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.
