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.

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...
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.

Nobody in the administration has laid out our national interests in
Libya.

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

The fact that you haven't seen the statements doesn't mean that they
don't exist.

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?

The war in Iraq is over we have no combat troops in Iraq.

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

The Democrats ensured our loss in SEA. Johnson's Tuesday pick a target
lunches. McNamara running the war as an accounting exercise.

Tet '68 could have been a turning point. The VC and NVA got their asses
handed to them and if we had loosed the dogs of war we could have taken
the war to Hanoi.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:30:51 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article , payer3389
says...
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.

Nobody in the administration has laid out our national interests in
Libya.

Our national interests? How about removing a dictator who's hated by
most everyone in that part of the world. I guess that won't do
anything for US credibility, which was pretty much destroyed by Bush.

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

The fact that you haven't seen the statements doesn't mean that they
don't exist.

The president has said explicitly that there wouldn't be any. I
supposed you want to see the original? Perhaps Obama can send it to
you along with the original birth certificate.

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?

The war in Iraq is over we have no combat troops in Iraq.

Finally. Of course, we're still not finished cleaning up Bush's mess.

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

The Democrats ensured our loss in SEA. Johnson's Tuesday pick a target
lunches. McNamara running the war as an accounting exercise.

So, you're blaming Obama for Johnson's mistakes? How about Johnson's
successes, like civil rights.

Tet '68 could have been a turning point. The VC and NVA got their asses
handed to them and if we had loosed the dogs of war we could have taken
the war to Hanoi.


It's been over for a while now. VN is now a trading partner. Get over
it.