Obama's Legacy: Initiation of a civil war in Libya

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by kehaar

The invasion of Iraq stabilized the region. Saddam's rule was inherently unstable, and he would have been forced to external action(Isreal was the likely target) to maintain power. War was coming, and he would have restocked with WMD's as soon as feasible.

Bush dedicated the resources necessary to stabilize Iraq, and did so. There was less violence and Mayhem in Iraq after Bush left than before the invasion. Recognize that the progressives said that the USA enforced sanctions were killing 100's of thousand of Iraqi's per year prior to the invasion(and that was the justification for allowing Saddam to rearm with WMD's).

This is a discussion about Obama, and Libya, though. Obama started a civil war in Libya that had no hope of forming a stable government in the forseeable future. This will result in continuing mayhem and death. The USA has no options that would remedy the situation.

That mayhem and death clearly lay in Obama's lap.

fyi, Obama did not start the libyan war. europeans started this. this was 100% a Euro operation with american backing.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

No where in that article did this guy Joshua Holland refute the fact that Saddam invaded and occupied Kuwait. The fact that Holland tries to claim that Saddam was "justified" in invading Kuwait says much about what an agenda driven and miscreant lib-retard Joshua Holland is.

The article gives historical background that the you average bear does not know.

The way that region was devided up amongist the French , English , Dutch and others ... matters, whether you believe it or not.

Same with Isreal / Palestine. If you do not understand the historically significe of a region. ..you are doomed to continue with this nonsense we are doing.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

The article gives historical background that the you average bear does not know.

The way that region was devided up amongist the French , English , Dutch and others ... matters, whether you believe it or not.

Same with Isreal / Palestine. If you do not understand the historically significe of a region. ..you are doomed to continue with this nonsense we are doing.

The extraneous material the author chose to interject to obfuscate doesn't change the fact that it was Saddam's invasion of Kuwait that first and foremost led to the full scale reprisal by a multi-national force.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (Condemning the Invasion of Kuwait by Iraq), S.C. res. 660, 45 U.N. SCOR at 19, U.N. Doc. S/RES/660 (1990).

Adopted by the Security Council at its 2932nd meeting, on 2 August 1990

The Security Council,

Alarmed by the invasion of Kuwait on 2 August 1990 by the military forces of Iraq,

Determining that there exists a breach of international peace and security as regards the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait,

Acting under Articles 39 and 40 of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait;

2. Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all s its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;

3. Calls upon Iraq and Kuwait to begin immediately intensive negotiations for the resolution of their differences and supports all efforts in this regard, and especially those of the League of Arab States;

4. Decides to meet again as necessary to consider further steps with to ensure compliance with the present resolution.

Saddam chose to ignore this international ultimatum and not withdraw, and the rest, as they say, is history.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by kehaar

Obama started a civil war in Libya that had no hope of forming a stable government in the forseeable future. This will result in continuing mayhem and death. The USA has no options that would remedy the situation.

That mayhem and death clearly lay in Obama's lap.

The same idiots on the libtard left who criticized Bush for removing Saddam and "destabilizing" Iraq were eager to decapitate the Libyan regime without any regard for "the day after". At least Bush set up a replacement regime in Iraq that was reasonably stable by the time odumbo became Commander in Chief. Leading from behind in Libya was a forseeable disaster.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

The way that region was devided (sic) up amongist (sic) the French , English , Dutch and others ... matters, whether you believe it or not.

Then maybe you should blame Sykes and Picot for "destabilizing" the region, not Bush.

And when were the Dutch involved in the Middle East... or did you make that up?

[kehaar]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

fyi, Obama did not start the libyan war. europeans started this. this was 100% a Euro operation with american backing.

Hillary has claimed that she was the driving force behind the effort. Are you calling her a liar?

The Europeans couldn't and wouldn't have participated(in your mind initiated) this debacle without the explicit encouragement of Hillary/Obama. Arguing that this statement isn't true would be self illustrative.

It was a US bomb that stopped the convoy that got Quadaffi killed.

"We came. We Saw. He died."

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The extraneous material the author chose to interject to obfuscate doesn't change the fact that it was Saddam's invasion of Kuwait that first and foremost led to the full scale reprisal by a multi-national force.



Saddam chose to ignore this international ultimatum and not withdraw, and the rest, as they say, is history.

I did not say it wasn't as stupud aa OJ stealing back his own property back!


.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by kehaar

Hillary has claimed that she was the driving force behind the effort. Are you calling her a liar?

in a word... YES!

The Europeans couldn't and wouldn't have participated(in your mind initiated) this debacle without the explicit encouragement of Hillary/Obama. Arguing that this statement isn't true would be self illustrative.

Europeans may have gotten support & encouragement from Hillary, but initally the Europeans were the ones who started this.

Hillary & Soros may have set up the environment with their use of NGOs to initiate the so-called Arab Spring.

It was a US bomb that stopped the convoy that got Quadaffi killed.

"We came. We Saw. He died."

that was american support I mention to. Obama did not want to get involved in this. he was pushed to support this by hillary.

not say O was innocent in this he was complicit.

[kehaar]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

in a word... YES!



Europeans may have gotten support & encouragement from Hillary, but initally the Europeans were the ones who started this.

Hillary & Soros may have set up the environment with their use of NGOs to initiate the so-called Arab Spring.



that was american support I mention to. Obama did not want to get involved in this. he was pushed to support this by hillary.

not say O was innocent in this he was complicit.

With all due respect, Hillary worked for Obama. Was Bush responsible for the CIA failure(led by a Clinton minion) in Iraq? Yep. He owned it, and owns it, both the good and bad.

Arguing Obama isn't responsible for the Libyan debacle isn't reasonable. The Europeans would not have initiated this without a specific commitment of support from the US. Obama chose to depose Quadaffi, and owns the consequences.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by bambino

Between building million dollar shacks SnitchFuck has time to dig up arcane articles from unknown assholes.

That means fat boy didn't read it.

Did you, Mr. Softee?