The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: dandi on March 18, 2011, 06:55:54 PM
-
(Mods, if you'll indulge me for a moment)
Yeah MFers, I'm talking to you.
I saw the big poll you had regarding military intervention in Libya (which seems to have mysteriously disappeared, BTW) was running better than 50/50 for, not to mention a lot of other threads laying out the case for attacking them. So I know damn well many of you same assholes who screamed and moaned about Bush and Iraq are now supporting military intervention. What happened?
You blew off the fact that Saddam engaged in the wholesale slaughter of his people, gassed the Kurds, had the torture and rape rooms operating 24/7, filled mass graves with dissidents, violated the terms of the first Gulf War armistice and shot at our planes enforcing the no-fly zone there. He was "contained", was "no threat to anyone", and "hadn't attacked us". You wanted the U.S. to close all our overseas bases, stop meddling in other country's affairs, and even disband our standing military. Now, becoming the "World Police" suddenly seems attractive. What happened?
You were all against the air strikes in Afghanistan because they killed so many civilians. Now, it's your #1 option. What happened?
You wailed and gnashed your teeth, insisting that no one could call for war unless they had skin in the game, were willing to go down to the local recruiter and sign up. You offered to send enlistment papers to supporters of armed intervention. Those that didn't were shouted down as CHICKENHAWKS. None of you have reported volunteering now for this new action, yet they haven't been called out. What happened?
You derided our military flyers as cowards, and asserted that air warfare was a cowardly act. You called them bloodthirsty cowboys just looking for someplace to indiscriminately drop their bombs, shrieked and pissed your pants over them being "murderers", yet now you trust them to do the right thing and demand their utilization. What happened?
You hypocritical scumbags. You insane ****ing mentally deficient lying wretches. Your man is in the White House so it suddenly all becomes good, doesn't it? You false-faced, double-dealing, good-for-nothing shitpiles. You have no standards at all. No overriding sense of ethics or morality. Whatever suits you at the moment, depending on political expediency, is good to go.
I want one of you brave, virtuous, oh-so-intelligent "progressives" to show your ****ed up face here and explain all this. That is, unless you're the snivelling cowards we all know you are. Here's your chance to show the rest of your scum buddies how to slap down a knuckledragger without hiding behind a Bouncy.
And just for the record, I would support extending some air power over Libya. I just want to see how you explain away that world-famous DU hypocrisy.
-
+1 and a HELL of alot more.
-
H5
-
You said it all, dandi, sir.
It's that "cult of the personality" thing all over again.
It doesn't matter what's done, it matters who does it.
-
Add my H5 as well.
-
H5!
:clap: :clap: :clap:
-
^5 and coming back in an hour to give you another one.
-
Also added a H5.
Very well said.
-
Sorry for the vanity, but when I got up today and started reading all the rah-rah-ing over there for military intervention, the rationalizations about how righteous it would be, and their sudden pious bullshit about how this time it would be "just" after all their years of lying and ragging on Bush and the military over Iraq, it made me want to puke. What makes it worse is knowing they'd still hate the military after so cheerfully advocating sending them in harm's way. They would gladly sacrifice our men and women in uniform while spitting on them when the mood strikes. I have no use for such creatures.
-
Awesome, dandi!
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
-
Excellent job. :II:
-
Libya is a local matter. We have little to gain either way, so no viable reason to get involved. Obama should have kept his mouth shut.
-
While Libya is not a local matter, IMO (the rest of the Arab world awaits how we treat our enemies, so they know how they will be treated as our "friends"--just the opposite), I couldn't agree more with you, dandi. A well-deserved H5.
-
:cheersmate:
-
To those DUmmies who are being consistent and bashing your own president over this, I will give you kudos.
However until you start the war crimes, frog marching, and impeachment chants I won't believe your sincerity.
If this was, war crimes under Bush, then it is war crimes under Obama as well.
-
Hi 5 again
-
Hello, ****ing mentally-deficient lying wretch ****ed-up face here.
I don't speak for all of DU (and I won't give you my nick I use over there, even though after going through the threads, your familiar with me to an extent), but I will give you my opinions on Libya, as a liberal and OEF veteran flyer.
Yeah MFers, I'm talking to you.
Great start if you want a hostile audience to listen to you. Anyway...
I saw the big poll you had regarding military intervention in Libya (which seems to have mysteriously disappeared, BTW) was running better than 50/50 for, not to mention a lot of other threads laying out the case for attacking them. So I know damn well many of you same assholes who screamed and moaned about Bush and Iraq are now supporting military intervention. What happened?
Iraq and Libya aren't the same case, by far. Yes, Saddam was an asshole who terrorized, gassed, and tortured his own people. But evidence has come up that the intelligence we used to prove the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, was, at best, faulty, at worst, manipulated. Had our casus belli for Iraq been as simple as "Saddam is an asshole who killed his own people", I'm willing to bet a fair amount of liberals would have been behind it, but, instead, we tried to prove connections to al-Qaeda (which didn't exist, take it from someone who used to work in military intel) and the production of weapons of mass destruction (which, turns out, were leftovers from the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, and were not being actively produced).
Our casus belli for Libya is that Gaddafi is an asshole, and there's no arguing that. We're not making connections to al-Qaeda, and not to WMDs. When our government is at least honest about the reasons, it can generate much more support. Is there partisan crap involved here? Definitely, I won't argue that. But I support military intervention in Libya because Gaddafi is an asshole, and that's the reason announced for our intervention.
You were all against the air strikes in Afghanistan because they killed so many civilians. Now, it's your #1 option. What happened?
Because airstrikes against the organized Libyan military attacking its own people versus airstrikes against a cowardly nemesis that hides among civilians generates far fewer innocent casualties.
You hypocritical scumbags. You insane ****ing mentally deficient lying wretches. Your man is in the White House so it suddenly all becomes good, doesn't it? You false-faced, double-dealing, good-for-nothing shitpiles. You have no standards at all. No overriding sense of ethics or morality. Whatever suits you at the moment, depending on political expediency, is good to go.
There's some hypocrisy over at DU on this matter, I won't lie about that. There are those who are sticking to their principles, but quite a few who indeed believe that because Obama's president, it's ok. I don't like it either, trust me on that.
I want one of you brave, virtuous, oh-so-intelligent "progressives" to show your ****ed up face here and explain all this. That is, unless you're the snivelling cowards we all know you are. Here's your chance to show the rest of your scum buddies how to slap down a knuckledragger without hiding behind a Bouncy.
Well, here I am. Not trying to sound like a prick or anything, just wanted to give you my opinion on the matter.
And just for the record, I would support extending some air power over Libya.
As do I. Gaddafi's a madman, and he needs to be stopped. Air power, yes. Boots on the ground, no.
Anyway, that's all I have. Sorry if I sounded too much like an asshole, just wanted to chat. :cheers2:
-
Well, isn't this so very refreshing? (pardon me, I am a bit agape at the moment).
WELCOME TO THE CAVE !!! and PLEASE, DO TELL !!!
It isn't often that we find a raving escapee in our midst who is ranting, panting and looking over his shoulder.
Calm down man, no need to sweat, relax. You are among accepting friends here. You will be heard and engaged intellectually and not summarily dragged out back and shot, as happens at the DUmp when a discouraging word is voiced.
The ball is in your court, friend, and welcome... :cheersmate:
-
...And plus 1 for taking the plunge into reality! ^5.
-
Calm down man, no need to sweat, relax. You are among accepting friends here. You will be heard and engaged intellectually and not summarily dragged out back and shot
Phew...much different response than I was expecting. Suffice it to say, I won't be sticking around for political discussions...I think this might be one of the few things I agree with you guys on, and if it goes anywhere else, my liberal opinions will come out. I do see you guys have a Garage section though...I'll gladly stick around and chat with some fellow grease monkeys. :)
The ball is in your court, friend, and welcome... :cheersmate:
Thank you, sir. Appreciated. :cheersmate:
...And plus 1 for taking the plunge into reality! ^5.
:lol: To tell you the truth, I'm pretty set in my liberal ways, but I'll stick around nonetheless. I'm a guest here, I won't be disruptive. ;)
-
If this was DU - I'd have banned yer ass and thrown that post into the memory hole. :-)
Seeing as it's not, in fact DU - Carry on.
Oh and H5 for having the balls to show up here and make a coherrent and polite post.
:popcorn: :couch:
-
Dude, you are totally welcome here. This is America. Bring what you have to the debate and just be you. No problem. Period.
If you are a liberal, that's fine, just be upfront with what you are concerned with, opinions you have or anything else. What people don't like, in any society is deception. Be yourself and you're fine.
Sooooo... What's up CplDunn ??? What say Ye ???
-
If this was DU - I'd have banned yer ass and thrown that post into the memory hole. :-)
:lol: True, that's a big problem over there...
Oh and H5 for having the balls to show up here and make a coherrent and polite post.
My pleasure. :) Thanks for accepting me.
If you are a liberal, that's fine, just be upfront with what you are concerned with, opinions you have or anything else. What people don't like, in any society is deception. Be yourself and you're fine.
Sounds good to me. :)
-
I can't speak for anyone else but it has been my observation that on this forum, where I am a newcomer myself, that everyone is welcome.
There have been several folks which I have seen come over from your neighborhood with the intent only to do drive by attacks and run like cowards.
You will be treated fairly. That is the definition of honor. We don't hate you. Like a big family, sometimes the conversation is sharp but you are certainly welcome and we do earnestly want to hear what you have to say.
Stop by the "Introductions" thread and say Hi. You will garner a lot of responses. :)
-
Iraq and Libya aren't the same case, by far. Yes, Saddam was an asshole who terrorized, gassed, and tortured his own people. But evidence has come up that the intelligence we used to prove the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, was, at best, faulty, at worst, manipulated. Had our casus belli for Iraq been as simple as "Saddam is an asshole who killed his own people", I'm willing to bet a fair amount of liberals would have been behind it, but, instead, we tried to prove connections to al-Qaeda (which didn't exist, take it from someone who used to work in military intel) and the production of weapons of mass destruction (which, turns out, were leftovers from the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, and were not being actively produced).
Removing a tyrant was one of the many justifications for going into Iraq.
As for WMD - There were enough components, documentation, precursors, dual-use materials and so on to justify the claim. Remember that shipload of yellow-cake that was sent out of Iraq to Canada.
Should the sanctions have been completely lifted without removing Saddam - chances are pretty good he'd have had an operational program up and running as soon as was possible. There was no way Saddam was going anywhere without considerable motivation. Said sanctions were only really having an effect on the general population of the country - Saddam was perfectly happy to flaunt them via the french , China , Russia and so on to enrich his own life and that of his cronies - so something would have had to be done eventually to end them.
Our casus belli for Libya is that Gaddafi is an asshole, and there's no arguing that. We're not making connections to al-Qaeda, and not to WMDs. When our government is at least honest about the reasons, it can generate much more support. Is there partisan crap involved here? Definitely, I won't argue that. But I support military intervention in Libya because Gaddafi is an asshole, and that's the reason announced for our intervention.
There seems to be something of a lack of information about the rebels and who backs them - how closely associated with such entities as the MB for example. We may be trading the enemy we know for something worse.
Because airstrikes against the organized Libyan military attacking its own people versus airstrikes against a cowardly nemesis that hides among civilians generates far fewer innocent casualties.
The Libyan military has several militia units loyal to Gaddafi in addition to the regular forces. These are the ones that will potentially engage the coalition forces from civilian areas, resulting in more collateral damage and civilian casualties.
As do I. Gaddafi's a madman, and he needs to be stopped. Air power, yes. Boots on the ground, no.
True enough - but I suspect we're going to regret going in half cocked and that the group of people we're supporting might well turn out worse than Gaddafi in terms of global security.
-
Removing a tyrant was one of the many justifications for going into Iraq.
It was...but IIRC, the case we made in front of the UN was the existence of WMDs. I don't think there was much denying that Saddam was a tyrant.
As for WMD - There were enough components, documentation, precursors, dual-use materials and so on to justify the claim. Remember that shipload of yellow-cake that was sent out of Iraq to Canada.
Can't say I'm all too knowledgeable about the yellow cake, but from what I remember, we found the mustard gas and other chemical weapons in such a badly-degraded state that there was no evidence they had been produced recently.
Should the sanctions have been completely lifted without removing Saddam - chances are pretty good he'd have had an operational program up and running as soon as was possible. There was no way Saddam was going anywhere without considerable motivation.
No argument from me there. Saddam had to go--he was a menace to his own people and was a threat to regional security. My problem with Iraq is that we rushed in, we failed to account for a number of factors, we made some irresponsible decisions at the outset, and a lot of innocent people (including thousands of Americans) died because we failed to plan.
There seems to be something of a lack of information about the rebels and who backs them - how closely associated with such entities as the MB for example. We may be trading the enemy we know for something worse.
I'm not sure how close the Libyan rebels are to the MB, and I think this "terrorist connection" is a meme being forced by Gaddafi to drum up support against the rebels, but yes, we do need to watch our friends as close as our enemies. Once the revolution ends in Libya, we need to be actively involved in the reconstruction, otherwise, we end up with a repeat of 1980s Afghanistan. Religious extremism won't prey as well on a healthy, democratic Libya as it would on a power vacuum.
The Libyan military has several militia units loyal to Gaddafi in addition to the regular forces. These are the ones that will potentially engage the coalition forces from civilian areas, resulting in more collateral damage and civilian casualties.
Very true, but from what I can tell, the coalition is primarily targeting regular army artillery and armored units, not the militias.
True enough - but I suspect we're going to regret going in half cocked and that the group of people we're supporting might well turn out worse than Gaddafi in terms of global security.
Exactly. Like I said, we have to see this through to the end. If we don't...Libya could very well be our next Afghanistan.
-
Libya and Iraq -- quite the same in that UN resolutions were broken. GWB's epic fail was going to the UN at the behest of Congress in the first place. He never should have went. His intel should have told him straight up that France was on the dole in the oil-for-food scandal, and his trip was thus a fool's errand.
Hindsight and all that. The entire world thought that Saddam had WMD, or was close to having it -- so this manipulated evidence talking point is played and tiresome. While no WMD was located, he surely wanted everyone to think he had it, and he was dangerously close to having sanctions lifted against him. Invading Iraq was very necessary. You don't want to see it now, but history will show that to you.
GWB should have bombed Iraq into submission. However, you can't install a democracy this way so he instead had to forge the path of most resistance. Mistakes were made of course, as they always are in war.
The lack of outrage from the left on Libya was predictable, as is everything they do.