...so long as they are the (figure)head of the military.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa...html?hpt=hp_t1

(CNN) -- A U.N. resolution justifies the targeting of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, a senior NATO military official with operational knowledge of the Libya mission told CNN Thursday.
Asked by CNN National Security contributor Fran Townsend whether Gadhafi was being targeted, the NATO official declined to give a direct answer. The resolution applies to Gadhafi because, as head of the military, he is part of the control and command structure and therefore a legitimate target, the official said.

----------------------------------------------------------------

As always, I wonder what makes it okay to blur these lines. Don't do anything in Iraq because Saddam can be contained. Action in Iraq is wrong because what are we going to do, go after every dictator? Go after Gadhafi because he's killing civilians, the UN resolution allows for the assassination of Gadhafi...

 

As always, I wonder what makes it okay to blur these lines.

What makes it "ok" is the money and power gained by those that do the "blurring".

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=libya+oil

why libya? national interest and whatnot.

 

Originally Posted by budo09

Obamamakingitrain.gif

Its a long time coming. Actually surprised that he isn't dead by now, especially after Lockerbie in 88.

^^^

came in to ask who is potus, but jets sums it up about right. so glad we aren't an evil warmongering imperialist fascist country hellbent on world domination and war on muslims and free oil and halliburton etc even though we've started more wars and continued the ones which made us all the bad above. what a difference a letter next to a name makes

Xe contractors just salivated in unison. the race is on

 

Originally Posted by jetsjets1028

Democrats can kill heads of state because it proves that they aren't the pussies the GOP says they are.

Republicans can't because they are warmongers.

 

Originally Posted by norcaljeff

^^^

came in to ask who is potus, but jets sums it up about right. so glad we aren't an evil warmongering imperialist fascist country hellbent on world domination and war on muslims and free oil and halliburton etc even though we've started more wars and continued the ones which made us all the bad above. what a difference a letter next to a name makes

pretty loltastic

assassination = invasion? assassination = occupation? we only claimed that our reason was to remove sadaam after we invaded on the false premise that we were removing weapons of mass destruction. cognitive dissonance is fun to watch.

 

Originally Posted by The Alchemist

pretty loltastic

assassination = invasion? assassination = occupation? we only claimed that our reason was to remove sadaam after we invaded on the false premise that we were removing weapons of mass destruction. cognitive dissonance is fun to watch.

Right, because Liberals were totally OK with the "remove Sadaam" part.

 

Originally Posted by The Alchemist

[ ] relevant to the point

What point?

You quoted my post, which I think even someone as smart as a box of nails would have realized was just a joke and turned into cognitive dissonance.

You have no point. Just post the troll .gif and be done with it.

Pretty sure the Iraqis killed Saddam fwiw

 

Originally Posted by The Alchemist

the point is that it is incorrect to point to the criticisms a republican's presidential regime received for invading a country under the false pretense of removing WMDs and then retroactively claiming the purpose of removing an oppressive dictator, and comparing them to a democratic presidential regime whose stated purpose before doing so is to remove an oppressive dictator through the means of assassination, which is much less expensive and time consuming than invasion and occupation. typical political sheep finger pointing tho.

We could go on and on and back and forth for days. No point though. Shockingly, I was more OK with Obama's decisions on Libya than I was with the entire Iraq mess.

What gets me though, is that if Bush would have done EXACTLY what Obama did re: Libya, the outrage coming from the left would have been deafening and you know it.

 

Originally Posted by jetsjets1028

We could go on and on and back and forth for days. No point though

that's because you claimed that I had no point, and after I expressed it more clearly you realized that you had no argument against it.

 

What gets me though, is that if Bush would have done EXACTLY what Obama did re: Libya, the outrage coming from the left would have been deafening and you know it.

^this, on the other hand, is an example of 'no point.' bush couldn't have done exactly what obama did re: libya, because bush's pretense for attacking iraq was not to remove a dictator. in addition to this, Iraq was not in the midst of a self determined government overthrow via mass protesting from the general population. you're comparing apples to pasta.

 

Originally Posted by RUBINH

saying:

[ ] sadam was assassinated

is being super, super nitty.

as·sas·si·nate (-ss-nt)
tr.v. as·sas·si·nat·ed, as·sas·si·nat·ing, as·sas·si·nates
1. To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons.

did we murder saddam by surpise attack? or did we invade his country under the pretense of finding WMDs, and then remove him from power before handing him to the new regime who then executed him by hanging him after a military tribunal?

yea, the difference between a trial and an execution compared to a military assassination is super, super nitty. dumbass.

 

Originally Posted by RUBINH

We went in to capture or kill him

no, we fucking didn't. we went to find weapons of mass destruction.

 

Anyway your point seems to be that removing foreign leaders is bad.

no, it fucking isn't. my point is that assassination > invasion and occupation, regardless of what steaming pile of party makes the decision. one more herp derp outta you and you're gettin the 'oi' as you like to call him.

 

Originally Posted by The Alchemist

no, we fucking didn't. we went to find weapons of mass destruction.

lol no. We went in to get him first, and wmds second. I'd be willing to bet many people knew there weren't any wmds but just used that as an excuse to get rid of sadam. Anyway once again I'm not shocked that you'd have a completely awful understanding of what happened and saying "no we fucking didn't go in to Iraq to capture or kill sadam" is just really LOL.

 

Originally Posted by The Alchemist

no, it fucking isn't. my point is that assassination > invasion and occupation, regardless of what steaming pile of party makes the decision. one more herp derp outta you and you're gettin the 'oi' as you like to call him.

Dude, you can't assassinate a leader without going into the country, it isn't that easy lol. For the second time, what happened afterwards is up for debate (how long should we have stayed in Iraq, etc.) but you can't get a country's leader without doing what you call "invasion and occupation" because it's not that easy. Anyway just post pictures since that's all you're really good at.