Posted on 04/14/2011 6:44:56 AM PDT by ScottinVA
EVIDENCE IS now in that President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya. The president claimed that intervention was necessary to prevent a “bloodbath’’ in Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city and last rebel stronghold.
But Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.
Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000. In nearly two months of war, only 257 people — including combatants — have died there. Of the 949 wounded, only 22 — less than 3 percent — are women. If Khadafy were indiscriminately targeting civilians, women would comprise about half the casualties.
Obama insisted that prospects were grim without intervention. “If we waited one more day, Benghazi . . . could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.’’ Thus, the president concluded, “preventing genocide’’ justified US military action.
But intervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents.
The best evidence that Khadafy did not plan genocide in Benghazi is that he did not perpetrate it in the other cities he had recaptured either fully or partially — including Zawiya, Misurata, and Ajdabiya, which together have a population greater than Benghazi.
Libyan forces did kill hundreds as they regained control of cities. Collateral damage is inevitable in counter-insurgency. And strict laws of war may have been exceeded.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Even Human Rights Watch is refuting 0bama's BS. Had we not been lied into intervention in Libya, this internal flare-up would've been long snuffed out.
Obama Lied
People Died
If those purple lips are moving, he’s lying.
People Died
"News" people like BOR, repeated over and over and over again the impending "slaughter" of civilians. There was never any proof of this and no one asked for any. Our media sucks just like our "leaders".
At least Bush had Hussein's past use of chemical weapons and a UN mandate.
Democrats cannot be trusted with use of the world's most powerful military.
Nothing to see here, go to the next thread.
Obama’s wars are dangerous - much more so than Bush’s.
Bush spent 18 months preparing the case against Saddam and organizing his coalition. Bush always referred to Saddam as an enemy. Bush attacked Saddam because he was dangerous and because he believed Saddam was strong.
Obama only attacked Libya because Qaddafi’s position had suddenly become weak. Prior to that, Obama never referred to Qaddafi as an enemy. In fact, Obama met with him, and promoted Libya to join the UN Human Rights Commission - an important Leftist honor for a dictator.
The lesson to 3rd world dictators - do not display any weakness. Do not trust the United States. Get nukes if you can, because cowards like Obama will only go after the lamest cow in the herd.
AND.... though Bush's detractors refuse to acknowledge it, Bush arranged for UN weapons inspectors to re-enter Iraq, only to be stymied again by Saddam.
Bump
Hey, the rhetoric worked for the Bank Bail out, why not use it again to ensure the Moslem Brotherhood takes over in Libya?
Used against Iran while Hussein was a US ally, the use being known to the US gov't at the time, with the components of the chemical weapons being of US and European manufacture.
...and a UN mandate
Not a valid reason to go to war. Plus, the UN mandate was for Iraq to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors, which they did until they got tired of an endless witch hunt being conducted/directed by US and other foreign intelligence agents. Additionally, it was later shown that Iraq had ended their WMD programs in 1991.
Democrats cannot be trusted with use of the world's most powerful military
Republicans cannot be trusted with use of the world's most powerful military (except for Ron Paul, of course)
Hussein also repeatedly violated terms of the original cease fire for the original Gulf War, which technically never ended. So on that basis alone, the US was justified.
Good reasoning here. Obama lied, people died. No surprise there. Meanwhile Muslim atrocities elsewhere are ignored (or worse).
Mark
Mark
Nowhere in the US Constitution is it stated that the gov't can take us to war to "liberate" one nation invaded by another. A treaty could (entangling alliance), but the US had no such treaty with kuwait.
One unconstitutional, immoral, illegal and just plain idiotic war doesn't justify another. It can, however, provide precedent, which I'm sure the rest of the world will use in the future when attacking a bankrupt, balkanized, weak, prostate US over, say our mistreatment of mexican colonists.
Or are you content pumping for a party that routinely gets 1% of the popular vote?
The Boston Globe??!!!
Sure - it's unconstitutional, immoral, illegal and just plain idiotic.
Or are you content pumping for a party that routinely gets 1% of the popular vote?
How am I pimping for (I assume you mean) the LP? Just pointing out the hypocrisy of defending one action because it's done by an (R) while condemning the exact same thing done by a (D).
As far as the 1% thing goes, in a nation gone collectively insane like this one has, I wear my position in that tiny minority as a badge of honor, not one of shame.
If you believe the majority is always right, you must love 2008's popular-vote-winning barak hussein obama.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.