FUCK obamaTy Webb;939643 wrote:It happened under his watch....therefor he gets the credit.
Just like Bush got credit for Saddam
I actually am though glad he did get them but let's not forget as he critizied Bush for his tactics and he is using Bush's tactics!!Ty Webb;939648 wrote:Feelings hurt that Obama killed two fuckers your buddy Bush couldnt
Yes he is. Blundering around the globe spending thousands of US lives and hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars. What a strategy.Fab1b;939650 wrote:I actually am though glad he did get them but let's not forget as he critizied Bush for his tactics and he is using Bush's tactics!!
what does that even mean?Ty Webb;939648 wrote:Feelings hurt that Obama killed two fuckers your buddy Bush couldnt
Only if we were involved. Did I miss something? Did we send people into Libya to take this cretin out?Ty Webb;939643 wrote:It happened under his watch....therefor he gets the credit.
Just like Bush got credit for Saddam
IIRC we did help out a little bit with targeted bombings and what not, did we not?queencitybuckeye;939696 wrote:Only if we were involved. Did I miss something? Did we send people into Libya to take this cretin out?
Not enough that anyone not a political hack would try to take credit that "we" got him.derek bomar;939738 wrote:IIRC we did help out a little bit with targeted bombings and what not, did we not?
Not enough that anyone not a political hack would try to take credit that "we" got him. We stayed out of the way and the people got him. Maybe something to consider in the future.derek bomar;939738 wrote:IIRC we did help out a little bit with targeted bombings and what not, did we not?
who are you to say that the help outside countries gave didn't lead to his demise?queencitybuckeye;939741 wrote:Not enough that anyone not a political hack would try to take credit that "we" got him. We stayed out of the way and the people got him. Maybe something to consider in the future.
hmm...from the article:queencitybuckeye;939741 wrote:Not enough that anyone not a political hack would try to take credit that "we" got him. We stayed out of the way and the people got him. Maybe something to consider in the future.
I don't remember any influential or imposing groups of Iraqi rebels taking on Saddam's military in '03 before we invaded. I also don't remember years upon years of multiple intelligence sources (right or wrong), not to mention UN sanctions, warning us of Qaddafi's near-completion of chemical/biological weapons of mass-destruction. I don't remember Obama consulting Congress before participating in military action in Libya.I Wear Pants;939937 wrote:While I disagree with interfering in matters that don't really concern us. I'm much more accepting of the way we did so in Libya than in Iraq. I think that's the difference. Iraq interference without US soldiers dying and if it cost 800 times less (someone in this thread said we spent $1 billion on this, Iraq estimate is around $800 billion right now) and I bet you have a lot more people who are more accepting of it.
Except Hans Blix and the UN inspectors never found anything. Ever. Neither did we.jhay78;939967 wrote:I don't remember any influential or imposing groups of Iraqi rebels taking on Saddam's military in '03 before we invaded. I also don't remember years upon years of multiple intelligence sources (right or wrong), not to mention UN sanctions, warning us of Qaddafi's near-completion of chemical/biological weapons of mass-destruction. I don't remember Obama consulting Congress before participating in military action in Libya.
Other than that, yeah, Iraq and Libya are very similar.
I don't like Iraq in this regard- we began nation-building before we were done enemy-defeating. That's where the almost trillion dollar thingy comes into play.
Did you mean "rather than just the blessing"?majorspark;940031 wrote:I'll give Bush this, at least he did seek congress's permission and just the blessing of the UN like Obama.
YesI Wear Pants;940269 wrote:Did you mean "rather than just the blessing"?
I have said this as well.I Wear Pants;940269 wrote:But I wish Bush would have actually bothered to get a declaration of war.
Invading was a big deal, the ramifications of which weren't fully appreciated by those who decided to invade, IMO. As ridiculous as it sounds, it may have been wiser to wait for an attack, despite the possibility of innocent civilians being killed. That would make a declaration of war easier.I Wear Pants;939983 wrote:Except Hans Blix and the UN inspectors never found anything. Ever. Neither did we.
So you'd be cool with it if Obama and the CIA presented a bunch of evidence that we later found out to be complete and utter horse **** and then used that evidence to scare the country into thinking we needed to invade Libya or else 9/11 #2 would certainly happen? I know I wouldn't. I'm still not okay with what we did in Libya. But it is certainly better than invading.
No it isn't. I realized in 2003 that Iraq had fucking nothing to do with 9/11. The government knew that as well. What we didn't know was that the government had their "intelligence" on WMDs given to them by people who are reliable in intelligence work as Ty Webb or QuakerOats are at being an objective critic of their respective political parties.jhay78;940412 wrote:Invading was a big deal, the ramifications of which weren't fully appreciated by those who decided to invade, IMO. As ridiculous as it sounds, it may have been wiser to wait for an attack, despite the possibility of innocent civilians being killed. That would make a declaration of war easier.
The key words in your post are "later found out". It's easier in 2011 to look back and say what should've been done than to put yourself in the early-2003 shoes of the man who watched 9/11 happen on his watch.