"President Obama is taking us to war in another Muslim country. Good for him."

Link

Rubbish. Our “invasions” have in fact been liberations. We have shed blood and expended treasure in Kuwait in 1991, in the Balkans later in the 1990s, and in Afghanistan and Iraq—in our own national interest, of course, but also to protect Muslim peoples and help them free themselves. Libya will be America’s fifth war of Muslim liberation.
--
And it’s a debate that may remind Republicans and conservatives that the Reagan tradition—indeed, the Reagan-Bush-Dole-Bush-McCain tradition—in foreign policy isn’t a burden to be borne. It’s a tradition to be proud of. It’s rare that a political party gets to stand for more than a partial interest, for more than a limited point of view. It’s rare that a political party gets to stand for the national interest, for national greatness, for the exceptional American role in the liberation of peoples around the globe.

You've Come a Long Way, Baby

As I found the rest of the speech. The president was unapologetic, freedom-agenda-embracing, and didn’t shrink from defending the use of force or from appealing to American values and interests. Furthermore, the president seems to understand we have to win in Libya. I think we will.

William Kristol, the Neocon darling has now turned to praising Obama and calling the wars in the Muslim world a great thing. What is wrong with these people? Pres. Obama is one of them and he has proven that yet even after he shows his true colors the Liberals who had followed him, you know the ones that opposed Iraq war, are now joining with him and endorsing this war. Why? Because it is ‘humanitarian’, well it is not and they are hypocrites, they support this war because their President supports it.

Where do we have the right to consult the UN Security Council on our foreign policy decisions relating to war yet ignore the Congress, the legitimate government of the United States of America? What he did was unconstitutional and was a clear violation of the War Powers Act, they can try and justify his actions by saying “well he has 60 days”, no he has 60 days without consulting Congress only if the threat is direct and immediate to the safety and security of the United States or its citizens.

I would imagine that the Neocons would come flocking to Obama’s side and those that have not well they are attacking him for being too weak and timid on Libya, they wanted the war earlier and to use more force, ground troops and another decade bogged down in a Muslim nation is what they dream about. Now we have the Neocons and Israel calling for the invasion of Syria and Iran to protect the ‘protesters’ using the same rationale that Obama had used in Libya, it is a ‘humanitarian purpose’.

These people are absolutely relentless. Their desire for blood and conquest at the cost of American treasure, liberty, and life knows no bounds. Now their motto is clear “Give War a Chance”, why don’t you run on that platform in 2012? Use that as your slogan for the campaign. I would just love to see how everyone responds to the blatant truth of their ideals when they are laid out in front of them.

And where do they get off calling the Republican Party the “party of freedom” for violating the Constitution, breaking the War Powers Act, enacting the USA Patriot Act, invading sovereign nations which have no direct threat to our liberty or sovereignty, and yet they pride themselves upon all of these ideals. Do they not know what the word freedom means? Here let me help:

“a state in which somebody is able to act and live as he or she chooses, without being subject to any undue restraints or restrictions.”

Or you can use this definition in regards to freedom of a nation:

“a country's right to rule itself, without interference from, or domination by, another country or power.”

Seems to me what they are describing is the antithesis of freedom, try totalitarianism or authoritarianism with a touch of imperialism, that would suit the definition of their views better.

One more point, sorry William Kristol that you have to forget that the Republican Party existed for 134 years before your kind took it over and made it what it is today. You conveniently forget about your party’s previous leaders like Dwight D. Eisenhower and how he warned about the “military industrial complex”, Robert A. Taft when he argued against the United Nations, your party under Wilson when they voted against the League of Nations, how your party pursued a policy against war unless a foreign power was directly threatening our nation [not our nation’s big business interests].

I just love how your idols are Harry Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Henry “Scoop” Jackson, all Democrats who you bow to the knee before then only talk about the Republican Party of the past 30 years. When you converted it from a party of balanced budgets, non-interventionism, and social moderation to one of massive military expenditures, debt raising, and Christian fundamentalism. The one that chased off the part of the country that founded the party to replace it with the pro-lynching and pro-segregationist war hawks from the South.

How about you get the hell out, go back to the party you started in and strop trying to revise history.

Great post. I can only say Amen and Amen. S&F

Not American, so all I can add is: Obama promised an exit strategy and a way out!
Why is the US still there?

This is really shaping up to be a nice crusade. Lol that's all the world needs, a united Muslim alliance. (Not that it's better when they're constantly fighting amongst themselves).

Definition of an "Obama Thought"....."lets see now, it only takes 2,000 deaths to make 1,000 men free, I've done a good days work" "The'll be singing songs about me in kinder-garden before long !!!" " My cousin Bush can't hold a candle to me..." I'm half white, so I'm half right...."

Obamas white side says....

" Black may be beautiful,
Red and brown may be gran,
But white is still, the BIG boss Man !!!"

reply to post by Misoir


Well said Misoir!
The actions of the US and her allies are an extreme example of modern day imperialism. There is absolutely no justification in going into Libya.

I am what today would be considered a conservative centrist. The ideals of the OLD republican party were appealing to me. The republican party of today is one of the most repugnant organizations that exists (right next to today's democratic party). The republican party of today seems to think it is alright to think what you want...as long as it agrees with what they want.
It's like what many people here on ATS say; there is no democrat or republican, they are all a bunch of snakes who will screw you the very first chance they get.

Obama says they want to bring freedom to the people of Libya. My suggestion for Obama is this: Give the American people their freedom back before you export your freedom elsewhere.

Originally posted by halfoldman
Not American, so all I can add is: Obama promised an exit strategy and a way out!
Why is the US still there?

Because he lies? Owebowma lies, is this really news to you?

You know the whole part in last night's speech from Obama about our allies sharing the burden...that the US shouldn't always bare all of it...blah blah blah.

The United States is spending $55 million PER DAY in Libya. And that's only counting missiles and equipment, not the salaries of all of the people involved in this.

Our allies, the entire coalition combined are spending less than $52 million per day.

It's beyond ridiculous.

The Pentagon says it has spent $550 million on U.S. military operations in Libya, mostly for bombs and missiles.

Details of expenditures on the Libya mission show the Defense Department spending more than 60 percent of the $550 million on bombs and missiles, and the rest on getting troops and funding the costs of combat.

Source: Libya War Costs

The cost to Britain of air action in Libya is running at around £3 million a day, defence experts said yesterday.

Source: Libya Costing Britain

My figures assume everybody else is at least spending as much as Britain (highly unlikely) since those numbers are not all available. Britain is second in line for spending in Libya falling below only the US.

Hmmmm.... $55 million per day versus $4.8 million per day....just perfect.

Regardless of how anybody wants to sugarcoat it, the questionable actions of the American Government directly reflect the questionable values and morals of the collective American public. Why else would they tolerate such unethical and disreputable leadership?

I thought it was strange for the US to show so much concern over Libya. I had really been thinking about this one, then I spoke to a couple friends in the Canadian military and they thought my theory was pretty good. The fact that France and Britain were already bombing Libya and had commando teams in Libya even before the US started anything, tells me that the US never had lead on this to start off with. France, Italy and Great Britain all have much larger business interests within Libya and the impact of a possible civil war would be much more damaging to those countries. The fact that most of the Libyan oil is exported to Italy and France is significant.

Just like in 1st Gulf War, Iraq, Afhganistan and somewhat Bosnia. Many countries came together to form a coalition to aid the United States when their interests were disrupted. In this case, the US is standing by their allies, aiding them in this no-fly zone, but they aren't the lead. It seems like it because of the US mainstream media, but watch the BBC, CBC & Al-Jazeera English, they report on all of the coalition forces. The cost is due to the insane amount of cruise missiles that were fired in the first 3 days. This is just my theory. Many of these countries helped Bush' in his warmongering, now a favour was asked of the most powerful military in the world in return.

Remember, this is a no-fly zone and not an invasion involving many countries. Big difference. Much more money is used to fight the "drug wars" in Mexico, Central and South America. When it comes to the bloated military budget, $440-million is a drop in the bucket.

I wonder how Obama will be perceived by Muhammad, when he faces his possibility of 40 virgin boys, when ALLAH realizes that Obama invaded a Muslim nation, and fought amongst his own brothers in Islam?

That can't look good!?

Personnally I dont think Obama is calling the shot's. Anytime iv seen/heard him talking about it, it comes across as a pre-scripted routine, He didnt have much to say when it was all being discussed at the UN & even now he only has the same one or two liners which tells me 2 things, he is not overly knowledgeable & isnt happy about the situation and without doubt he is not really making the decision's.

He aint who he pretends to be, thats all im saying

Originally posted by DarthPhobos
Personnally I dont think Obama is calling the shot's. Anytime iv seen/heard him talking about it, it comes across as a pre-scripted routine, He didnt have much to say when it was all being discussed at the UN & even now he only has the same one or two liners which tells me 2 things, he is not overly knowledgeable & isnt happy about the situation and without doubt he is not really making the decision's.

He aint who he pretends to be, thats all im saying

edit on 29-3-2011 by DarthPhobos because: (no reason given)

Thats how I feel about it as well...he is just a mouthpiece on this one. I really don't think the US is calling the shots. They are just backing up the other coalition members. I also think that is why Russia, Germany and China abstained from the vote, because it is France, Italy and Great Britain.

reply to post by Tiste


I think you may have misunderstood, The UK, France & who ever else are also not the masters of these war games, they too are being pushed to the front as prime puppets. If I had to spell it out, id say, its blatantly obvious that these new war mongers we are seeing being placed in our faces are merely puppets of the real men behind the scenes, the elite of the elite, the illuminated one's, you know TPTB, i do appoligise if i misguided you on my first post, but remember, the UK & France are just the fall guys in place to take the heat that will inevitably come their way.

reply to post by DarthPhobos


I think its the usual suspects. Oil and big business. Here is a good article from Forbes I just read:

blogs.forbes.com...

there is a big difference between bush and obama

at least bush was fighting muslim extremists now obama is aiding them in libya.

the hypocritical left no matter much lipstick they put on a pig its still a pig.

the biggest thing that p o's me for a decade war was wrong now its not wrong its this country moral duty to do,

i am so sick of this country sometimes i really do with for a shtf scenarion or a zomebie apocalypse it means no more bs politics,

When the right started complaining about the no fly zone, I was very confused, their policy has been and continues to be Death to any Islamic country (save for their Saudi Arabian pals), but I guess their blind hatred for the black man in the White House overpowered their hatred for Muslims. And now they are short circuiting wondering which side to hate more.

Originally posted by Tiste

Originally posted by DarthPhobos
Personnally I dont think Obama is calling the shot's.

Thats how I feel about it as well...he is just a mouthpiece on this one.

He happens to be a mouthpiece in charge of our military. Did you count how many times he said he was "Commander in Chief" during his speech? I counted at least 3 - 4. Which is a lot for a 33 minute speech.

Point being: HE was the one that ordered our military. HE was the one that went to the UN instead of Congress. HE was the one that ordered this no-fly zone. HE is the one ordering that bombs be dropped.

He may not be the "leader of TPTB", but he most certainly is the one controlling our military and people would be wise not to overlook the power of that alone.

Originally posted by Misoir

William Kristol, the Neocon darling has now turned to praising Obama and calling the wars in the Muslim world a great thing. What is wrong with these people? Pres. Obama is one of them

You seem to be conveniently confused about the difference between a humanitarian and a neo-con agenda?
...maybe this will help.

Iraq...

8 years...Nearly 1 Trillion dollars

Total American Deaths: 4,441

Since "Mission Accomplished: 4,302

Total Wounded: 32,992



Libya...3 weeks...

American Casualties: ZERO

Well if you consider what we have been "liberating" as the resources of these nations into the hands of a elite few, sure, these wars have been liberations.


Good thread. The problem is people are too stupid and lazy for democracy. It has been a grand experiment, but at some point we need to acknowledge it has been an abject failure.

Plato was right. I had a professor who argued he was pulling a fast one on us when he wrote that part, but my own observations are that Plato was, once again, deadly accurate. The problem is we dont like the truth, and so we reject it.