Originally Posted by Calypso Jones

REmember this? I think it's just another indication of Obama's shrewdness. Don't you?

Weasel Zippers Blog Archive Flashback: Gaddafi Praises Obama As a “Friend”…

In six months, libyans will be denouncing their muslim supporting friendly US president as the murderer of their brother Moammar.

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

I have been watching tape of all the politicians on the right complaining about how Obama isn't up to defending the country. I was going to post the ridiculous comments from Cheney, Romney, Bachmann, Cain...Oh hell all of them. But I think at this point I don't even have to. But Cheney's comments in particular made me both angry and happy.

Angry that he and Bush sacrificed 4478 Americans lives and 33169 wounded. So far over $805,000,000,000 spent to take out Saddam. The idea that anyone would ask Cheney, a guy who got everything wrong his opinion of how Barack Obama does his job is ridiculous. The more I see of that useless piece of crap the more enraged I get.

I am Happy he isn't in any power and that he is shown over and over again to be wrong. Barack Obama keeps proving them wrong and I don't think he needs to be judged by those who did everything wrong. Obama could take Cheney to school on how to get terrorists off the field.

Originally Posted by Oftencold

Um, how did aiding in the assassination of a foreign head of Government, who not so long ago addressed the U.N. in New York, and with whom we were not at war, and replacing him with a fractious collection of dis-unified militants in some fashion "defending the country?"

True, it is an odd sort of major success for a President that has embraced political assassination in nonbelligerent foreign nations, but is it a success for the Country?

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

He was a terrorist. Sorry it hurt your feelings that he is dead. Why didn't you tells us you wanted him to stay in power?

Originally Posted by Oftencold

Now, you're putting words in my mouth. There are a lot of people I might not want to see continue in power, but would not choose to launch a drone attack against on foreign soil, in a country with which we are not at war.

I've said elsewhere that I consider assassination to be often morally superior to war. But how do we justify it in this case? Simply because we didn't like the current regime? That they were involved with terrorism against us? there are many countries that have been so involved. Will we attack their leaders now at will, and without declaration of hostilities?


Is this what the Nobel Committee had in mind with their little "Peace Prize?"

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

We didn't start off going to war with him. His own people did. We supported their efforts. So we did not actually assasinate anyone. It may have been a backdoor way of getting the job done but the job needed done. The rebels were not capable of doing the job. He would have been replaced by his brutal sons eventually and so really, when would have been a better oppurtunity. Not only that but we had Arab support. The timing wasn't ours to choose but when oppurtunity presents itself you have to be prepared to move. Obama did and khaddafi is gone. Assad is nervous also. It didn't really cost us anything because Libya can pay us. On top of that we have a little positive cred in the arab street.

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

Do you know a better way to do it with as smooth an outcome?

Originally Posted by Oftencold

His own people did? By what margin? Do you have polling data? a detailed study? Did the L.A. riots a few years ago justify a drone attack against that city's mayor?

Oh, as for "Arab Support," you might want to look up the support the Arab world had for the Soviets, the Nazis and the Kaiser. I'[m not sure what moral value it has.

But I do note your support for lethal violence, not in the furtherance of not only national interest, but partisan whim.




Mind our own business? Why is it up to our Government to determine what is best for these people, and then to enforce its judgment with lethal force?