Is Obama a terrorist?

[Coito ergo sum]

Check the other thread, dood.

I did. I thought you'd post something good. A few allegations of a small number of "protesters?" I mean - Saddam's total of civilian executions alone was over 600,000 according to human rights organizations, and he killed 100,000 kurds at a pop! You think a couple hundred justify military action and have the gall to oppose the Iraq War? LOL.

Again CES, you're starting with the assumption that the Iraq invasion and occupation had something to do with humanitarianism. It didn't...at all. That's simply propaganda geared towards getting some public support, old school shit man, you should be able to see through that.

Whether the Bush administration "really" wanted to go in there for humanitarian reasons is open to debate. The Iraq invasion was at least in part ASSERTED to be because of the atrocities in the past and then going on in Iraq. You can discount them, of course, but there is no more reason, however, to suspect that humanitarian reasons are the "real" reason for the action in Libya, though, is there? Isn't it clear that folks are o.k. with Libya because the folks behind it lean to the left of center?

I mean - the "crisis" that we've been shown here on this thread is a few instances where some 10s of civilians (allegedly) were killed during a civil war. I mean - for that to - with a straight face - be asserted as a humanitarian crisis demanding immediate response by the west strains so much credulity I'm getting hemorroids just thinking about it....

Just imagine if Bush had said - look - last week a couple of hundred people were killed by brutal oppression by the Hussein regime - we know this is going to continue....we have to get in there and stop it. Would anyone supporting the Libya intervention accept that? Of course not.

[sandinista]

Whether the Bush administration "really" wanted to go in there for humanitarian reasons is open to debate.

I suppose, the existence of "god" is also open to debate as is most things. I'm saying that, the US did not invade and occupy Iraq for humanitarian reasons, full stop.

The Iraq invasion was at least in part ASSERTED to be because of the atrocities in the past and then going on in Iraq.

Only "in part" as in, in part of a propaganda narrative.

You can discount them

I don't discount that atrocities occurred in Iraq, I do, however, discount that they had anything whatsoever to do with the invasion.

of course, but there is no more reason, however, to suspect that humanitarian reasons are the "real" reason for the action in Libya,

No, I don't think that the bombing of Libya has anything to do with humanitarian reasons either.

Isn't it clear that folks are o.k. with Libya because the folks behind it lean to the left of center?

I don't think folks are "ok" with it. "left of center"? Meaning?

Just imagine if Bush had said - look - last week a couple of hundred people were killed by brutal oppression by the Hussein regime - we know this is going to continue....we have to get in there and stop it. Would anyone supporting the Libya intervention accept that? Of course not.

I wouldn't accept that from Bush or Obama, it's bullshit.

[Coito ergo sum]

Whether the Bush administration "really" wanted to go in there for humanitarian reasons is open to debate.

I suppose, the existence of "god" is also open to debate as is most things. I'm saying that, the US did not invade and occupy Iraq for humanitarian reasons, full stop.

I'm saying there is no greater reason to think that the military action in Libya was for humanitarian reason.

The Iraq invasion was at least in part ASSERTED to be because of the atrocities in the past and then going on in Iraq.

Only "in part" as in, in part of a propaganda narrative.

I understand your position. The fact remains that just as the powers that be are asserting a humanitarian reason to intervene in Libya, humanitarian reasons were asserted with respect to Iraq. The assertion is made in both instances. The difference between the two, however, is that in Libya about 200 civilians died during a civil war (well, allegedly they were civilians and allegedly they were killed by pro-Qadaffi troops - it's quite possible that anti-Qadafi troops killed some of those civilians, as there are many pro-Qadafi civilians too). In Iraq, however, hundreds of thousands of civilians - hundreds of times more, were killed by Hussein's regime.

You can discount them

I don't discount that atrocities occurred in Iraq, I do, however, discount that they had anything whatsoever to do with the invasion.

I'm not arguing that point here. I'm suggesting that the assertion that Libya is a "good war" because of the humanitarian "crisis" of 200 people killed during a civil war is about the most ludicrous assertion one can make, and it's enough to make a cat laugh.

of course, but there is no more reason, however, to suspect that humanitarian reasons are the "real" reason for the action in Libya,

No, I don't think that the bombing of Libya has anything to do with humanitarian reasons either.

But, the Obama lambs and the so-called 'liberals" who opposed the Iraq war, do, in fact, think it has everything to do with humanitarian reasons, even though the crisis of civilian deaths was 100s of times greater in Iraq, but they deny that there was any humanitarian reason for war in Iraq.

They aren't consistent, because they judge the merit of the war by the identity of the leaders.

Isn't it clear that folks are o.k. with Libya because the folks behind it lean to the left of center?

I don't think folks are "ok" with it. "left of center"? Meaning?

The folks responding to me on this thread are defending it. They're not your sort of true "Leftist" left - I mean "left of the exact political center." The folks around here who are pro-Obama, and think of themselves as political liberals and light socialists.

Just imagine if Bush had said - look - last week a couple of hundred people were killed by brutal oppression by the Hussein regime - we know this is going to continue....we have to get in there and stop it. Would anyone supporting the Libya intervention accept that? Of course not.

I wouldn't accept that from Bush or Obama, it's bullshit.

But, some folks I've been discussing this with parse some sort of distinction, and pretend that Libya was some important crisis because MSNBC or BBC said it was. They want desperately for "their guy" to be doing this for legitimate reasons, they don't even bother questioning it. - not you - I was aware that you are consistent on this issue.

[Coito ergo sum]

Louis Farrakhan on Obama: 'That's a Murderer in the White House'

http://mrctv.org/blog/louis-farrakhan-o ... hite-house

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, if he's not a terrorist, maybe he's just a dick.

Mark Halperin, editor-at-large for Time, called President Obama “a dick” on Thursday on a popular MSNBC morning show and then quickly apologized.

“I thought he was a dick yesterday,” Halperin, who also is a senior political analyst for MSNBC, said on Morning Joe, referring to the President’s conduct during his press conference.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/06 ... z1QlIqHL3K

[Tyrannical]

I do find it ironic that Republicans are threatening the War Powers Act over Obama bombing Libya.
I bet I could have gotten million - 1 odds on that bet.

[Coito ergo sum]

I do find it ironic that Republicans are threatening the War Powers Act over Obama bombing Libya.
I bet I could have gotten million - 1 odds on that bet.

Why is that ironic? Afghanistan and Iraq were Congressionally authorized. The 1991 Persian Gulf War was Congressionally authorized.

[Robert_S]

Louis Farrakhan on Obama: 'That's a Murderer in the White House'

http://mrctv.org/blog/louis-farrakhan-o ... hite-house

Coito, Is this link supposed to be pro or anti Obama? Or neutral?

[Coito ergo sum]

That would be up to the reader, I suppose. I suspect Farakhan meant it negatively.

[Robert_S]

That would be up to the reader, I suppose. I suspect Farakhan meant it negatively.

It was certainly bizarre. Some mash-up could do well weaving that video with some footage of the Tea Party.

I kinda sorta agree with you that there is a double standard on how the left has handled the legality of Iraq vs Libya but I would have probably done what Obama did. I wouldn't feel entirely comfortable doing it, but I'd have done it.