525
I fell asleep after a minute. This person needs to stay away from YouTube and get a blog.
0
Reply
Male 40,728
*sigh* PiperFawn quibbled.
It`s Obama`s illegal war because he violated the US Constitution. (which he sword an oath to uphold!) It`s WAR! There will be `boots on the ground` sooner or later, until then it`s STILL A WAR.
0
Reply
Male 40,728
@Cajun Tineye cannot find your image, probably because it`s shopped! Is that BUSH in the background? Why yes it is!

The Answerla site lists that protest as against the 8th anniversary of Iraq. Some lip service was paid to Libya, it`s true. Mostly it was anti-Bush tho... unless they made the sign BEFORE the airstrikes began...
0
Reply
Male 2,855
this is totally unbiased.
0
Reply
Male 2,376
@cajun.. ummmm cause US already owns that country duhhhhhhhh
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: We don`t buy Libyan oil because Libya has contracts to sell it to Italy, France, and Spain, and the US had a 37 year old embargo against Libya until last year. Time article
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: The only news coverage I`ve seen is of a small anti-war protest in Phoenix numbering a dozen or so people. If there are larger protests they certainly are not being covered by the media, definitely not like the heavy coverage they got during GW Bush`s years.

I also have to note the 3 - 9/11 truther signs and the 6 "healthcare not warfare" signs in your submitted picture, 3 signs out of all of them mention Libya (two of them are partly hidden), Also note the lack of "No blood for oil" signs.

I have a feeling this was a pic from a rally supporting Palestinians, before Libya became really violent. Why ? Because of the Palestinian flag over the fake coffin.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@Crakr

Then why were we importing six times more oil from Iraq then we were from Libya?
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: Libya`s oil is still a part of the LSC market

Iraq has mainly `Heavy Crude` over 1% sulphur content. Google books result

Northern Iraq`s heavy crude oils with API gravities (11–17) and high sulfur content (6–7.5%) wt. are contained in five oil fields most of which is exported via the Iraq-Turkey pipeline.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Obama invades Libya = NO PROTESTS[/quote]

Wrong on both fronts actually:
0
Reply
Male 14,331

0
Reply
Male 5,163
And also if you want to keep consider this an invasion (wich is not true) this is made by UN/NATO and not by Obama alone. Bush Blair and Poland have INVADED Iraq sending tons and tons of ground troops without UN/Nato agreement. Bush is direct responsible for this choice,Obama is just cooperating in an international task force under UN/NATO rule, can you see the difference?
0
Reply
Male 5,163
And 5Cats on your answer to davymid you say "Obama invades Libya = NO PROTESTS"....WRONG!
There is NO invasion in Libya, not a single ground troop is invading the soil of Libya. You continue to compare two things that are so differents. Is like to compare apples with elephants.
0
Reply
Male 64
Who made this bullpoo? I`d love to see where their politics lie. Also, Does the author not realise that it was the europeans who decided that going in was the best thing to happen and asked for help?

Man, the shallow mindedness of this, both about Iraq and Lybia. It makes me shudder.
0
Reply
Male 815
I hate how pure reason, dialectic, is no longer the basis for nationstates` logic; instead everything is politicized. It was foolish to invade Iraq and it is follish to have invaded Libya, any person who says that two exchangable cases warrant opposite results are simply following polical lines.

Either we should have attacked both, or neither.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Look at the tables again Crakr it clearly says that we imported 6 times more oil from Iraq than we do from Libya in the past seven years. That is a cold, hard, fact. Your assertion regarding LSC is completely irrelevant at this point.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote] You`re still skipping over the fact that Libya produces more of the same light sweet crude that we buy 1.6 million barrels a day vs. .65 million from Iraq (a mere 30% of their total output).[/quote]

...and I`ve already told those numbers are completely wrong. Where is your source regarding Iraq`s high sulphur content? I can`t find it on Bing or Google.
0
Reply
Male 5,163
Ohh and at last 5Cats please listen what this others cats have to explain to you.
Iraq war: legal or illegal?
0
Reply
Male 5,163
5CATS here another link that can clarify you the situation. Bush Blair lies
0
Reply
Male 5,163
5CATS say "@Piperfawn conveniently forgets that Saddam threatened the lives of the weapons inspectors, forcing them to flee the country. For 2 years he refused to let them back in. He had plenty of time to move his weapons to Syria, and there`s ample evidence he did just that. Israel blew them up a couple of years ago btw, in Syria.
The Ceaase Fire Agreement (which stopped the first Gulf War, not Bush Sr) required Saddam to guarentee the safety and free access to the weapons inspectors. Since Saddam violated that, and many other parts of the CFA, the UN said `game on!` for the second Gulf War."
Hey friend could you do me the favour to watch this before spitting lies?
Weapon inspectors in Iraq
0
Reply
Male 40,728
PLEASE don`t quibble about `invade`: he`s gone to war (WAR! the opposite of "peace" eh?) and didn`t even get Congressional approval, or even address the nation! He got his NCAA picks out tho, CNN spent 10 minutes on THAT!
0
Reply
Male 40,728
[quote]Bush and Blair`s internationally illegal invasion of Iraq without UN sanction[/quote]
@davymid appaerntly didn`t even glance at UN Resolution 1441...
[quote]provided about 140 troops between them[/quote]
Many offered financial support or logistic aid. Your point exactly? Are all 14 nations in Libya sending their entire airforce? Nope. That`s the nature of a coalition, eh? Again you say it`s bad when Bush does it and good when Obama does it. Hummmm.
[quote]Yeah, yeah, we get it 5Cats.[/quote]
Not hard to `get it` @davymid: the self-titled "peace movement" isn`t about peace at all, they`re just anti-Republicans.
Regan invades Grenada = protests
Bush Sr invades Iraq = protests
Clinton invades Croatia = NO protests
Bush Jr invades Afghanistan = protests
Bush Jr re-invades Iraq = protests
Obama invades Libya = NO PROTESTS
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: You`re still skipping over the fact that Libya produces more of the same light sweet crude that we buy 1.6 million barrels a day vs. .65 million from Iraq (a mere 30% of their total output). Even though we don`t buy Libyan oil that puts pressure, from other countries that did buy their oil from Libya, on the same LSC commodities market we buy from.

And as I said Saudi Arabia is exporting 1.5 million barrels of LSC to America in comparison.
in other words, The loss of Libyas LSC to the market is worse than if Saudi Arabia quit selling oil to us.

Does that sink in now ?
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: What is sold at your local gas station, even if it is initially refined in Canada, The Netherlands or Great Britain has to be further processed in American refineries before it can be sold to the public, The vast majority of which comes from Canada. Sorry, but I don`t consider Canada a `foreign country`, They`ve been one of our best friends and allies. Canada is our largest neighbor and one of our top trading partners in the world.
0
Reply
Male 10,855


See ya next time!
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Well seems we`re using the same source lets see now.

<Selects products tab, scrolls to crude oil>

Aha you see in July 2010 we imported 13,334 barrels from Iraq and 1,931 from Libya.

So do the math
13334 > 1931
and
13334 >= 6*1931
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: We import very little from Iraq now, compared to the other countries we import from. What I said stands their oil has too high a sulphur content and that oil is sent to China, India, and elsewhere in Asia. We do not import gasoline from Asia, as you asserted. EIA Link
0
Reply
Male 10,855
You know what I`ll be back.

Need Zs.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]would`ve been bragging that they not only had drugs but they were selling them too[/quote]

Probably was the dumbest joke in the world.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
davymid: Your analogy still fails. Any judge in this country would`ve issued a warrant in that case and your fellow policeman including yourself would`ve raided the house. Davy, American forces make up the majority of UN forces worldwide, We are the police because we have the carriers and air mobility to carry out such missions.

That`s right in your scenario you`d BE a policeman yourself.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
You know what Crakr you might as well stop, your assertion is completely invalid.

This data clearly in plain english: we import crude from Iraq, and seeing you can`t provide sources this is just getting silly.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
I`d at least be somewhat absolved of my crime if the police entering the scene at a later date found out that I was in fact right and there was a half-pound of cocaine hidden in the garage. Don`t get me wrong, I`d still be in jail for assault, but at least my actions would have been in some way justified, postmortem.

I think you`ll find my analogy pretty solid.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]davymid: Unfortunately you forgot that your neighbors, In your scenario, would`ve been bragging that they not only had drugs but they were selling them too. Also that those neighbors had sold and used drugs in the past and were caught doing so. I think that`s case enough for any judge to issue a search warrant.

Your analogy fails Davy. [/quote]
If I appeal to the courts/police that my neighbour`s house should be searched based on his proud boast of his house being full of drugs, and the courts/police tell me that I have no case, that does not give me the right to storm into his house as a civilian and shoot the place up. I`d be arrested as a criminal.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote">We don`t import refined gasoline.[/quote">

Again you`re wrong.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: They don`t refine it for us, they refine it for themselves.

The US has over 100 different blends of gasoline because, once again, of EPA standards for each individual state and even metropolitan regions within those states to reduce smog and even different seasons of the year. We don`t import refined gasoline.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
So granted we can refine 107,000 barrels thanks to it`s low sulphur content, but again they don`t produce as much oil as Iraq does. Now on the other hand Iraq produces six times that amount but since we can`t refine it here, companies like BP and ExxonMobile will send it to refineries in Asia and wherever else where they don`t have such restrictions. Then that gets shipped to America.

That`s called a loophole.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
davymid: Unfortunately you forgot that your neighbors, In your scenario, would`ve been bragging that they not only had drugs but they were selling them too. Also that those neighbors had sold and used drugs in the past and were caught doing so.

I think that`s case enough for any judge to issue a search warrant.

Your analogy fails Davy.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]hidden deep within your link "The majority of Iraqi oil exports go to refineries in Asia, especially China, India, and South Korea." Mainly through the Iraq-Turkey pipeline.[/quote]

So we ask those countries to refine it for us, big drating deal.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Man, I should’ve been a playwright. In case there`s any doubt, here`s the cast in this story:
Me- Dubya Bush.
Neighbour- Saddam Hussein.
Police- UN/NATO/International Community.
Motley Neighbours Assisting- Moldova, Kazakhstan, Estonia, Tonga etc.

Though 5Cats had a point back there. Bush and Blair`s internationally illegal invasion of Iraq without UN sanction was definitely supported by more countries than support the current no-fly zone in Libya.

Those countries mentioned above provided about 140 troops between them. The current action in Libya is being supported by a cheeky new-fangled upstart conglomerate called NATO/United Nations.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
So I take matters into my own hands. I break into their house, kicking in the front door, shooting off my machine gun my while shouting things like "Go! Go! Go!" to my motley assortment of neighbours that I`ve gathered to my cause.

So now I`ve taken it upon myself to assault the house, I`ve shot a few people in the face on the way in, and now I`m going to go find that pesky drugs stash. It was justifiable, dammit!

Turns out, there`s no drugs. Not so much as a gram of pot. Apparently dude made his money from investment banking, and although he was a undoubtedly a dick (maybe I saw him slapping his wife around a bit), I just took it upon myself to rape his house to find the drug stash. You know, the one we told the police about.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]davymid: The Clintons, most other democrats at the time, Great Britain, and the UN were all sure Saddam was up to no good. He was paying the families of suicide bombers $20,000 each. [/quote]
You`re right there. But I`m pretty sure that "being sure that someone`s up to no good" is not a justifiable reason to invade their house.

Heck, my neighbours across the street have a big truck and a boat in their driveway and a villa in Florida. And I see a lot of people coming and going from their front door. I`m pretty sure they`re drug dealers.

Let`s say I call the cops and voice my fears that they are in fact dealing drugs. The cops take my concern seriously and check them out, but having nothing legal or evidential to go on, tell me that they have no justifiable reason to raid their house.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: hidden deep within your link "The majority of Iraqi oil exports go to refineries in Asia, especially China, India, and South Korea." Mainly through the Iraq-Turkey pipeline.

627,000 barrels of oil a day is less than a 3rd of it`s total production, which is from the southern fields near Kuwait. That is less than half of Libya`s 1.6 million barrels a day. Saudi Arabia exports 1.5 million barrels a day to the US in comparison.

So again, THIS WAR IS ABOUT OIL.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
...except I`ve already shown you with statistics that the US does buy oil from Iraq more than it does from Libya.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: different crude oils are separated on the commodities exchanges for good reason, they are considered different supplies.

If natural gas suddenly gets more expensive in Europe that does not effect the US or Canada much at all. Why ? Because Europe buys from Russia, The US and Canada have their own local sources.

Since high sulphur crude is not what we buy, Iraqs oil was not important to the US.

Since Libya has the same type of crude that we normally buy, that supply is important to us even though we don`t buy it directly from them.

So all the Iraq war protesters screaming "No War For Oil" & "No Blood For Oil" were erroneous. Were they protesting this Libya war however, they would be correct.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Here`s the source

<gasp> Get this in the same year we only imported 103,000 barrels a day from Libya the same year.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]US refineries can not use it and thus do not buy it because of EPA standards.[/quote]

Actually wait, that`s not true, the EPA is so unpopular they`ve been gutted repeatedly by the federal government. According to the Department of Energy we`ve imported 627,000 barrels of oil a day from Iraq in 2008.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
...and another 22% goes to Europe.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]US refineries can not use it and thus do not buy it because of EPA standards.[/quote]

This is not just about exports this is about supply. Then again 30% of those exports go somewhere within the western hemisphere.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: Iraqs oil has too high a sulphur content, US refineries can not use it and thus do not buy it because of EPA standards.

Libya however has light sweet crude with a low sulphur content and that is definitely the kind of oil we would buy, however most of Libya`s oil is actually sold to Italy and France. Since those countries cannot buy it from Libya right now, that increases demand on the sources that we do buy light sweet crude from.

THIS IS ABOUT OIL.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
davymid: The Clintons, most other democrats at the time, Great Britain, and the UN were all sure Saddam was up to no good. He was paying the families of suicide bombers $20,000 each.

Iraq was harboring Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Iraqis provided bomb-making expertise and advice to Al-Qaida and in fact one of the `93 WTC bombers was Iraqi. Saddam may not have pre-knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, but he definitely was involved in supporting Islamic Jihad and Al-Qaida in the 90s.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]1.6 million barrels of oil per day[/quote]



Yeah and in 2002 Iraq produced 2.009 million barrels of oil per day. So by your same logic Iraq`s bar should elevated as well.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: North Korea is a threat too, Unfortunately China is the major stumbling block there, Otherwise we would`ve won the Korean war.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: Nice try with the oil disruption chart dated February 2011, It`s now March and the disruption is far worse. Libya normally produces 1.6 million barrels of oil per day, and since the fighting began all that has halted. That would elevate it`s status on your chart to near the Suez War and the 6 day war.

So Yes, THIS IS ABOUT OIL.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]bragged that he had WMDs and was going to use them[/quote]

Like how North Korea just brags about how it`s going to use it`s nukes. I`m just waiting patiently until that nation crumbles.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]We invaded because Iraq was an immediate threat to the US, UK and others and had weaponised WMDs.[/quote]

They did, but they were old (produced before first Gulf War) and most of them were in very poor condition. Saddam didn`t even want to use them in fear of a US retaliation.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: Saddam was not looking to restore good relations with the US or the UN, He kicked out nuclear inspection teams and bragged that he had WMDs and was going to use them !

Nice try at revisionist history there Cajun, but Saddam and his sons and his staff were bastards that had used WMDs, still had WMDs and the missiles capable of attacking Israel with them.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]5Cats said: It`s truely pathetic how the MSM, the liberal left and the "peace" people are 100% hypocrites!... And leftards gulp the kool-aid down and ask for seconds... You`ve adjusted the number, that`s... so liberal of you![/quote]
Yeah, yeah, we get it 5Cats. Anyone who holds political views that differ from yours (right-wing conservative) is clearly a hypocrite, a retard, and a liar. I guess that includes me.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]Crakrjak said: Iraq was a threat to Israel and had fired several missiles at Israel during the first gulf war. He still had those missiles during the second gulf war. Saddam gassed his own people and killed thousands of others via firing squad. [/quote]
Bullsh*t. Not why we invaded Iraq. Not what we were sold. We invaded because Iraq was an immediate threat to the US, UK and others and had weaponised WMDs. *NOT* because Saddam was a bit of a dick. I think if WMDs had been found, it would have made the news by now. Don`t you? Maybe I missed the memo. Say, has anyone checked down the back of the couch yet.

Bait and switch much?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Oh and before you start complaining about incomplete information:


In 2002 Iraq produced 2.64% of the world`s oil that year.
In 2010 Libya produced 2.07% of the world`s oil that year.

Anymore questions?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Say check this chart out and tell me if this is REALLY about oil.

0
Reply
Male 10,855
Oh BTW this really ISN`T about oil, as a matter of fact you could even ask "What the HELL are we doing there?"

From Monica Crowley`s website:
"Isn`t Libya a sideshow? The US doesn`t have any real strategic interests there. Yes, Libya is an oil producer but a relatively minor one. Isn`t the real crisis in Yemen, where the government just slaughtered over 50 protesters and which is now the world`s premiere locale for al Qaeda`s operatives to plan and launch attacks against the United States and the West?"
0
Reply
Male 10,855
In regards to my question:

I`m not referring to "precursor chemicals" they can be used for many different other things.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Okay did we find anything that was produced after the first Gulf War?

Now what kept him from using those stockpiles was ,as a matter of fact, a US retaliation (sounds MAD wouldn`t you say), plus the fact he even WANTED to restore good relations with the US he had before the first Gulf War. So there was no proof of a major WMD program which was the GREATEST rationale for the invasion of Iraq.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun: You are forgetting that Saddam had tons of chemical shells hidden inside a bunker, and many other buried outside the same bunker.

Iraq was a threat to Israel and had fired several missiles at Israel during the first gulf war. He still had those missiles during the second gulf war. Saddam gassed his own people and killed thousands of others via firing squad.

Gaddafi is no threat to Israel or any of his neighbors, Has no gas or missiles and completely gave up his nuclear program after Saddam was ousted.

Obama was happy to just sanction him until he bombed the oil pipelines. His hypocrisy is self-evident in his own anti-war statements.

This war is about oil, This dictator is genuinely not a threat, and Obama is a Grade A number 1 hypocrite.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]much cheaper to produce[/quote]

...than helium

--fixed
0
Reply
Male 2,703
sorry, that went on way too long. in a real situation, he would`ve walked away at ~2:30 when she said that stupid remark about windmills

0
Reply
Male 10,855
Obama is in a much better stance this time around than Bush was as this situation was not of the former`s making.

Now I`m fine with air support but if there`s boots on the ground then they BETTER be out within a month. If not: I hope to GOD Ron Paul runs.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Mobile chemical weapons labs:
So according to a guy who (would later admit to his false testimony) after REPEATED warnings from the BND (German intelligence) regarding his integrity, we were somehow convinced there were mobile bioweapons/chemical weapons labs? Niether one makes ANY sense to me logistically, especially considering the poor state Iraq`s infrastructure was in (repairs were made to roads but they were VERY substandard). We later found out that those were hydrogen gas weather balloon machines.
Wait why hydrogen you ask? Simple it is much cheaper to produce and Saddam was broke after the first Gulf War.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote">Please describe to me how Libya is an imminent or actual threat to the USA ?[/quote">

Please describe to me how Iraq was an imminent or actual threat to the USA?

You can`t, because it wasn`t

550 tons of yellowcake:
It did not come from Nigeria, and were from decades old reactor projects.Source

Pre-cursor chemicals:
Last I checked ingredients != final product. Okay we found pre-cursor chemicals but no actual chemical weapons? I`ll also mention that after the first Gulf War Iraq`s infrastructure was smashed which definetely could have caused problems for those programs.
0
Reply
Male 3,431
We have to help Libya now because in twenty years we`ll need them as allies to help overthrow our own dictator.
0
Reply
Male 39
Boring video, and the only point it made is that an uninformed person will lose an argument with someone who knows what they`re talking about.

If we were the ones who initiated the attacks (it was the French), if we make false claims about Libya having WMDs (we aren`t), if we have an occupational force on the ground and start preaching about "nation-building" and "winning the hearts and minds" of the Libyans (we don`t), then comparisons can be made.

We decided that we would back our NATO allies in the attack after Gaddafi said he would invite Al-Qaida into Libya so they could have a launching base into Europe.
0
Reply
Male 541
Difference between Iraq and Libya is that US still in Iraq. And with Libya, the US is backed by most Western countries. In fact, teh UN leads teh charge. Also, Bush ILLEGALLY went into Iraq. Iraq was purely oil-driven.
0
Reply
Female 174
this video is exactly what I-am-bored means lol
:-P
0
Reply
Male 25,416
Banging head against wall
0
Reply
Male 29
ITT butthurt amerifags defend their political party, failing to realise that the two main parties are exactly the drating same.
You guys dont weight up the actions of two parties against each other because they would react to every situation in pretty much the exact same fashion.

Enjoy voting in the people powerfull corporations are telling you to vote in having paid both parties the same amount of money to do whatever it wants.
0
Reply
Male 546
Maybe we can send Libyans captured to Guantanamo? Unless it is being closed again?
0
Reply
Male 2,841
I might actually give a poo if the voice acting in these things wasn`t so horrible.
0
Reply
Male 40,728
Count `em Baalth! There`s acually 39 countries THIRTY NINE.

Multi-National Forces in Libya

There`s 14, not 12, but my point is still valid. 39 > 14

They "came up with it after the invasion" oh really? I guess Resolution 1441 was just re-written and no one noticed.
U - R delusional dude.
0
Reply
Male 40,728
Links: Hey @Baalth, where did you get "20 days of vacation" from? Is that this year? In his 2 years in office? You`ve adjusted the number, that`s... so liberal of you!

Wiki on Gulf War II
Just read the overview, it clearly states the multiple reasons, the UN orders, the whole multi-national thing.

UN Resolution 1441
Which CLEARLY orders member nations to use force to get Hussain to comply with the cease-fire. @Piperfawn you read this! Not just WMDs but all the weapons programs he was doing which violated the UN orders.

Multi-National Forces in Gulf War II
Count
0
Reply
Male 40,728
[quote]Honestly after reading the comments. IAB just all proves 5 Cats video. It`s a mirror image.[/quote]

Thanks again @handys003 - I sure am glad some folks `get it`. Baalth are you listening?

@Crackr quotes Obama himself saying he`s done the wrong thing, and all @Baalth and the left can do is chant "Bush is Bad! Bush told Lies!" it`s exactly like the video.

@Baath there were TWICE as many nations involved in Gulf II, DOUBLE the number. Please to explain your math: Bush gets 24 countries to join, Obama gets 12, THEREFOR Obama has MORE SUPPORT.
You`re fast becoming a joke Baalth, and not in that good way...
Links to follow!

0
Reply
Male 3,147
@Mildcorma

you say "Cry that financial crisis needs to be averted; "don`t cut our pay, cut everyone elses."

erm... you mean like the hypocrisy of the government saying `we`re all in this together` and cuting police, health, closing libraries etc. but then forcing the MP expenses committee to back down on cutting expenses to the politicians?

don`t cut our expenses...cut everyone else`s?
0
Reply
Male 3,147
Mildcorma, how does that address the hypocrisy in the government encouraging violent protests in middle eastern countries whilst ignoring large numbers of protesters in their own country?

and actually polls showed around 20% of Conservative voters were in favour the protest march - so it wasn`t just all labour voters at all.
0
Reply
Male 496
@Listypoos

These are the same people that wanted to vote Labour in for another term of "spending through reccession" (look how that turned out for Greece and Ireland). These are the same people that asked for help but when they saw that actually it`s going to hurt financially decided it`s no longer a good idea and the government is bad. Cuts and tax hikes = economic stability when we need it most. Saying the government is wrong to be harsh (and ultimately, we are already feeling the benefit of these choices) and crying about increases to taxation whilst at the same time expecting public services to be the same is a stupid and unrealistic view of how the world works to be perfectly frank with you.

Everyone is feeling the burn. This does -not- mean that the government is doing the wrong thing, not by a long way.

Cry that financial crisis needs to be averted; "don`t cut our pay, cut everyone elses."
0
Reply
Male 590
Baalthazaq is clearly either a libtroll or a head injury patient
0
Reply
Male 590
wow... "libya is everything they pretended iraq was"... that`s just.... wow.... it really seems so serene just drinking the kool-aid and not having to worry about logic or principle or fact...

Seriously, how do you even argue with someone who says "libya is everything they pretended iraq was" - you don`t
0
Reply
Male 234
This sounds like my normal conversation with democrats.

Listen here people. The UN told Bush that Iraq had WMD. Bush did not pull it out of his ass, there is plenty of documentation that UN had great reason to believe Iraq had WMD`s. Sadam was dictator who killed thousands upon thousands of people who laid villages down under the treads of his tanks. He used chemical warfare on his own people and kill anyone who he didn`t like. He was a cruel and nasty man who supported the same people who would love to destroy American killing all of our children, elders and women without mercy. Yet you bash Bush for his decision to put a stop to all of the above.

Yet you praise Obama who did the same exact thing? You are all hypocrites who have no room to talk. Obama has been a worse president then Bush and I know many democrats who were pro Obama that now hate him. How freaking Ironic... The sad part is, you`re all like the chick in the video. "I don`t care." Yeah, course
0
Reply
Male 3,147
Agreed Ggolbez.

We have a situation in the UK where half a million peaceful protesters took to the streets of London yesterday to protest about the severity of public sector cuts......there were around 200 violent protesters that caused damage and trouble.

This morning the papers are screaming about how the violence completely overshadowed the protest march.

Really? a couple of hundred people smashing bank windows completely overshadows half a million people getting off their backsides to complain to the government?

Our government won`t listen to the demands of protesters...even half a million of them, whether they be peaceful or violent. Except if they are in a country full of oil and it`s someone they don`t like in charge..... then 20 thousand violent protesters suddenly become `freedom fighters` worthy of selling arms to.


It`s hypocrisy.... plain and simple. You really don`t think the UK/us wouldn`t kill it`s own people if they
0
Reply
Male 322
god i miss Bush. W, please come back.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Baal: Please describe to me how Libya is an imminent or actual threat to the USA ?

You can`t, Because it isn`t.

Obama said he would sit down and negotiate with any nation before he would resort to military action.

He seemed to only back sanctions until those oil pipelines were bombed, Then he instantly became a hawk. He still hasn`t asked congress for authorization, He hasn`t defined a goal (He`s flip flop on regime change) and hasn`t even talked with the rebels.

THIS WAR IS ABOUT OIL, Iraq wasn`t, Plain and simple.

At least have the common sense to recognize his hypocrisy and true motives.

Btw, I`m not bothered that this war is about oil, that`s fine with me, but at the very least it needs to be recognized as such.
0
Reply
Male 1,744
oh and
YAAAY WAR!
0
Reply
Male 1,744
i can never make it past around 1:15 with these extra normal toons
0
Reply
Male 5,163
Hmm well ok special forces used to designate targets in my opinion are not to consider like "ground troops" they are just a part of missile sistem and they don`t affect the civilians life. When i say ground troops i mean the troops that occupy territory ,that in most of cases take controls of cities or strategical places and establishing martials rules influence the life of civilians. For now the UN resolution don`t have this option. I just hope this will remain as it is.
0
Reply
Male 2,402
@piperfawn

When your on a small island the coconut telegraph tells the reporters who tell the public. 5000 hungry Marines and a carrier affect local restaurant businesses that service Pearl Harbor. You tend to notice such wery easily.

Yes I agree with your assertion of it to be a mistake. Fact is Marines go where called to go no questions asked. It`s part of the Rapid-Deployment-Force strategy developed in the late 80`s. Fact is even the Officers in Charge were taken aback. The Commander of US Forces Pacific was preparing to step down next month for a change in Command. On the news interview the Officers did not know what the objective was to be. They were told they will be informed on the way. A rush job so to speak. Indeed not good at all IMO.
0
Reply
Male 2,402
@Out West
Very true. The special forces teams have to be there directing laser guided weapons onto targets.

I`m sure French Foreign Legion forces are there also since they are nearby.
0
Reply
Male 546
If there are planes dropping bombs, and missiles on target, there are troops on the ground. They may not be in uniform, but they are there.

Who do you think targets so that we do the least damage to innocents or civilians?

0
Reply
Male 5,163
handys003 You give us fresh news really interesting. If really USA is sending ground troops in Libya this mean that your government once again is going against international decisions. For now the NATO decision is to use air raids just to preserve the no fly zone,no ground troops are involved in this decision. But we all know how heavy is the USA part in NATO. The smell of oil is allways so strong. I agree with the UN decision as it is now but i will have lot of doubts if grounds troops will be deployed. I also really don`t know if Libyans people will accept that. In my opinion this will be a great mistake.
0
Reply
Male 2,402
@DrProfesor replied:
-There are no boots on the ground, no troop commitment.

There will be shortly. A whole Marine amphibious assault force including a carrier left Pearl Harbor yesterday for Libya.
0
Reply
Male 2,402
Honestly after reading the comments. IAB just all proves 5 Cats video. It`s a mirror image.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
Differences:
-There is rebel action currently going on in Libya (meaning that Gaddafi is using his military against civilians)
-Libya was declared a no-fly zone by not just America, but a large group of nations. Airstrikes are being undertaken by both American and European forces.
-There are no boots on the ground, no troop commitment.
-It`s called Operation Odyssey Dawn (which, although meaningless, sounds awesome.)

If anything, I would say this is much closer to the Gulf War--an international response to a dictator harming the innocent.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote] What faction of the rebels asked for our help? [/quote]
I`m gonna say most of them, otherwise they wouldn`t be so passionately fighting their "government".

I agree with gerry. No real point to either war, however I am not against this stance of "we will *assist* any country that is rebelling against it`s despotic regime with the consent of its population and the UN".

It seems like a f*cking big step from that to an invasion without anyone`s consent on the basis of a lie with no plan to pull out afterward.

The oil is a coincidental strategic capture in either case. This is the ME we`re talking about, everyone has oil.

Therefore this video is complete crap. I fear it was posted to try and spread a heavily flawed political opinion and not so much about the "boredom killing".

Beware IAB. I`ve seen this before. You`ll want to screen your posts more carefully to make sure there is something of value in th
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Also, still on the vacation bullpoo?

Bush: 879 days of vacation. Seriously unless you were frothing at the mouth outraged 3 years ago, grabbing guns petitioning congressmen, and most importantly raving in all the forums about it, you shut the drat up about Barack taking 12% of that.

I`ve already adjusted for time in office btw.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
LazyMe: Me too!

As I said before, Libya is everything Bush pretended Iraq was.

This video is still pretending on the side of Iraq. The idea that "we didn`t go in for WMDs" is horsecock they came up with *after the invasion*.

The Libyan people wanted the help. The Arab league even wanted the help. The UN wanted the help. NATO wanted the help.

The same can not be said of Iraq.

Question:
Before Obama said a thing, Why did the whole world want intervention?
Why, even after Bush`s pleading with everyone, did the world not back his decision?

It`s not the implied fanboyism. These decisions were made independently of those leaders. That`s because there is a clear difference between the two countries, that isn`t being seen by the people still with a deathgrip on those old Bush lies.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
"The president does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping of an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Barack Obama Dec 20th, 2007
0
Reply
Male 1,595
I know he inherited a *ton* of problems, but Obama is an overall failure.
If he spends half the time leading the country as he did spend time on vacation half of our problems would have a MUCH greater chance of being foreseen and possibly avoided.
Before someone points it out, I know that the presidents powers are limited and they cannot "lead the country" but saying "governing any or all Military actions and the majority of the Executive Branch" is a bit of a mouthful.
0
Reply
Male 496
As for Libya well... It`s UN sanctioned, but that won`t stop people going "it`s for oil!" when really if you cared that much you would cycle / walk to work and spend the money on renewable energy so things like this -dont- happen. It`s people that go "OMG our government is so terrible, going to war for oil" whilst talking on your plastic phone next to a plastic car you fill with petrol, on your way to buy an oil tank refill for your apartment or whatever. You wonder why this happens and act in disgust when really they are most likely finding horrible ways to full-fill supply and demand.

If you didn`t use the oil, then they would have to diverse into things you -do- spend on in order to keep making money. This is what people need to do in order to prevent the global crisis from worsening and to stop things like countries making excuses to go get some oil direct from the source (NOT that I am saying this happens, I really don`t know, i mean, who does?)
0
Reply
Male 496
@tn11

Obama has only lost support because people are fickle, forget easily and don`t want to make the hard choices that are ultimately for the best. He is like a parent taking away an obese childs candy after it asked for help. It sucks, sure, but it makes -sense-. What dumb people see is Obama voted in,, their taxes go up and things cost more so Obama = bad person. Not a sensible view, and we have the same situation in England with the coalition. They are doing the right thing to get the economy going, but people are annoyed because it`s hitting them hard after years and years of Labour going "lol spend more it`s ok". Most people (including a lot of you IABers from what i`ve seen) can`t get this separation, you only see what you want to see instead of the big picutre. Sometimes, like a parent with a child, you have to be mean to be kind. Making our countries better is neither easy nor an overnight thing.
0
Reply
Male 5,163
spyrocheeks leave us our stupids discussions moment please i promise that after we will returns to our nature of "i don`t care all i want is fun" people.
0
Reply
Female 112
Why is it that whenever theres something based on politics all the coments are long!!!Y u no make laughs?
0
Reply
Male 5,163
tn11 Soldiers on soil are sended to conquer territory, you can`t conquer any territory from the air. In Libya NATO is not perpetuating an invasion, is just helping rebels that are killed by Gheddafi`s air strikes.The real war is between rebels and Gheddafi. Who is conquering territory are libyans people not NATO soldiers. USA in the second gulf war have sended tons and tons of soldiers and the first places occupied was oil sites in Iraq country. The "war" is against the dictator and his army not against an entire population or category like muslim.The second gulf war have introduced in the minds of world population the concept of war between two factions, occident against muslims. Today in Libya world is fighting for people, is not an ideological war.
0
Reply
Male 1,587
piperfawn- by the logic that if there are no soldiers on the ground, it can`t be a war, then if the US sent some ICBM`s at Russia and they fired back, there would be no war. 0_o It sure as heck would feel like war.

I found this very interesting. I don`t think either President has made the best and most correct decisions, but there is a lot of hate for GB. Interestingly, I don`t think there are too many people like the blondie around anymore. Obama has lost a lot of popular support.
0
Reply
Male 5,163
Once again 5CATS yours are just opinions, for now the FACTS are clear,not a single NATO soldier is in Libya soil. Maybe you have a cristal ball to see the future... i prefere to judge the facts. We will see. For sure EU countries have interests in oil( you can`t pretend that only USA have the right on spreading wars all over the world for oil) but not a single european country is hiding this desire. At least we don`t say bulls.hits to the rest of the world and we don`t use fakes excuses about weapons of mass destruction.
0
Reply
Male 40,728
vv That`s true @Gerry1of1, there are a LOT of differences in the 3 wars. Also a lot of similarities, they`re complex issues!

What isn`t complex is the sheer hatred directed at GW Bush by the MSM, and at America`s troops too, over the first two wars. Now the MSM bends over backwards to proclaim how great this 3rd war is? Sickening.

And leftards gulp the kool-aid down and ask for seconds.

@PiperFawn: No Fly Zone = War. The troops will be there sooner or later, Britian, Italy and France want their oil!

I eagerly await the "peace protestors" first rally...
0
Reply
Male 1,931
Got to 1:25 and stopped. I realize the point and support it. It is drated up what the Obama administration is doing to Libya, and it is a good comparison of the two. Hell, at least Bush tried to convince America first before invading Iraq.

But we haven`t really "invaded" yet. We`ve just bombed a bit. I don`t support it, especially considering that there are a ton of other countries over there needing the same thing.
0
Reply
Male 736
One was done for conquest, the other to protect civilians. Anyone that thinks the two are the same are about as dumb as...oh, hold on, this is a country that voted to W twice, so no surprises, I s`pose.
0
Reply
Male 5,163
5Cats i`ve just reported facts that are proved and are allready in history. All the tings you say don`t move my clear idea that war in Iraq was done against UN resolutions.Libya intervention(not war cause NATO have`nt send a single soldier on the soil of Libya)come after a specific resolution of UN and NATO and after a UN and NATO decision to create a no fly zone. All what you say about fantapolitic and about Syria and Israel fables is pure elucubration, not a single UN/Nato official document talk about that. Maybe some entertaining George Clooney and so on movie, but remember history is done by FACTS not by opinions.
0
Reply
Male 39,887

They`re not the same situations at all.

But I still think military activity in Iraq OR Lybia are both stupid.

I`m no pacifist, but there`s no point to either.
0
Reply
Male 2,344
if you think oil isn`t a really good reason to go to war...you are a true moron.

everything that makes life possible as we know it relies on HYDROCARBONS AKA OIL.

food, fuel, plastics, medical equipment, energy, transportation, EVERYTHING is based on a fossil fuel system that allows us to build and run everything we have.

next time you are stupid enough to think that oil isn`t a valid reason to go to war try living without the products created by it...which is EVERYTHING.

oh but don;t worry my little morons, in about 40 years when there isn`t enough of it left you will find out exactly what the world looks like without it.

0
Reply
Male 2,344
there was nothing wrong with taking saddam out, the problem came when he kept our troops there.

The other MAIN difference, if that the Libyian people are figting for their own freedom while the Iraqis were too chickenpoo to even attempt it...

If the Libyians were not fighting for their freedom then this would be a stupid offensive. However, they ARE, and without aid they will be slaughtered by a madman.

there is no room in this world for dictators that kill their own people anymore.

Also, OIL is a pretty damn good reason to go to war...think it isn`t?

EVERYTHING that makes life possible in this world is made from hydrocarbons...you know OIL.

it is not just used for gas, but for PLASTIC, food, fuel, energy, etc.

do we really want the last remaining amounts of it to be in the hands of a bat poo crazy dictator?

Bush was an idiot and he approached the issue of Iraq completely wrong. This is not a black and white iss
0
Reply
Male 40,728
vv @Piperfawn conveniently forgets that Saddam threatened the lives of the weapons inspectors, forcing them to flee the country. For 2 years he refused to let them back in. He had plenty of time to move his weapons to Syria, and there`s ample evidence he did just that. Israel blew them up a couple of years ago btw, in Syria.
The Ceaase Fire Agreement (which stopped the first Gulf War, not Bush Sr) required Saddam to guarentee the safety and free access to the weapons inspectors. Since Saddam violated that, and many other parts of the CFA, the UN said `game on!` for the second Gulf War.

Kofi Annan, and his son, made millions in `kickbacks` from Iraq and her allies.

vv @MildCorma has it right too! SOME of the reasons for invasion didn`t pan out, but there were plenty of reasons that did! Unlike Clinton`s invasion of Serbia, where the UN found ZERO evidence of the alleged atrocities.
0
Reply
Male 40,728
[quote]What 5 Cats posted is a true reflection of how inept and blind people are to their prejudicial ideas of what is right and wrong.[/quote]
Why Thanks! @handys003 gets it! As do several others.
The "peace movement" was on the streets BEFORE the Gulf War II even started, yet for Obama? They are no where to be found! Similar thing happened under Clinton, which the video mentions.
It`s truely pathetic how the MSM, the liberal left and the "peace" people are 100% hypocrites! (stangely, Code Pink actually protested a little about using lots of drones in Afghanistan, they have more integrity than the MSM? oy vey!)
0
Reply
Male 168
I had almost this exact conversation with one of my coworkers. including the facepalm at the end.
0
Reply
Male 514
The US dollar will always lose buying power because its based on a fractional reserve system and all money is issued as debt by the federal reserve, that is to say that every dollar in existence is owed back to the fed plus INTEREST. That means there is more money owing than actually exists. Do some research, the end of the line will come eventually, everyone will be broke except the banksters, just the way they want it.
0
Reply
Male 266
Democrats and republicans.. dirty bastard. A mind that votes democrat is a good rebel mind wasted.
0
Reply
Male 5,163
@zeebeedee Yes i`m from EU why?
0
Reply
Female 3,598
i thought this was gonna make some valid points or something... this is just a leftwinger and a rightwinger going at it.
0
Reply
Male 2,402
continued....
The tax money can be better spent on security at home and paying off the debt so my dollar has more buying power.
0
Reply
Male 2,402
This is what we and Europe are going to get. just another headache from the Arab world.

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

We are just trading for another oppressive regime that will be just as rotten as the Taliban. They have had 5000 years in the Arab world to get their sh*t together. They cannot and we need to learn to stay the freak out of other countries affairs. Let them wage their holy Jihads on themselves.

I`m sick of the USA spending money we don`t have on my tax dollar. Paying for these fat cats Military Industrialists weapons. The tax money ca
0
Reply
Male 606
Iraq = Not UN Sanctioned.

Libya = UN/NATO Sanctioned.

Problem Solved.
0
Reply
Male 613
@piperfawn so you`re from Europe huh?
0
Reply
Male 159
its not the US who attacks Libya, its the UN!
If this war were to control oil flow to Europe, then why would Norway join in?
0
Reply
Male 626
Didn`t pretty much the rulers of Bahrain do the exact same thing to their people but no one interfered because their rulers keep the oil flowing?
0
Reply
Male 1,929
Stopped it after a minute. It`s on about some random poo about the USA going to war with Libya or something. What has this got to do with anything?
0
Reply
Male 756
the main difference is that the libyan rebels actually want the help
0
Reply
Male 1,021
@Buiadh: Enlighten me on what facts were wrong. You sound exactly like the girl in the video (afraid of logic)
0
Reply
Male 496
I think quite a few people are forgetting something here, let me elaborate.

You are the leader of a great nation. One morning an aide gives you evidence that one of the most dangerous dictators in the world (that has used wmds on his own people in the past in the form of nerve gas) in a country with the 4th biggest army in the world, might have weapons of mass destruction. What do you do?

I wouldn`t sit on my arse and wait to see what happened that`s for sure. I am in no doubt that saddam was a nasty SOAB and needed to be removed. To calrify, there was -COMPLETE- justification for an invasion, complete justification. Even if that intelligence was false it is still intelligence and you have to go by it. If i`m a leader and I see that then I will ofc say "lets go invade". What happened afterwards is fuzzy, but the invasion 100% justified.
0
Reply
Male 812
The major difference is that the libyans themselves desired the intervention of the UN. Invading Iraq was useless and uncalled for, and the citizens paid for it the most.

And besides, Gaddafi is a lunatic.
0
Reply
Male 139
i`ll just say no because the majority of left leaning people and talking heads haven`t been very supportive. a lot seem to point out that there are a bunch of bad/evil leaders in the world, so why are we not attacking them? not saying we should, just pointing the fallacy`s of American foreign policy.
0
Reply
Male 5,163
According to the Center for Public Integrity, the Bush administration allegedly made a total of 935 false statements between 2001 and 2003 about Iraq`s alleged threat to the United States. Is it clear now Blargley or you want to keep standing in your fakes dreams?
0
Reply
Male 5,163
There were serious legal questions surrounding the launching of the war against Iraq and the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war in general. On September 16, 2004, Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, said of the invasion, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the Charter point of view, it was illegal."
0
Reply
Male 5,163
The invasion of Iraq was strongly opposed by some traditional U.S. allies, including the governments of France, Germany, New Zealand, and Canada (nations inside UN if you don`t know my dear Blargley). Their leaders argued that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that invading the country was not justified in the context of UNMOVIC`s February 12, 2003 report.
0
Reply
Male 5,163
@Blargley (continue)According to U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein`s alleged support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people." According to Blair, the trigger was Iraq`s failure to take a "final opportunity" to disarm itself of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that U.S. and British officials called an immediate and intolerable threat to world peace. In 2005, the Central Intelligence Agency released a report saying that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq.
0
Reply
Male 740
johnkelley is obviously a pathetic, mad, conservative troll who, even presented with the facts, wants to believe (pretend?) as if he`s correct and justified. Go to hell buddy YOU`RE the type that`s ruining America.
0
Reply
Male 260
Wow, this completely change my feelings on the war in Iraq. Still, in both cases, we couldn`t have done nothing w/o taking flack for it, and we couldn`t have done anything that w/o taking flack for it. Until we are put in the position our presidents were put in, we really can`t bash either of them for decisions made.
0
Reply
Male 5,163

@Blargley Prior to the invasion, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom asserted that the possibility of Iraq employing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) threatened their security and that of their coalition/regional allies. In 2002, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1441 which called for Iraq to completely cooperate with UN weapon inspectors to verify that it was not in possession of weapons of mass destruction and cruise missiles. The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) was given access by Iraq under provisions of the UN resolution but found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction.
So you are a liar like your old president Bush. You start war only with British and not with UN.
0
Reply
Male 740
This video is fail.

No one jumped into a war. Are there ground troops in Libya? No.
0
Reply
Male 59
I think you are all forgetting that the left was pissed at how long it took Bush to go to war. Cobert and Stewart are dumbass "comedians" who are so left wing that you idiots eat up everything they say as news, when they are far from it. Obama golfed more in his first year of office than Bush did his whole two terms. Obama is not around, when there are many things, like a budget, war with Libya and many more things needing attention right now. Piper, you are sick in your head, you don`t even realize that Bush didn`t call for Saddam`s death, we captured him, he went ON TRIAL and received the death penalty. You libtards need help.
0
Reply
Male 2,402
@LazyMe484

What faction of the rebels asked for our help? CFR

I distinctly recall the Iraq people asking many times for our help to oust Saddam.

What 5 Cats posted is a true reflection of how inept and blind people are to their prejudicial ideas of what is right and wrong.
0
Reply
Female 290
Libia has the richest supplies of oil in Africa and 9th largest in the world. The conflicts throughout Africa: Angola, Congo, Sudan, Somalia, Sierra Leon, and MANY more... the UN and the Western World does absolutely nothing. Than, there is Libya and all of the sudden the UN can not wait to get involved ... the show must go on.
0
Reply
Male 493
Does everyone use Xtranormal to create strawman arguments or what?
0
Reply
Male 2
@piperfawn: Your reasoning is as bad as your grammar and spelling. Did you even watch the video?? I mean we attacked Iraq with the UN! The reason we invaded was because the UN told Hussein that they would invade unless he let us check for WMD`s, and when he didn`t, we invaded. Not to mention that Bush didn`t kill Hussein and that the Iraqis did. I hope you were joking with that post. [/rant]
0
Reply
Male 684
HAHAHAHA, Of course both wars are about oil. Iraq was actually exporting lots of oil to Europe as well(for food)at least that is my understanding. It is my understanding that there was poor intelligence handling in the case of Bush. It is no coincidence that the first legal document signed by the new Iraqi government was an oil deal. The human rights violation that Iraq committed was enough to start a war on alone IMO. My big problem with the situation is that the American people paid to "liberate" the oil, and now the oil companies that are benefiting from it are also charging us extra for the "protection" our government is providing...We fight for the oil, they take it, then charge us enough to report record profits...I think the oil companies benefiting from the situation should be helping pay for the oil, of course they may be, I really don`t know, I haven`t done enough research on the subject to say definitely, but that`s
sure what it seems like.
0
Reply
Male 526
2 problems with this that I see, the rest makes a pretty good point:

1. Bush golfed during the Iraq war. All of that, "Obama has too much free-time apparently" drivel is getting pretty old.

2. FOX News is comedic via it`s hypocrisy, and Stewart and Colbert are comedic by pointing out FOX News` hypocrisy. That anybody thinks either is a legitimate source of news is quite scary.
0
Reply
Male 546
LOL... Cats you are on a roll. "Just like Morgan Freeman".... "Oh God" smacks forehead.
0
Reply
Male 5,163
1 Situation in libya is under controll of NATO, when Bush attack Iraq he attack alone without any UN agreement.

2 Untill today we don`t have any notice about civilians death caused by Nato raids. Nato raids are against anti air postations.

3 This NATO resolution don`t say at all we must kill Gheddafi. Bush have killed Saddam.

4 All countries involved in NATO resoultion clearly say that they have also oil interest. Bush have never admit that he was doing a war for oil, he allways have used incredibles lies and unbelivables reasons.

5 Obama is not creating a climax of religious hate like Bush have done for more than 10 years.
0
Reply
Male 339
Agree here. The comparisons and similarities are staggering. The problem is that most people thought that Iraq`s invasion was motivated by the war on Terror/9-11 (which it was not). Just like Libya it was a war to deal with an oppressive regime murdering its own citizens. In Iraq`s case there just happened to be faulty intelligence regarding WMDs and the war was fundamentally mismanaged. Personally I feel that both wars are equally (un)justified (the USA is not the world police and the UN should be taking care of this). We`ll have to see how Libya pans out to truly compare the two though.
One thing for certain: If you applaud Obama for Libya yet bash Bush for Iraq you need to look at your reasoning.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
Anyway, I distinctly remember the Lybians asking for help. That alone is enough to dismiss most of this video.
0
Reply
Male 2,402
No matter who becomes President they all compromise to the Military Industrial System. War makes money off the taxpayers for the eltists. F*** them all!
0
Reply
Male 6,737
Right wing crap. I stopped listening after 35 seconds.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
Hey davy, did you foresee who posted this? Cause` I did :-D
0
Reply
Male 40,728
Link: Libya Vs. Iraq: So True [Rate Link] - Just a couple of co-workers comparing Libya and Iraq.
0
Reply