Obama has the lowest approval ever

[martmay]

nuking isn't capitalized

For emphasis.

What was the risk of inaction in Libya?

 

[redandguilty]

This is a good start, from DR:

The potential risk of US troops and capital vs the risk of inaction.

There is more of course but knowing that you are in favor of Nuking Libya (a country whose name you couldn't spell up until 2 minutes ago) I'll assume you have a few less conditions and that should provide a sufficient foundation for debate.

nuking isn't capitalized

Unless it is a city. Then we're just missing a comma.

I am in favor of Nuking, Libya. They have a lovely harvest festival there.

 

[lions2011]

For emphasis.

What was the risk of inaction in Libya?

Genocide.

 

[martmay]

What was the risk of inaction in Libya?

mass genocide,

Happens daily throughout the world.....It isn't a security threat

 

[lions2011]

mass genocide,

Happens daily throughout the world.....It isn't a security threat

it is when Oil is involved.....

 

[Mitchrapp]

Well as long as you're glad they went for whatever reason, I'm sure a bunch of Mothers and Wives feel much better now.

I can say with assurance that my first-born Marine son, who served two Iraqi tours, who was twice-wounded and still battling with PTSD, but is making a life for himself anyway, who witnessed the ultimate sacrifice of too many of his friends, has absolutely no regrets about his service ... and he would take a highly personal interest in your presumption of even attempting to speculate the feelings of those solders' mothers and wives (not to mention children and fathers) on this matter.

More succinctly, he would advise you to not make such an attempt, because you can not possibly have the slightest inkling of how they feel.

I think I'm going to gold star this one. Another hero your son is.

 

[deathroh]

The problem wasn't Bush making the case to topple, but Bush making the case to invade. The fact that it would have been impossible to topple with just an aistrike only makes that poll question misleading.

What I'm arguing is that the WMD claims that people describe as Bush lies to justify their change in position on the war...those WMD claims were believed before Bush took office.

That one administration used those claims to discuss airstrikes and the other used them to justify an invasion says something about those administrations, but that's besides the point that I'm making.

Then I go to my post on reply #120. You can argue that the yellow cake thing wasn't a lie, but it's close enough, and could definitely have swayed people. That was clearly the administrations intent in divulging it.

 

[martmay]

What I'm arguing is that the WMD claims that people describe as Bush lies to justify their change in position on the war...those WMD claims were believed before Bush took office.

That one administration used those claims to discuss airstrikes and the other used them to justify an invasion says something about those administrations, but that's besides the point that I'm making.

Then I go to my post on reply #120. You can argue that the yellow cake thing wasn't a lie, but it's close enough, and could definitely have swayed people. That was clearly the administrations intent in divulging it.

Doesn't England still stand by the story today?

 

[deathroh]

Then I go to my post on reply #120. You can argue that the yellow cake thing wasn't a lie, but it's close enough, and could definitely have swayed people. That was clearly the administrations intent in divulging it.

Doesn't England still stand by the story today?

I have no idea why that would be...

 

[martmay]

Doesn't England still stand by the story today?

I have no idea why that would be...

see the Butler Report.....

 

[martmay]

Happens daily throughout the world.....It isn't a security threat

it is when Oil is involved.....

We don't get Oil from Libya and if we pumped more at home it wouldn't be an issue

 

[deathroh]

I have no idea why that would be...

see the Butler Report.....

Again, I have no idea why England would take that stance.

 

[redandguilty]

What I'm arguing is that the WMD claims that people describe as Bush lies to justify their change in position on the war...those WMD claims were believed before Bush took office.

That one administration used those claims to discuss airstrikes and the other used them to justify an invasion says something about those administrations, but that's besides the point that I'm making.

are you saying the people who initially favored the invasion, based on their trust of the president, claims from other officials, especially the vice president, should not have any credibility when they later saw that the initial claims used to "sell" the war were false? Whether or not the WMD claims were "believed" before he was there, is a red herring. They weren't an issue. They were hugely trumped up and made an issue by the Bush Administration.

Personally, I don't blame people for being victims of effective state propaganda. I blame them for not waking up after the glaring inconsistencies in the propaganda are revealed for all to see.

back in March 2003, I was like "Well, whatever. Hussein is a bad guy, and even if the whole 'pre-emptive' strike thing is false, I'm sure they have their reasons." I didn't believe the WMD's thing, especially since WE were the people who gave him biological and chemical weapons in the 80's. How fucked up is that? However, I figured they had some strategy beyond simply "War for Profit" that could justify the massive cost of the invasion, not to mention the serious trampling all over the myth that America was somehow different than every other empire that came before it, and was a shining beacon of democracy and all that BS.

Then as of a year later, it was like... "wow. this is SERIOUSLY messed up. We just invaded another country, killed lots of their people, and continue to do so, for no discernible reason, besides the obvious parties that profited from this."

the whole thing stinks.

It's not just that it was believed before Bush. It was believed to the degree that 68% wanted to topple the regime. Only 24% were against it. Being in support of toppling a regime is a big deal. The things people believed in order to support that aren't far off from what is now claimed to be Bush lies. People act like their previous pro-war attitude is doesn't count because they were lied to, but they were most of the way there to begin with.

I do think "I'm sure they have their reasons" played a big role in people's positions in all of this. Probably even some of our congressmen and senators.

 

[deathroh]

it is when Oil is involved.....

We don't get Oil from Libya and if we pumped more at home it wouldn't be an issue

So a disruption in the oil supply only has an effect on the US if the oil is headed here? Brilliant.

 

[deathroh]

I know you think I'm missing your point Red, but I don't think you can take the air vs land issue out of it. The majority of people may have thought it would be a good thing if Hussein wasn't in power in 1998, in 2000, in 2002; but the majority may not have been in favor of invading the country until the administration fabricated just how serious the situation was.

 

[redandguilty]

What I'm arguing is that the WMD claims that people describe as Bush lies to justify their change in position on the war...those WMD claims were believed before Bush took office.

That one administration used those claims to discuss airstrikes and the other used them to justify an invasion says something about those administrations, but that's besides the point that I'm making.

Then I go to my post on reply #120. You can argue that the yellow cake thing wasn't a lie, but it's close enough, and could definitely have swayed people. That was clearly the administrations intent in divulging it.

I was actually thinking about commenting on that one, but I lost it and didn't want to go back through them all to find it. I do think the inclination to just trust that the President has a good enough reason does explain a lot of people's behavior.

Even the yellowcake thing (which I have brought up about one a year on this board) only asserted a failed attempt to obtain uranium, not a claim that he had succeeded in getting any.

 

[martmay]

We don't get Oil from Libya and if we pumped more at home it wouldn't be an issue

So a disruption in the oil supply only has an effect on the US if the oil is headed here? Brilliant.

If we were in the position too offset the 1.5 million barrels that Libya pumps, yes, it wouldnt be an issue would it

 

[redandguilty]

I know you think I'm missing your point Red, but I don't think you can take the air vs land issue out of it. The majority of people may have thought it would be a good thing if Hussein wasn't in power in 1998, in 2000, in 2002; but the majority may not have been in favor of invading the country until the administration fabricated just how serious the situation was.

Yeah, I don't want to downplay the difference between airstrikes and a land invasion. I'm just saying that our willingness to do the airstrike was based on our understanding of the bad stuff Saddam had done and was willing to do. We didn't learn very much after that to justify our change in position, it was just sold more heavily. There was a decade of cat and mouse stuff with the UN inspectors that was all very similar to the case Bush made.

We didn't go from zero-to-invade all because of Bush hype/lies, we went from airstrikes-to-invade. I'm not saying that step is insignificant, I'm just saying we were already a good part of the way there.

 

[deathroh]

So a disruption in the oil supply only has an effect on the US if the oil is headed here? Brilliant.

If we were in the position too offset the 1.5 million barrels that Libya pumps, yes, it wouldnt be an issue would it

If we could turn piss into oil that would be even better. Let's look into that..

 

[deathroh]

I know you think I'm missing your point Red, but I don't think you can take the air vs land issue out of it. The majority of people may have thought it would be a good thing if Hussein wasn't in power in 1998, in 2000, in 2002; but the majority may not have been in favor of invading the country until the administration fabricated just how serious the situation was.

Yeah, I don't want to downplay the difference between airstrikes and a land invasion. I'm just saying that our willingness to do the airstrike was based on our understanding of the bad stuff Saddam had done and was willing to do. We didn't learn very much after that to justify our change in position, it was just sold more heavily. There was a decade of cat and mouse stuff with the UN inspectors that was all very similar to the case Bush made.

We didn't go from zero-to-invade all because of Bush hype/lies, we went from airstrikes-to-invade. I'm not saying that step is insignificant, I'm just saying we were already a good part of the way there.

I would say there's a difference between a couple thousand responses to a poll question and knowing what the average american truely feels about the issue. But that's more of a statistics issue..