http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middl … 79830.html
How can Obama stand by while this tyrant kills his own people showing no mercy?? Where is the UN the French the Brits the Arab League?
does syria have oil...If yes USA is interested...If no..what can it do?...It is less to do with Obama and more to do with how usa works...
How many hate-filled, idiotic, Obama-bashing posts can we expect from LaLo today?
Where is the hate in this one doug? The only hate I see is from you and your constant insults of me and the right!
well how is doug's comment insult to right...you dont represent entire right , do you?..you represent yourself and your ideology are inclined towards right...even right politicians are dont criticize obama daily...they too know it is not right to criticize any one daily
Your posts need correction continually. I think in the case of Syria, it would do little good to intervene as they all hate the US. Better to show them we can help their brethren against a tyrant who has oil, without stealing the oil.
Most of the middle east rightly knows we went into Iraq to steal oil. They hate us for that.
Whatever. You could say the same of Darfur, the Congo, Tibet.... Haven't you figured out that the US only does "humanitarian" missions when we have something to gain?
quite right infact obama can be accused of acting as if he is right party inclined here... so left must taken objection to this...
What's to gain here? Most of Libya's oil goes to Europe. Besides if we would just drill in our own country we wouldn't need any of theirs!
In response to my question last week about whether the western nations should involve themselves to save lives in Libya, you replied;
"We should butt out... when Muslims are busy killing each other they don't have time to kill us."
Would you like to comment on the various differences and merits of acting on Syria, but not on Libya?
No my post is to highlight the hypocrisy of the Obama policy.
a) this isn't really Obama policy - this is a UN resolution brought forward by France and the UK.
b) Is your point then; "we can't do everything and help everyone, let's help no-one"?
I'm not sure I follow you...
My point is we don't have a well defined mission that's achievable. Nor is this action required for our nation's defense, nor does it serve any American interest. The justification also is ridiculous and selective. Nowhere in our constitution is there anything that empowers the expenditure of tax payers funds to help people.
USA never does anything which is not in its interest barring Iraq war done by bush ...USA did right thing to take un on board before attacking libya...Obama is decent enough to take world community in confidence which is good for usa after arrogance of bush which made usa unpopular...
Arrogance of Bush..... Obama is decent.....
If another tower falls in USA or if the pentagon is attacked again or if the white house is targeted again by terrorists, Obama will also turn arrogant.
Bush was really a decent gentleman until the twin towers fell. But it is sad that the same Americans who lauded him when he engaged Iraq and Afganistan became Bush-haters. Memory can be erased... but not history.
Afghan was different..there was no choice...If someone blows your two towers , you can't help but attack...Iraq is different story and Iraq was not backed by united nations nor was popular act... saddam was brutal but after him being gone , usa has indirectly helped its own enemy IRAN who has most to gain in that region after USA goes...Bush's personal quest led to disaster and you are right history cannot be forgotten and mark my words , 20 years down the line Iraq would be considered as one of biggest mistakes done by USA...
Iraq was indeed backed by UN resolutions. In fact Bush went to the UN twice before attacking Iraq. Obama made up his mind to bomb Libya on Tuesday and didn't bother to go to congress. Instead he call 30 or so congressman to the White House just before he was leaving for South America to tell them in 90 minutes Libya will be bombed! Does that sound like a leader to you?
On September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, "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."
oh yes...are you following brits summons on tony blair...i wont be surprised if justice prevails...as usual europe would take the lead...coming to bush...entire world rates him as clown , arrogant and man who made usa unpopular...mark my words his operation in Iraq would be rated as one of usa's worst decisions ever...It changed the equation of the region and indirectly helped IRAN...
Neo-cons need Iran to be seen as strong though, same as they need the threat of Islamic fundamentalism to give them a cause. She's wrong, the UN did not sanction the war in Iraq.
It fills the void now that the Iron Curtain has fallen.
The reason Blair and his mates have been pulled up in front of it is because there is a challenge on the legality of the war under British law.
I know it was not united nations approved war...in fact bush is lucky that he was USA's president , if any other would have ordered that it would have been suicidal..i hope usa remains powerful enough or else bush would face international trial in next 20 years...
Although the Chilcott Enquiry into the Iraq war is ongoing, there's no chance of prosecution for any of the protagonists of the war. They can claim that they justly believed that Iraq was a threat to its neighbours and its own people.
I'm not 100% on one side or the other with regards to Iraq. I mean, Hussein was an awful dictator who had systematically used ethnic cleansing against his own people. And the UN would have done nothing to help, bar impliment sanctions.
The WMD argument was bollocks, but it probably means that there'll not be any prosecution, whether Blair etc are found to have contravened British law or not.
It's not a cut and dry issue. Iraq was clearly in violation of UN resolutions and the UN had authorized the use of force under those circumstances. There is question over whether members can decide to use force or if the council must authorize it and member states have the right to defend themselves.
I'm not saying it wasn't a stragic mistake but then we didn't have the info he had at the time. Regardless my point is he made a decision and he carried it out the right way, he got bipartisan consensus from congress and backing of the UN. The hindsight of history will have to judge whether or not is was the right thing to do. It's still too early to tell.
Actually, yes, that sounds like a leader to me! Like it or not, it's what leaders do, surrounding themselves with yes men is not what leaders do.
I can't speak for what is in American interests, but I think it is in Canada's interest.. and in the interest of humanity, that whenever possible and realistic, we help people who are willing to lay down their lives for freedom over their sadistic dictators.
We don't even know who or what these people are! The may be al queada for all we know! One thing is for sure they lack leadership organization fire power and strategy. Kadaffy's troops are riding around in trucks and killing them en mass. If someone is going to save them it will require boots on the ground. Whoever wants to do that be my guest but it shouldn't be Americans. Hey may've the stoners in Canada can put down their spliffs and pick up some guns grow some balls and save them?
Due to the incredibly active posting of political anti-Obama threads it is clear you are being paid, come on - tell me where I can go to earn such easy money, who is paying you. I note that as one hoohah merchant quits another pops up immediately, so come on let me in on it, I don't mind waiting until your term is up and they move you to another site.
They are human beings who don't want to be ruled by a tyrant.
What they lack is the military resources to topple a regime which has blown passenger jets out of the sky in the past. THEY are the boots on the ground... but their could use some weapons.
'Stonners' from Canada are currently flying bombing missions over Libya with our American allies designed to destroy the weapons of the dictator .. that is, excluding the few hundred that have died or been injured in Afghanistan. having gone there after 10,000 Americans were killed on 911.
Agreed, Greek - Normally, I treat LL's posts as comedy rantings, but that one went too far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_F … istan#2010
They deserve better than snide comments questioning their courage.
The coalition led by France and the UK (not America) have currently decided to establish a no-fly zone over Libya so that Gaddafi's air forces cannot attack Libyan rebels from the air. The hope is that this will empower the Libyan rebels to fight more effectively against Gaddafi's troops. They are the "boots on the ground".
Well done, since it highlights your own instead.
Another point missed by the left *sigh* I guess I have to spell it out for you... Obama's justification for going into Libya was to prevent innocent civilans from being slaughtered by a brutal dictator... yet its okay if Syria does it or Suadi Arabia or Iran ir Sudan? Thats the hypocrisy. I am NOT advocating intervention in any of those places.
Do you realize how hypocritical this thread is, coming form you, LaLo? I mean, after the series of threads you started that condemn Obama for getting involved in Libya, like this one, this one, this one, and most recently, this one in which you explicitly state that "we should not be involved" in Libya, now you are calling for the President to get us involved in Syria?
You don't seem to give a darn about anything other than spinning any event--no matter what it is--to pretend Obama is evil.
I bet if Obama discovered a cure for cancer, you'd condemn him for putting oncologists out of a job.
Lalo, This is in reply to you OP, where you ask: "How can Obama stand by while this tyrant kills his own people showing no mercy".
In the thread titled "Kucinich calls for Obama impeachment",
This was one of your comments:
Afghanistan was for oil??? Lol! I guess you missed 9/11!
Since when is it the responsibility of the US to save people in other countries from death persecution or injustice? Where is that in the constitution? We have no business being there but if the rest of the world wants us to take out Kadaffy then we should be compensated for it! Maybe well do it for their oil? Why not? Why should we use ours and pollute our environment when we can do it elsewhere! Maybe we should just kill them all and take their oil? Why not? That would serve our interest right? After all we do have the power so who could stop us? Yes I think that's a good idea! Let's mobilize evil destructive exploitive America and just take what we want! We shouldn't have to pay a lot for gas or be uncomfortable.
LaLo, Just what is your position?
Damned if we do or damned if we don't in your eyes. Make up your mind.
"LaLo, Just what is your position?"
Obama bad! Obama evil! Obama Communist like Hitler!
I think that sums it up.
LaLo, Why have you disappeared? Why don't you respond to my post above?
You are twofaced! You were caught again talking out of the other side of your mouth!
What a farce you are! Get a life!
You talk about how Obama cannot get anything straight, when you cannot remember from one minute to the next what BS you have put out!
The reality of each situation is different.. has different circumstances, and different things that the international community can realistically do based on the reality on the ground..
Egypt was different than Libya, which is different than Syria.. which is different than the situation in Iran, which was different from the protests in China years ago.
The common thread is that people want their rights... how the world can best help them in their struggle against their dictators is unique to each place... based on the many factors including: how widespread the uprisings are, how much control the military ruling regime is able to maintain, how united the opposition is and the willingness of other nations in the region to get involved.
Not to mention the degree to which domestic forces want to bring partisan rhetoric into the debate to score their own political points
So are you saying that
a) American should not be involved in Libya but should now help the Syrians?
b) Americans should be more involved in Libya but should not help the Syrians?
c) America should not help anyone because helping other countries is not explicitly stated in the Constitution?
d) If America drilled its own oil we would never have to worry about any other country, because the only reason we care about anyone anywhere is their oil?
e) Canadians are not doing their part in helping American in any/all of these military actions because they are a cowardly country of potheads?
f) Obama sucks?
Have I missed any of the accusations or permutations of accusations?
She doesn't know what she's say, as per usual. She just knows that she hates Obama/ anyone to the left of Mussolini.
No, you seem to have summed it up rather well.
All citizens of a country are committed to consider their government as their own and should defend it. If they Protest or create trouble, they are bound to be controlled by whatever means available by the government.
The Syrian government is not killing those who are sleeping in their homes. Those who come out and stage protest demonstrations are bound to get the blows. So, first ask the protesters to return home and let them submit their complaints to the government in a peaceful way. Let them not expect Americans will come and overthrow their government.. It is dangerous.
@lady why ask others than the man in center...On September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, "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."
so UN didnt back it...over zeal of bush for waging war made usa pay heavy price which it is still paying and worst price would be paid by iraq ...region got reduced to two political powers...saudi and iran...usa's interest got hindered...no president would have done more loss to usa than that..it would take 10 obamas to match king bush -II
Again that was Kofi Anan's "view" but his view doesn't make it so nor does it make it fact. As in all things there is a up side and a down side. I think its safe to say the Uraqis are better off without Saddam, but will our action be a net positive for the USA? Time will tell.
I think its safe to say the Uraqis are better off without Saddam... well if being at risk of life is called better off then yes...saddam was brutal , killed many of his own citizens but he could maintain law and order which once usa goes would be difficult for present regime to maintain...secondly iraq has risk of getting split of ethinic ground...
coming to Kofi Anan what do you mean by his view...we all saw what bush did when his views considered iraq to be threat..he ended up killing 0.1 million people....Kofi anan knows more than you , me and bush about united nation charters , he was Secretary-General of the United Nations and when he says it was illegal ,matter ends....just because bush sat on office doesnot make it legal ...
by Don W4 years ago
Over the last few days you've seen lots of pictures of Muslims protesting about a film, burning and smashing things, and gruesome pictures of the U.S. ambassador's body in Libya. But I guarantee you won't see many...
by Susan Reid4 years ago
This is from FORBES. I am posting the whole article for your consideration:In tonight’s debate we saw a transformed Barack Obama, and it made a very big difference. In the first debate Governor Mitt Romney was...
by vector74 years ago
You now have your own personal dictator named none other than:Barack Hussein Obama (aka - Adolf Hitler Jr.)Presidential DictatorshipAnd here is his lovely new bright and shiny toy to play with people's lives without...
by Reality Bytes3 years ago
A report Monday night on the nature of the administration's drone program has the potential to dramatically revamp the debate over President Barack Obama's foreign policy and the confirmation process for his incoming...
by Susan Reid4 years ago
Let's get some opinions out here.Since there likely are no verifiable facts on either one yet.
by uncorrectedvision5 years ago
Barry said the war in Iraq is over.http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id … _article=1Barry said NATO can handle Libya.http://ca.news.yahoo.com/libya-disabled … 36691.htmlBarry said Afghanistan was the...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.