I'm sick of American Presidents using freedom as a excuse for war.

If it was true we should bomb the oil kingdoms there too, who also shoot their own citizens. But since they are good American lackeys you won't hear about freedom and change. Now that's change you can't believe in.

The big winners in this are the arms industry in US and Europe. North Korean is now more sure than ever that having nukes is the right thing to do. hey look at Saddam and now Libya, whom gave up nukes to join the international community lol. The jokes on Gadhafi.

This would make Iran wish to have nukes faster not to join the ranks of those who defied the west without nukes or face their wraith.

It makes me sick too. The hypocrisy of Obama claiming that we're defending the freedom and right to protest of people in Libya while completely ignoring protesters getting shot down in place like Bahrain is mind-bogglingly hypocritical.

Everyone knows we're in Libya b/c of their oil and b/c we have a personal vendetta against Gaddafi.

His words are meaningless, just like Bush before him, and so on and so on.

I don't know how Obama can take himself seriously.

And you're right, for dictators and military leaders the world over, one of the main lessons of Libya is: if you have nukes, we'll leave you alone.

Once they start arming rebels its even more money for the arms industry.

nothing has ever good came out of western "adventures". just look at Libya itself and all this is cause by the west to begin with isn't that funny.

Its like a thief, stealing, looting, robbing, killing and leaving. years later the west become the cops, now coming to save their victims from themselves and probably give arms to the population, whom will probably use these arms against themselves or others. ah the cycle begins again.

my favorite picture lol. I always say don't vote for either party, basically the same damn party with just minor differences to fool the public in voting for one and next few years the other. No real changes can be had when they are always the incumbents.

Depends on what you're talking about, but sure.

To be fair, Democrats would've never wasted billions of dollars and a million lives in Iraq.

To be fair, Democrats would've never wasted billions of dollars and a million lives in Iraq.

in fact they voted for it, they were the party in charge of congress at the time. no real changes, hell they want to invade Iran along with the republican party lol.

When it comes to wars, Democracts use military option as much as the republicans if not more so, so they can show the American people they too can be tough and look mean etc....

Now you're just kind of exaggerating.

When's the last time a Democrat started a war of choice?

When did Democrats lead the charge to pressure everyone in the country, from Congress to CNN, to want to fight a war of choice?

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, et al had been planning the Iraq War for literally decades. It was a hallmark agenda by the modern Republican Party.

The Democratic Party has neither the will nor the intelligence to pull something like that off.

There are a million ways that Dems & Repubs are identical. Wars of choice, including ground invasions and occupations like Iraq are not one of them.

Boygabriel said:

Now you're just kind of exaggerating.

When's the last time a Democrat started a war of choice?

When did Democrats lead the charge to pressure everyone in the country, from Congress to CNN, to want to fight a war of choice?

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, et al had been planning the Iraq War for literally decades. It was a hallmark agenda by the modern Republican Party.

The Democratic Party has neither the will nor the intelligence to pull something like that off.

There are a million ways that Dems & Repubs are identical. Wars of choice, including ground invasions and occupations like Iraq are not one of them.

I'm curious about your term "war of choice" regarding Dems.

JFK & Lyndon Johnson pretty much got the Vietnam War going. Harry Truman sent in troops for the Korean War. Albeit under a UN guise. And it seems Obama is sending in the war planes to specifically topple Khaddafi. Which, btw, I'm not against. Too be honest, Reagan should have finished the job back in 1986. Bush 41 certainly should have had him executed during his term after Lockerbie. Obama, hopefully, will finish this guy off. Something the past four presidents should have seen to, instead of swapping diplomats and allowing hospice care to mass murderer.

BTW, is there a "delete" option concerning double posts?

You make good points, yes indeed I'd agree those were Democratic wars of choice.

My commentary on warmongering by either party I guess is focused on the two parties in their modern incarnations, especially post cold war.

And yeah Obama is most certainly using force in Libya. I'd agree with the statement that either party enjoys sending in planes and predator drones to bomb wedding parties on the Af-Pak border or whathaveyou.

But my comment above, I highlight at least one significant difference between today's Repub and Dem parties, which is that the Repubs would mastermind and marshal a full scale ground invasion and occupation, with 100,000 troops and many billions of dollars.

I do not see Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or any other recent major Dem leader or candidate doing anything like that, as a war of choice.

Boygabriel said:

You make good points, yes indeed I'd agree those were Democratic wars of choice.

My commentary on warmongering by either party I guess is focused on the two parties in their modern incarnations, especially post cold war.

And yeah Obama is most certainly using force in Libya. I'd agree with the statement that either party enjoys sending in planes and predator drones to bomb wedding parties on the Af-Pak border or whathaveyou.

But my comment above, I highlight at least one significant difference between today's Repub and Dem parties, which is that the Repubs would mastermind and marshal a full scale ground invasion and occupation, with 100,000 troops and many billions of dollars.

I do not see Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or any other recent major Dem leader or candidate doing anything like that, as a war of choice.

What about voting for the war of choice? Hillary Clinton and John Kerry certainly supported the 2003 Iraqi invasion, no questions asked. In fact, ironically enough, most Democratic presidential hopefuls supported the war, except for Obama. I'm not trying to start an argument, it's just IMO, it's hard telling the difference between a leader and his eager underlings, now or days. It's probably why I like Ron Paul so much when it comes to domestic/social and foreign policy.

bill Clinton and former Yugoslavia.

Yes, they all did and they all bear responsibility for it.

But does voting for it have the same implications of what your party would do in the White House, to me, as when it was an active agenda, led by leaders in your party, for over two decades?

No, not even close.

Despite voting for the Iraq War resolution, I do not think that absent the Iraq Cabal of Cheney, Rummy, Wolfy & Co, that President Hillary Clinton, President John Kerry, President Obama or any other Dem would have invaded Iraq, or any other similar action.

armchair_warrior said:

bill Clinton and former Yugoslavia.

Armchair are you equating the Yugoslavia operation with the Iraq War, a war which is still going on today?

Hillary Clinton is a hawk in guise, she has more balls than Obama has lol.

Hillary Clinton would not have invaded Iraq.

Period.

here is something most american's don't know about the peace maker Bill Cliton

A European defense publication reported:

It should be noted that, in an interview with the author, NATO spokesman Lee McClenny confirmed that the targeting information did not go through JTF NOBLE ANVIL, or any other NATO structure, in contrast to Tennet's [sic] official public statements. Instead, the co-ordinates were passed directly from the CIA to Whiteman Air Force Base, the home of the 509th Bomb Wing, where it was programmed into the JDAMs. Mr McClenny asserted that the entire process had remained 'Stateside', hence the failure of NATO staff to 'scrub' the target to check its accuracy, authenticity and location.

When asked, the CIA again asserted that the story given by Tennet [sic] to the House Committee was true, but claimed that the targeting information went from the CIA to the Pentagon to be processed. The Pentagon was only prepared to say that "some of the F-117 and B-2 missions were used as 'national assets' and therefore did not pass through NATO command structures", despite the requirement under the NATO charter to clear all missions carried out under NATO auspices with the NATO general council ... [Previously reported in Venik's Aviation web site, citing a May 2000 report in Air Forces Monthly; link no longer valid.]

According to The Observer, a US officer airily dismissed the handwringing of his NATO associates:

British, Canadian and French air targeteers rounded on an American colonel on the morning of May 8. Angrily they denounced the "cock-up". The US colonel was relaxed. "Bullshit," he replied to the complaints. "That was great targeting ... we put three JDAMs down into the [military] attache's office and took out the exact room we wanted

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/MA29Ad01.html

you said Dems don't start wars , i said they do.

She might or might not have invaded Iraq but she would sure start a war with Iran.

I said Dems don't start major wars of choice.

There was nothing major about the US commitment to Yugoslavia.

It's probably why I like Ron Paul so much when it comes to domestic/social and foreign policy.

totally agree, at least guy says and does the same damn thing he says he would. unlike all other politicans so far.

armchair_warrior said:

She might or might not have invaded Iraq but she would sure start a war with Iran.

No, there is no confusion about it. A Democratic president would not have invaded Iraq.

Period.

A Democratic President might bomb Iran, but they would not send in 100,000 ground troops. They would not invade or occupy.

Democratic presidents have gone to war for less than oil.

....didn't they play a role in the whole Vietnam debacle?

Have the democrats changed?

Yes, it's almost as if that point was raised and I gave my opinion on it.

the change is permanent?

the parties are different?

the two parties define "defending american interests abroad" and "fledgeling democracies" and "human rights" as meaning different things?

The two parties won't take the same steps to impose their views?

...I'm not as sure, BG.

whynot_31 said:

the change is permanent?

Who knows? But the original point was "Dems and Repubs are identical".

To which I respond: if you are in a the voting booth any time soon, one thing you can be sure of is that Republicans are infinitely more likely to invade countries for open-ended wars of choice than Democrats are.

That is a significant point, IMO. I think the Armed Forces and the entire nation of Iraq would agree with me.

the parties are different?

When it comes to invading nations with 100,000's of troops for a war of choice? Yes. Most certainly yes.

back to my original point dems and reps are the same damn thing.

there is no difference between bombing folks and sending land troops etc.. at the end of the day alot of dead people.

Except for health care policy.

Except for support for unions.

Except for support for a woman's right to choose.

Except for social programs.

Except for invading countries with 100,000 troops.

Except for budget and deficit policies.

Except for support of Social Security.

There are many practical and significant ways they are different, and many ways they are similar.

there is no difference between bombing folks and sending land troops etc.. at the end of the day alot of dead people.

That's like arguing that someone who kills 100 people is the same as someone who kills 1,000,000 people.

Generalized and oversimplified to the point of being useless.

armchair, they aren't the same on all issues.

...but they are certainly the same in many.

This seems to be something they have in common.

Note: I have yet to say whether it is "bad"

minor issues differences.

major issues where they stay the same is.

no real reform to the military budget or medicaid or ss.

no real reform the the financial industry.

no real reform to reform tax code where the rich/companies could use loop holes to not really pay taxes. who can blame them for using loop holes. I mean if i could afford it i would do it too.

no real reform in campaign fiance reform . It takes more and more money to field candidates. both sides spends tons of money to distract the public on the minor differences and if you try to vote for 3rd party guy, both sides fool the public, by saying you are just throwing away your vote.

you are always ask to choose between the lesser of two evils. since they make any 3rd party guy even worse LOL. Few years later you get sick of voting for party A, you choose party B. and vice versa. But both sides always rather you pick either of them vs some unknown.

It's funny that you call issues "minor" which don't effect your life specifically.