Poll shows Republicans still misinformed

[Trojan_Ripper]

Yes, there is a difference. Firstly, the basis for engaging in war in Libya was not built on several false premises. And let us be clear, the basis for the invasion of Iraq (that Iraq posed a threat to American allies and her interests, through serious collaborative connections with AL Quaeda and through possession of both a variety of WMD's and programmes to construct a variety WMDs) had been shown to have been based on erronious assumptions. Secondly, the intervention in Libya was mandated by the UN, and the US was fulfilling its treaty agreements and providing military resources in a join UN effort that the US did not actually play point in or instigate.



It depends entirely on how one defines both 'war' and 'hostilities'. Furthermore, the US hasn't declared war since WW2 and the Supreme Court refused to even hear the case - so the issue is a moot point. Obama, and his fellow world leaders, did it and the world is a better place for it and a large number of people in Libya who almost certainly would have been murdered are still alive. Where as in thecase of Iraq well over 100,000 Iraqis are dead, along with 3,000+ US troops and the world is a far less safe place.

So all in all, I don't think the comparison is sustainable. Had the intelligence regarding Iraq been accurate, and Saddam did have an arsenal of WMD's and the connections to Al Queda to pose an imminent threat to the security of the US, her allies, or the Iraqi people then it would be a different matter.

Well lets say I define "war and 'hostilities" as the same as you do. Why would "false pemesis" matter? You have already stated that being given false information should play no part. I don't understand your "erronious assumptions" so they are moot also then.

Mandated and by-pasing congress is a general ploy being used by our incunt-bent president. Nothing new and the UN means what?

While Iraq and the world is a better place with Saddam pushing worms because he was taken into custody by U.S. troops and hung by his own citizens in a fucking court who wanted him to die for the misery he put them through....what do we have to show recently?

Who knows who shot or even if Khadafi was killed in the field....Ohh while we're discussing it, the same goes for Bin Laden. Where are the bodies for the fun of it?

So all in all, I don't think the comparison is sustainable

and I agree.

[Trojan_Ripper]

6. Obama did not lead intervention in Libya. He simply responded to the call of the UN and allies.

Actually the intervention was approved unanimously by the U.S. senate.

Senate Passes Resolution Calling for No-Fly Zone Over Libya - Dan Friedman - NationalJournal.com

Alrighty then....I guess Obama's admin such as Hillary wasn't speaking for Obama...Okie dokie I understand he was probably out taking lobbyist money at the time and had nothing to do with the what was put before the Senate to fucking vote on... LOL

[Yarn]

The Senate unanimously approved a nonbinding resolution on Tuesday calling for the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya and urged Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi to resign and allow a peaceful transition to democracy.

This can't be interpreted as giving Obama legal cover because it was "nonbinding". What it might do is expose senators who changed their minds once they realized they could exploit this issue to attack the president.

Whatever the legality of what Obama did, the fact he so easily got away with it suggests that the opposition lacked a strong case or didn't want to formally make one (perhaps because the right, being hawkish, does not, in principle, want to reduce the warmaking powers of the executive).

[truthreality]

Alrighty then....I guess Obama's admin such as Hillary wasn't speaking for Obama...Okie dokie I understand he was probably out taking lobbyist money at the time and had nothing to do with the what was put before the Senate to fucking vote on... LOL

What do you mean that Hilary spoke for Obama? What do you mean Obama took lobbyist money and influenced the Senate's vote?

[Chris the Chees]

Why would "false pemesis" matter?

Because the premise is the justification for the conclusion/action. In this instance that was, to put it at its most charitable, 'misguided'.

You have already stated that being given false information should play no part.

No, I guessed that I do not believe Bush and Blair to have lied and that a significant portion of fault for the Iraq fiasco was with the intelligence services. But I also said that Bush and Blair overplayed and misrepresented the value of the information they had at their disposal. While they may have believed it, they should never have taken us to war based on it.

I don't understand your "erronious assumptions" so they are moot also then.

What? You're saying that the validation for taking us to war is a moot point in analyzing the justification for that war? It strikes me that they are, in fact, of paramount importance.

Mandated and by-pasing congress

The Office of Legal Counsel advised the President that 'the limited military operations the President anticipated directing were not a ‘war’ for constitutional purposes', and therefore the President, as Commander and Chief, had no need to bring the issue before Congress.

So I think you have just uncovered the real moot point here.

used by our incunt-bent president

I think you have just invalidated any opinion you have on this matter. Clearly you are not capable of addressing Obama's policies with any modicum of rationalism and instead are blinded by childish hatred of the man.

and the UN means what?

The UN mandated the mission, and the US contributed to that mission as a member of the various treaties that led to the formation of the UN. And the US constitution explicitly states that Treaties are the law of the Land. Seems to be pretty meaningful to me.

While Iraq and the world is a better place with Saddam pushing worms because he was taken into custody by U.S. troops and hung by his own citizens in a fucking court who wanted him to die for the misery he put them through

None of which makes up for the massive bloodshed and regional destablisation resulting from the war. Saddam had showed no sign of posing a serious threat (at least not of the same magnitude as the invasion cost) to his people, the region or the world.

what do we have to show recently?

Given that the answer is nothing, I'm guessing that is rhetorical.

Who knows who shot or even if Khadafi was killed in the field....Ohh while we're discussing it, the same goes for Bin Laden. Where are the bodies for the fun of it?

Who cares? The issue in regards Libya was not US led regime change, it was the enforcement of an internationally agreed humanitarian policy to prevent a mass slaughter and the institution of a no fly zone. President Obama merely contributed to a mission mandated by an organisation whose mandates the US is treaty bound to oblige. If you don't like that, I suggest you petition your leaders to withdraw the US from the UN.

[Senor Hoint]

hung by his own citizens in a fucking court

A kangaroo court, from what I've heard. Not that he didn't deserve hanging.

[Zeebadee]

While Iraq and the world is a better place with Saddam pushing worms because he was taken into custody by U.S. troops and hung by his own citizens in a fucking court who wanted him to die for the misery he put them through....what do we have to show recently?

You have no clue as to what "his own citizens" wanted. You only know what the U.S. installed government in iraq wanted, nothing more.

[Trojan_Ripper]

You have no clue as to what "his own citizens" wanted. You only know what the U.S. installed government in iraq wanted, nothing more.

Well the clue I got was reading and understanding what the majority of his citizens stated….so…

Are you implying the U.S. was involved in the court proceeding that found Saddam guilty and sentenced him to death for “Crimes against Humanity”? Proof please.

Are you saying this verdict was not handed down by it’s own “Citizens”? Proof please

Are you suggesting that the Iraq elections (allowing it’s citizens to actually vote) was rigged by the U.S. Proof please

What are you saying?

Are you saying you would feel better about all of it…. if the U.S. led war against Sadaam and funded by the Democrats had excuted him in his rabbit hole and dumped him at sea (been done before) instead of turning him over to his own “Citizens” to deciede his fate? Is that it?

[Yarn]

Libya was a cheap, easy, and short intervention that appears to have ended well. Iraq was expensive, long, difficult, killed more than a 100,000 people, and the violence the invasion unleashed is largely extant.

Libya was legally questionable under US law, Iraq was legally questionable under international law.

Both wars resulted in a jack ass dictator being killed by his own people. Saddam was executed after a proper trial, Gaddafi was just shot.

[Zeebadee]

Are you implying the U.S. was involved in the court proceeding that found Saddam guilty and sentenced him to death for “Crimes against Humanity”? Proof please.

Yes. "Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsay Clark has bluntly called the trial "lawless." It is now on its third chief judge, the first one having resigned two weeks ago because of official criticism that he was being too meticulous about observing Hussein's rights, and the second having effectively been fired after a few days when it came out that he was an ex-Baathist. The new chief judge certainly does not suffer from that problem. In fact, Abdel-Rahman is a Kurd from the town of Halabja, the very place where Hussein is accused of having killed thousands of people in a poison-gas attack in 1988. It's a bit like having a concentration-camp survivor as chief judge at Nuremberg -- poetic justice, perhaps, but liable to generate considerable doubts about the fairness and impartiality of the court. However, Hussein is not being tried for the atrocity at Halabja, nor indeed for any other crime that the world had heard about before this trial started: the aggression against Iran, for example, or the slaughter of the Shias who responded to President George H.W. Bush summons to revolt at the end of the first Gulf War in 1991. Those topics are off-limits because one way or another they implicate the United States in his crimes. Instead, he is being tried for the torture and execution of some 146 people whom he suspected of being involved in an assassination attempt against him in the village of Dujail in 1982. It would have been possible to try Hussein and his companions before an international court. But an international court would have had to try Hussein on charges of waging aggressive war (against Iran and Kuwait) and pursuing a policy of genocide (against the Kurds), which would have brought up all sorts of awkward history from the days when the United States and Hussein were effectively allies. "
Saddam Hussein's trial nothing but a sham - South Bend Tribune

It's incredibly naive to believe that a foreign occupying power wouldn't use pressure to influence saddam's trial.

Are you saying this verdict was not handed down by it’s own “Citizens”? Proof please

I'm saying the trial was a sham kangaroo court.
"Saddam's defense repeatedly argued for a delay in the proceedings, insisting that it had not been given evidence secured by the prosecution, had not been given sufficient time to review any prosecution documents, but these submissions received no response from the court. International human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and UN bodies such as the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the High Commissioner for Human Rights stated that the Iraqi Special Tribunal and its legal process did not meet international standards for a fair trial. The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Anan declined to support the proceeding, expressing similar concerns over fairness as well as over the possibility of a death sentence in the case."
Trial of Saddam Hussein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you suggesting that the Iraq elections (allowing it’s citizens to actually vote) was rigged by the U.S. Proof please

It's certainly possible.

"Report of covert aid to Iraqi candidates / New Yorker article says U.S. followed secret plan, despite Congress' objections"
Report of covert aid to Iraqi candidates / New Yorker article says U.S. followed secret plan, despite Congress' objections - SFGate

Well the clue I got was reading and understanding what the majority of his citizens stated….so…

You claim to know what the majority of Iraq's citizens wanted?? Proof please.

[Trojan_Ripper]

Yes. "Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsay Clark has bluntly called the trial "lawless." It is now on its third chief judge, the first one having resigned two weeks ago because of official criticism that he was being too meticulous about observing Hussein's rights, and the second having effectively been fired after a few days when it came out that he was an ex-Baathist. The new chief judge certainly does not suffer from that problem. In fact, Abdel-Rahman is a Kurd from the town of Halabja, the very place where Hussein is accused of having killed thousands of people in a poison-gas attack in 1988. It's a bit like having a concentration-camp survivor as chief judge at Nuremberg -- poetic justice, perhaps, but liable to generate considerable doubts about the fairness and impartiality of the court. However, Hussein is not being tried for the atrocity at Halabja, nor indeed for any other crime that the world had heard about before this trial started: the aggression against Iran, for example, or the slaughter of the Shias who responded to President George H.W. Bush summons to revolt at the end of the first Gulf War in 1991. Those topics are off-limits because one way or another they implicate the United States in his crimes. Instead, he is being tried for the torture and execution of some 146 people whom he suspected of being involved in an assassination attempt against him in the village of Dujail in 1982. It would have been possible to try Hussein and his companions before an international court. But an international court would have had to try Hussein on charges of waging aggressive war (against Iran and Kuwait) and pursuing a policy of genocide (against the Kurds), which would have brought up all sorts of awkward history from the days when the United States and Hussein were effectively allies. "
Saddam Hussein's trial nothing but a sham - South Bend Tribune

It's incredibly naive to believe that a foreign occupying power wouldn't use pressure to influence saddam's trial..

No…. it is naïve to believe and imply without FACT that the U.S. had anything to do with the court proceedings. Clark can spew anything he likes about the trial being lawless….but since we were not involved in the trial ‘it is meaningless’. Now unless Clark wants to say the U.S. rigged the trial then he would just have to prove it. I’ll take that response as No you have no PROOF.

I'm saying the trial was a sham kangaroo court.
"Saddam's defense repeatedly argued for a delay in the proceedings, insisting that it had not been given evidence secured by the prosecution, had not been given sufficient time to review any prosecution documents, but these submissions received no response from the court. International human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and UN bodies such as the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the High Commissioner for Human Rights stated that the Iraqi Special Tribunal and its legal process did not meet international standards for a fair trial. The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Anan declined to support the proceeding, expressing similar concerns over fairness as well as over the possibility of a death sentence in the case.".

And I’m saying it wasn’t a sham. I’m also saying I could care less….the real sham(e) is we don’t have him in Obamas Gitmo waterboarding his ass every day. Again No PROOF.

It's certainly possible. .

"Report of covert aid to Iraqi candidates / New Yorker article says U.S. followed secret plan, despite Congress' objections"
Report of covert aid to Iraqi candidates / New Yorker article says U.S. followed secret plan, despite Congress' objections - SFGate

It’s certainly “possible” is your PROOF? Nope.

You claim to know what the majority of Iraq's citizens wanted?? Proof please.

Thousands of Shiite Muslims marched through Baghdad on Tuesday, clamoring for Saddam Hussein's execution in the latest show of strength by a community repressed for decades by the former dictator.

Iraq's Shiites, who are believed to comprise 60 percent of the population….

Iraq's Shiites Want Saddam Dead - CBS News

Plenty more where that came from.

[Zeebadee]

No…. it is naïve to believe and imply without FACT that the U.S. had anything to do with the court proceedings. Clark can spew anything he likes about the trial being lawless….but since we were not involved in the trial ‘it is meaningless’. Now unless Clark wants to say the U.S. rigged the trial then he would just have to prove it. I’ll take that response as No you have no PROOF.

The evidence is that the only thing saddam was tried for was the incident that wouldn't put some light on U.S. involvement with him. And why would one need to provide proof?? You don't seem to mind that bush started his war without any.

Thousands of Shiite Muslims marched through Baghdad on Tuesday, clamoring for Saddam Hussein's execution in the latest show of strength by a community repressed for decades by the former dictator.

Iraq's Shiites, who are believed to comprise 60 percent of the population….

Iraq's Shiites Want Saddam Dead - CBS News

Plenty more where that came from.

Too bad none of it is proof.