Next?

[piece-itpete]

Agreed. Obomba. I've gotta stop showering and join a picket

Pete

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Agreed. Obomba. I've gotta stop showering and join a picket

Pete

You're just going out looking for the girl with the Goethe quote.

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

LOL! But only if she gets lower waisted jeans.

Pete

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I think there's a lot to this. The GOP's mantle of the "Party of National Security" is being whittled down by the apparent effectiveness of Obama's policies in the Mideast.

What success would that be, and what specifically are those policies? If you're referring to support for the Arab Spring, the jury is still out on that. Right now, it looks as if what we told ourselves was a pro-democracy movement may turn out to be anything but.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

What success would that be, and what specifically are those policies? If you're referring to support for the Arab Spring, the jury is still out on that. Right now, it looks as if what we told ourselves was a pro-democracy movement may turn out to be anything but.

The ousting of dictators in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia without the loss of a single American life and at an expense of about 0.1% of the cost of the Iraq invasion. Of course, the future is uncertain in all of these countries, as it is in Iraq.

But, the current rationale for the Iraq invasion (once WMD's proved nonexistent) was to overthrow a tyrant who was killing his own people, the exact same rationale for Libya, Egypt and Tunisia.

Explain to me why to every Republican I've heard on TV is tying himself in knots over what transpired in Libya, particularly when contrasted to Iraq. We either shouldn't have done it, should have done it sooner, or thanking the French and English for their effective efforts (and of course, not Obama).

It's just an extension of the GOP trying to claim credit for Bin Laden's killing.

[piece-itpete]

How many innocent civillians were killed by our bombs?

Pete

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

How many innocent civillians were killed by our bombs?

Pete

In Libya? Far less than the 100,000 killed during the Iraq invasion. Of that, I am sure. Score another for Obama's methods vs. Dubya's.

[piece-itpete]

As long as it's less than 100,000.

Pete

[Twodogs]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

LOL! But only if she gets lower waisted jeans.

Pete

Muffintop alert!

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The ousting of dictators in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia without the loss of a single American life and at an expense of about 0.1% of the cost of the Iraq invasion. Of course, the future is uncertain in all of these countries, as it is in Iraq.

But, the current rationale for the Iraq invasion (once WMD's proved nonexistent) was to overthrow a tyrant who was killing his own people, the exact same rationale for Libya, Egypt and Tunisia.

Explain to me why to every Republican I've heard on TV is tying himself in knots over what transpired in Libya, particularly when contrasted to Iraq. We either shouldn't have done it, should have done it sooner, or thanking the French and English for their effective efforts (and of course, not Obama).

It's just an extension of the GOP trying to claim credit for Bin Laden's killing.

Ok, but as long as we're pointing out inconsistencies, the left got on Bush's ass for regime change in Iraq, and the Neocons for being stupid enough to think that the Iraqis would embrace democracy. We jumped into the fray in Libya and Egypt because we believed that the Arab Spring was a democracy movement. It now appears that Tunisia, Egypt and possibly Libya may become more theocratic than democratic. If this does become the case, it would be difficult to suggest that our involvement produced favorable outcomes from a foreign policy perspective.