… which I know because the tooth fairy just rode in on his unicorn from Bush’s third term and told me so. Take that, you hypocritical hypocrites.
I agree with a no-fly zone. Assuming it had UN support and Arab League backing.
Bush would have done it unilaterally which would have been a disaster.
So the details count. The Unicorn is mis-calibrated.
Bush would have invaded Morocco.
I hate Obama doing No Fly. I am a Lib so you are wrong. Bush would have been in there 2 weeks ago. Bush listened to neocon war mongers who never saw a war they didn’t like. Obama took the time to get UN approval and Arab league sanction. That is not enough for me, but most people are satisfied with that.
Why use hypotheticals? Obama’s election destroyed the anti-war movement and all non-dissident opposition to drone bombings or torture. Dem rank and file have cheered every Dem intervention of the last 40 years. Dems don’t care about bombing people into a pink paste, as long as it’s their guy doing it.
Which is why we have ongoing threads from Democrats about how they’re fed up with Obama.
Acres of progressive commentators are fed up with the president. Where has the OP been?
Apparently, he’s been busy taking continuing education classes at The New School on the subject of writing whoosh-erffic OPs.
He seems to be getting pretty good at it, too.
In other news, if Bush had authorized the Lybya no-fly ops, conservatives would be lining up to suck his cock. Instead, they’re whining about how Obama is “indecisive”.
I’m a flaming liberal and I am screaming in protest. Just not on this board, as I usually stay away from political threads.
So your point is what, again?
Combine that with the aforementioned threads in which Dopers are saying they’re fed up with Obama, and I say shove your OP up your arse as it’s complete shit.
Liberals *are *screaming in protest. But nice try.
Jon Stewart had a great line last night which sums up my feelings about this:
You can’t fire both teachers and Tomahawk missiles at the same time.
Totally hot women make you stupid. But who cares?
Personally, I think the no fly zone sucks. It pisses me off and Obama using France and GB as political cover does fool me for an instant. That said, I always recognized that Obama was somewhat a imperialist (or at least a statist) so I am no too surprised.
Its religious. Ghadaffi is a Sunni Moslem, and Obama is a Shia.
There was very little opposition on the left to Bush’s invasion of Afghanistan.
But there was considerable opposition on the right to Clinton’s military interventions. It seemed obvious at the time that this was mainly because they didn’t want Clinton to enjoy the boost in popularity that usually accompanies a president’s taking military action. How cynical is that?
I find myself torn on the no-fly zone and military intervention. On the one hand, the justification of “he’s targetting civilians!” doesn’t ring true. But OTOH, Qadaffi is a dictator who has supported terrorism. He’s not a good guy, so in a way, I don’t have a problem with him getting his comeuppance. But that doesn’t truly justify what we’re doing, either.
I had no problem with Bush invading Afghanistan, a lot of people who had problems with bush didn’t object to Afghanistan. It was Iraq that turned me against him. Are you saying that enforcing a no fly zone is like our invasion of Iraq? Was there some sort of propoganda run up to the enforcement that included lying to America?
Hell Bush went into Iraq and there was no cry at all. Every damn paper and TV station showed 24 hour a day generals backing the war 100 percent. Nobody will dare question the country once they decide to go to war.
I am an old protester and anti war. Every time I mentioned I thought it was a terrible idea to start a war with Saddam, I got berated. America does love its wars.
It this no fly was done vy Bush after starting 2 other wars, it is possible the Americans would have bitched. There has to be a point where we go to war too often, doesn’t there? Or will we passively back every stupid war our leaders take us into?