Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 127

Thread: U.S. Seeks UN Resolution Authorizing Strikes on Libya

  1. #31
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,273
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: U.S. Seeks UN Resolution Authorizing Strikes on Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Written by someone else, and left on his desk to sign, when he gets back from playing golf .
    I really live this "Obama plays golf" knock.

    Does "now watch this drive" mean anything to you?

  2. #32
    Student doctorhugo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Last Seen
    02-10-17 @ 01:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    263

    Re: U.S. Seeks UN Resolution Authorizing Strikes on Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    Ah logic dictates the reaction would be different because the two situations are different
    HAAAAAAAAAA! Logic is not what drives liberals. Emotion is. They'd be out in the streets raising their default Hell. I just wonder if they'd figure some way to blame Bush for that too.

    By the time the UN gets to issuing an impotent wrist-slapping resolution all the rebels will be dead. Old Muammar Monkeyface will have fathered another 6 kids, the left will be blaming the right for not fixing Social Security and Obama will be a brown stain in our memories.
    "Ignorance confuses. Knowledge mediates. Truth resolves." (doctorhugo)

  3. #33
    A Man Without A Country
    Mr. Invisible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 06:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,957
    Blog Entries
    71

    Re: U.S. Seeks UN Resolution Authorizing Strikes on Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by doctorhugo View Post
    [SIZE="3"][FONT="Georgia"]HAAAAAAAAAA! Logic is not what drives liberals. Emotion is. They'd be out in the streets raising their default Hell. I just wonder if they'd figure some way to blame Bush for that too.
    Congratulations on demonstrating your intelligence [/sarcasm]
    "And in the end, we were all just humans, drunk on the idea that love, only love, could heal our brokenness."

  4. #34
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,896
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: U.S. Seeks UN Resolution Authorizing Strikes on Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Whovian View Post
    I was comparing the reactions of the masses between what happened when Bush went into Iraq, and what might happen if Obama goes into Libya... not the conflicts themselves.
    So the usefulness and meaningfulness of your comparison of Iraq and Libya comes from the fact that the situations are so different?

    I will now compare the reactions of the masses between what happened when the coal miners were rescued in South America and what might happen if the Japanese reactor has a total meltdown.

    If Japanese reactor has a total meltdown, I wonder if the people who cheered the rescue of the miners will come out and and celebrate with hugs and kisses and champagne like they did when the miners were rescued? I think not.
    I may be wrong.

  5. #35
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,896
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: U.S. Seeks UN Resolution Authorizing Strikes on Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    The major difference is that we went into Iraq as a preemptive attack because of poor intelligence that said that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
    I was NOT a pre-emptive attack. It was a preventive attack.
    There's a HUGE difference.
    I may be wrong.

  6. #36
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    03-23-13 @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,265

    Re: U.S. Seeks UN Resolution Authorizing Strikes on Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    I really live this "Obama plays golf" knock.

    Does "now watch this drive" mean anything to you?
    I certainly hope he is improving his golf game, because if it's as bad as everything else he has attempted as president... quite frankly .. it would have to sink.

  7. #37
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,896
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: U.S. Seeks UN Resolution Authorizing Strikes on Libya

    The difference between preventive war and pre-emptive war is a wide one that's been recently blurred by certain parties. The invasion of Iraq was preventive, not pre-emptive. Now pre-emption has become newspeak for preventive.

    If Iraq had been an imminent threat to the US then the war was not an agressive war. It is part of a long sanctioned tradition of "preemption "Upon detecting evidence that an opponent is about to attack, one beats the opponent to the punch and attacks first to blunt the impending strike."

    As we all know, "For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack."
    Preventive war is based on the concept that war is inevitable and that it is better to fight now while the costs are low rather than later when the costs are high. It is a deliberate decision to begin a war."
    Pre-emptive strikes need no justification. They've been recognized as legit for centuries.
    Last edited by Simon W. Moon; 03-17-11 at 04:32 PM. Reason: fixed link
    I may be wrong.

  8. #38
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,896
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: U.S. Seeks UN Resolution Authorizing Strikes on Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarB63 View Post
    Just not the massive quantities the liberal bed-wetters wanted to see.
    Some people will get upset with you pointing out that the Bush Admin was a liberal one. I think the bed-wetting comment is a little over the top, though.
    I may be wrong.

  9. #39
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,896
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: U.S. Seeks UN Resolution Authorizing Strikes on Libya

    UN Security Council Discusses Libya Resolution - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 2011Thursday, March 17, 2011

    "Britain's UN envoy, Mark Lyall Grant, said the vote on a draft resolution was expected later in the day."
    I may be wrong.

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    08-14-12 @ 11:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,928

    Re: U.S. Seeks UN Resolution Authorizing Strikes on Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    The difference between preventive war and pre-emptive war is a wide one that's been recently blurred by certain parties. The invasion of Iraq was preventive, not pre-emptive. Now pre-emption has become newspeak for preventive.

    If Iraq had been an imminent threat to the US then the war was not an agressive war. It is part of a long sanctioned tradition of "preemption "Upon detecting evidence that an opponent is about to attack, one beats the opponent to the punch and attacks first to blunt the impending strike."

    As we all know, "For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack."
    Preventive war is based on the concept that war is inevitable and that it is better to fight now while the costs are low rather than later when the costs are high. It is a deliberate decision to begin a war."
    Pre-emptive strikes need no justification. They've been recognized as legit for centuries. Invading Iran would be preventive, not pre-emptive.
    I learned something there. Nice post.

Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •