Military option in Libya?

[Seamonkey]

What a difference an election makes.

Prior to the second invasion of Iraq, you have liberals/democrats voting for a resolution to use force to make Saddam comply with the UN Security Council resolutions.

Once we actually did it, the left cries foul. "We didn't know we were voting to use force", "Bush lied to us", "We were duped into this", "I was for it before I was against it", ad nauseum. The liberal/democrat cowards just couldn't make up their minds. Hillary Clinton promised to end the war as soon as she was elected president because it was a mistake even though she voted for it.

But now we have civil unrest all across the Middle East and N Africa. But liberals are clamoring for regime change in Libya and Egypt. Regime change, apparently, is good for Libya and Egypt because the leaders of these countries are evil dictators. Especially Qaddafi.

Now, Qaddafi is certainly no swell guy. But why is it so important now to get him out? Why were we wrong to oust Saddam but we're right to try to oust Qaddafi (and to a lesser degree, Mubarak in Egypt)?

I lauged at Ridge's post, "No Blood For Oil". But, all joking aside, it's really not laughable. It's pathetic. That's been the liberal mantra forever in the Middle East and other oil-producing countries. Liberals have been at war with oil companies providing the US cheap oil for as long as I can remember. Any time even the prospect of military action in an oil-producing country has been mentioned, the liberals start the chant: "NO WAR FOR OIL".

Oh...but not now. Suddenly, they've grown spines and are falling all over themselves to oust Qaddafi...even through military action if need be.

Hillary Clinton:For Christ's sake...we're now following the lead of France. Fuckin' France! They've been all over the military option in Libya from the git-go.

How long before Hillary starts backpedaling on her stance of outing Qaddafi? How long before she admits military action was a mistake? How long before she admits it was a mistake to advocate military action?

The hypocrisy of the left never ceases to amaze me. And then there's Barry O. The hand-wringing, fence-straddling president who can't seem to make up his mind to save his life sometimes. For cryin' out loud, dude, grow a pair and make a decision. One way or the other, just make a fuckin' decision.

If we didn't have any business going to war in Iraq (and Afghanistan, for that matter), we have no business interfering in Libya. Or anywhere else over there. We have enough problems here that we need to solve. We sure as hell can't afford it. Stay the fuck out and protect ourselves first, for a change.

you forgot gitmo

[Byte Stryke]

What a difference an election makes.

Prior to the second invasion of Iraq, you have liberals/democrats voting for a resolution to use force to make Saddam comply with the UN Security Council resolutions.

Once we actually did it, the left cries foul. "We didn't know we were voting to use force", "Bush lied to us", "We were duped into this", "I was for it before I was against it", ad nauseum. The liberal/democrat cowards just couldn't make up their minds. Hillary Clinton promised to end the war as soon as she was elected president because it was a mistake even though she voted for it.

But now we have civil unrest all across the Middle East and N Africa. But liberals are clamoring for regime change in Libya and Egypt. Regime change, apparently, is good for Libya and Egypt because the leaders of these countries are evil dictators. Especially Qaddafi.

Now, Qaddafi is certainly no swell guy. But why is it so important now to get him out? Why were we wrong to oust Saddam but we're right to try to oust Qaddafi (and to a lesser degree, Mubarak in Egypt)?

I lauged at Ridge's post, "No Blood For Oil". But, all joking aside, it's really not laughable. It's pathetic. That's been the liberal mantra forever in the Middle East and other oil-producing countries. Liberals have been at war with oil companies providing the US cheap oil for as long as I can remember. Any time even the prospect of military action in an oil-producing country has been mentioned, the liberals start the chant: "NO WAR FOR OIL".

Oh...but not now. Suddenly, they've grown spines and are falling all over themselves to oust Qaddafi...even through military action if need be.

Hillary Clinton:For Christ's sake...we're now following the lead of France. Fuckin' France! They've been all over the military option in Libya from the git-go.

How long before Hillary starts backpedaling on her stance of outing Qaddafi? How long before she admits military action was a mistake? How long before she admits it was a mistake to advocate military action?

The hypocrisy of the left never ceases to amaze me. And then there's Barry O. The hand-wringing, fence-straddling president who can't seem to make up his mind to save his life sometimes. For cryin' out loud, dude, grow a pair and make a decision. One way or the other, just make a fuckin' decision.

If we didn't have any business going to war in Iraq (and Afghanistan, for that matter), we have no business interfering in Libya. Or anywhere else over there. We have enough problems here that we need to solve. We sure as hell can't afford it. Stay the fuck out and protect ourselves first, for a change.

Amen

and as far as France being all Up-ins... it was easy for them to criticize us for going into Iraq. They had no interests there.
As I understand it the price of fuel per litre had nearly tripled in the EU since the Libyan revolution.

Pretty funny all of the hypocrisy going on...

[earplug]

Under the constitution only congress can declare war.
Congress is our representative arm in government.
Having the US President and the United Nations decide how to use out military is bullshit.
Why bother funding congress if they don't represent the citizens and they don't take part in the most important decisions of declaring war on other nations.
I won't argue the right or wrong of the no fly zone.
The fact is we no longer live in a nation of laws under the constitution.