John H wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:30:51 -0400,
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 08:58:15 -0400, John
wrote:

...doing that is much worse than what Sadam was doing.

Now 'Bama wants to attack Libya. Where's all the liberal uproar? Where is the
threat to the US from Libya?

This man has gone off the deep end.
Why not help people that want to help themselves? I didn't see that in
Iraq.... except by the Kurds.

The Libyans people seem to need help and the world community
*including* The Arab League is on board.

I don't see ANY similarities between that and the Iraq debacle....
we're certainly not looking for imaginary weapons of mass destruction.
Are we?

Why should we help the Libyan minority? Saddam was killing his people by the
hundreds of thousands. What was wrong with our helping them? Is it the right
thing to attack Libya because some Libyans have weapons, but the wrong thing to
have helped Iraqis because they didn't?

Are there more countries in favor of our attacking Libya than were supporting
our attack in Iraq? So what?

The fact that we're not looking for WMD, and that there's been no indication the
Libyans possess such makes the question that much more pertinent.

Where is the threat to the USA?

Your response was very weak. But, I can see you are in favor of attacking Libya.


There are many differences, including these:

No one in the Obama administration is lying about why we might get
involved in a limited way in Libya. The Bush administration lied us into
Iraq.

I haven't seen any statements that would commit U.S. ground troops to Libya.

What may take place in Libya is an incursion to remove the dictator
there. How many *years* has Bush's war in Iraq been going on?

You are an idiot, Herring. With your help, we lost in Southeast Asia.