To Clarify The Left’s Position On “Immoral War”


Children!  Children, gather ’round.  I wanna tell you the story of the Leftist.

When someone you disagree with enters into a war to overthrow a brutal dictator, you protest him, call him Hitler and burn him effigy.  It is IMMORAL to use force against a foreign nation in an attempt to overthrow an evil brutal dictator.

But.  But….if Barack Obama would like to do the same, it is okay if:

  1. He does it quickly.
  2. There is no #2.

See, if one President goes to the United Nations and obtains resolution after resolution forcing the evil bad-guy dictator to allow this or allow that, and the evil bad-guy dictator doesn’t, AND the President gathers a coalition of foreign nations to assist in the overthrow of that evil bad-guy dictator AND that President goes to, you know, CONGRESS, AND….AND Congress authorizes force to remove evil bad-guy dictator AND that evil bad-guy dictator is captured AND that evil bad-guy dictator is imprisoned with human right’s representatives on guard AND that evil bad-guy dictator is given a trial and found guilty; well, THAT is immoral and the President is a douche.

He is greedy and is Hitler.

But, if the other President is Barack Obama, well, then we can target the evil bad-guy dictator in an assassination attempt, never go to Congress, the UN or any other body, watch as he is strung up on the hood of a truck like a deer, beat and shot without trial THEN allowed to have his body, decaying, be placed on public display for all to see while crooning:

We came, we saw, he died.

THAT is a foreign policy success, and the President is macho.

The Left is without morals.  They have none.  Which is why they try to legislate morals to force ME to abide by ’em.  They demand the rich donate to charity, but never do the same.  They demand that the Right care for the poor, but never do the same.  They scream that the Right engages in immoral wars, yet don’t care that they are the worst offenders.

They legislate others to do what they themselves can’t or won’t.

Advertisements
17 comments
  1. One President spent over $2 trillion, cost over 5000 American lives, hurt American power and prestige, and accomplished little but get the world opposed to the US. Another President worked with allies, lost no American lives, got rid of a bad guy, did it quickly and for only $1 billion, and enhanced America’s world role. One did it with UN approval, the did it in defiance of the UN. Face it, Obama’s policy was a success, Bush’s failed to achieve its goals. Most on the left supported Bush early on, but it was the failure of that policy and its wrong headedness that turned the left against it by 2006. No morals? Don’t be silly. It’s about competence and efficacy.

    • pino said:

      Face it, Obama’s policy was a success,

      You keep making this point as if I don’t agree with you.

      I am the one who’s okay with targeting bad-guys, capturing soldiers and “interrogate” them. Yes, Obama has done well with his terror handling.

      but it was the failure of that policy and its wrong headedness that turned the left against it by 2006.

      I don’t think so. They were marching in the street to the tunes of “immoral war”.

      No morals? Don’t be silly.

      There is something very immoral about voting to legislate me to contribute to your charity of choice.

      • The ones who really think its always immoral are against Obama; the core of the anti-war crowd is just as anti-Obama as they were anti-Bush. The protests were bigger because people tend to come out when the news has Americans doing the fighting and in harms way. They aren’t going to protest when no US lives are at stake and the bombing appears multilateral and to the West virtually invisible.

      • pino said:

        The ones who really think its always immoral are against Obama; the core of the anti-war crowd is just as anti-Obama as they were anti-Bush. The protests were bigger because people tend to come out when the news has Americans doing the fighting and in harms way.

        I call shenanigans.

        They aren’t protesting because it’s their man in office.

        Gaur-an-damn-teed.

  2. Come on guys, we all know both ‘Wars’ had little to do with removing bad guys. If that were truly the case, Robert Mugabe would have been pushing up daisies a long, long time ago.

    • pino said:

      Come on guys, we all know both ‘Wars’ had little to do with removing bad guys. If that were truly the case, Robert Mugabe would have been pushing up daisies a long, long time ago.

      This is true.

      But where are the Lefties marching in the street?

      • But where are the Lefties marching in the street?

        They are all smoking a joint down on Wallstreet. 😉

      • The West did hold out on Libya until Gaddafi had not only cornered in the rebels, but vowed “no mercy” and reports were that, believing the West would do nothing, he was planning to slaughter the rebels to prove a point. Only then did pressure build, mostly from Europe and on humanitarian grounds. So I think in this case it was because of fear of what Gaddafi was going to do. A lot of people who opposed the Iraq war might think that this kind of intervention was justified. By that logic, going against Saddam when he clamped down on the Shi’ites in 1992 would have been better than attacking when he was considerably weakened in 2003.

      • pino said:

        They are all smoking a joint down on Wallstreet.

        Well said!

      • pino said:

        Only then did pressure build, mostly from Europe and on humanitarian grounds. So I think in this case it was because of fear of what Gaddafi was going to do.

        I get it. And Saddam was abusing his people too. You don’t have to convince me. The point is, we attacked another country without a shred of approval. We targeted a foreign head of state for the purpose of killing him. Bypassing the whole legal system.

        Where is the outcry for Miranda?
        For a civilian trial?

  3. nickgb said:

    Sure, if you sugar coat everything Bush did, and blame Obama for everything that happened whether he had control over it or not, then you can make a passable case here. But get real, you’re not even trying to discuss in good faith any more.

    • pino said:

      Sure, if you sugar coat everything Bush did, and blame Obama for everything that happened whether he had control over it or not

      My point is this:

      Bush obtained a coalition of nations. A coalition much larger than Obama did.
      He went to the UN.
      He went to Congress.
      He then capture Saddam and put him on trial.

      Obama did none of these things. [he maybe went to the UN]
      Obama targeted Gaddafi. Those planes and missile targeted the leader of a nation.
      Then, the people that we support, strung him up like hunted game. Beat him. And shot him cold.
      In the head; right to the forehead.

      And Obama’s Secretary of State sings: We came, we saw, he died.

      And this isn’t isolated. Obama has demonstrated a blatant willingness to target lawless individuals. From Bin Laden to a United States citizen. This isn’t an anomaly, this is a premeditated pattern of action.

      I make no secret of the fact that I applaud the killing of bad guys. None.

      But the Left does. THEY are the ones that abhor Gitmo and water boarding and rendition. It would be refreshing to see some continuity of philosophy.

  4. The UN Security Council approved the Libya mission, which was multilateral. President Bush the Elder had UN approval and a large coalition including Syria and Egypt. But Bush the Younger did not have UN approval (indeed it was clear the Security Council opposed it) and his coalition was mostly small countries who thought they’d get something if they supported the US, it wasn’t a broad coalition. Ultimately, though, Bush the Younger failed while Bush the Elder succeeded. A more interesting comparison is Clinton in Kosovo. Clinton did not have UN permission (it was clear the Security Council would not have supported it) and much like Bush the Younger he thought it would be a much easier operation than it was. In many ways Kosovo was a failure, and one we should have learned from, but Clinton’s PR machine made it seem like a success.

    Of all of these, I prefer Obama’s approach (help the locals), but Bush the Elder followed international law in trying to create what he called a “new world order” where rule of law would define conflict, not larger states getting their way with smaller ones. Bush the Younger rebelled against his father, I guess, but Clinton had already started down that path.

    But you seem to miss my point: the anti-war left turned against Obama a long time ago. Talk to real left wing activists and they are disgusted by Obama, call him “Republican lite” or “no different than Bush.” For over a year now I’ve seen the harshest criticisms of Obama come from the left. Being a left of center pragmatist I like Obama and his approach, but saying that among left wing activists is going to get the same kind of reaction saying that among tea party activists would get.

    • pino said:

      The UN Security Council approved the Libya mission, which was multilateral.

      That’s what I thought. And I was too lazy/rushed to check just the; I was late meeting the boys down at the Mason’s Lodge.

      Of all of these, I prefer Obama’s approach

      Make no mistake about it; so do I. I much prefer to identify the bad guy, use technology to find him and then bomb and blow him up.

      (help the locals)

      It is a very charitable description of events to say that “we helped the locals”. It was NATO that defeated Gaddafi and his forces. The rebels were defeated until we turned a “no-fly zone” into an all out offensive.

      But you seem to miss my point: the anti-war left turned against Obama a long time ago. Talk to real left wing activists and they are disgusted by Obama, call him “Republican lite” or “no different than Bush.” For over a year now I’ve seen the harshest criticisms of Obama come from the left.

      I hear YOU. I don’t SEE them.

      I want demonstrations. I want Hitler comparisons. I want effigy burning. I want calls for impeachment. I want visible anger. I want KOS and HuffPo all over this man. I want Maddow and Olbermann screaming “Worst Person In The World”. I want my anger.

      It doesn’t count for the far-left liberals to sit in wine bars and nod in agreement that Obama sucks as they chug $130 bottles of wine.

  5. @Scott

    The UN, really? I trust that organization as far as I could throw it. There are some other interesting ideas of why the west(especially the french) might want in on Libya. Have you ever heard of the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer system? It seems that there may be something a little more valuable than oil in that area. 😉

  6. dedc79 said:

    There are a lot of liberals who probably would have been ok with the Iraq War if the U.S. hadn’t screwed it up so badly and had it drag on so long. I wouldn’t underestimate the role that incompetence played in the public’s turn against the Iraq War – whatever their party.

    • pino said:

      hadn’t screwed it up so badly and had it drag on so long.

      Well, having it drag on so long WAS screwing it up so badly in my opinion.

      We did a fine job “winning” the war. We were horseshit at “winning” the peace.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: