Stand with Obama and Biden in this crisis!

[Pterodactyl]

Obama is being tested on the world stage. And our support for Obama and Biden is being tested, too! But this was predicted. Things look bad, but NOW, when things are difficult, is the time to give our president and vice president our support and our patience.


Biden:

"Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."


http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/biden-to-suppor.html

[dkf]

1. I've supported him on lots of things but I'm not getting dragged into another war without protest.

[vaberella]

2. I don't like this measure but I support my Pres and VP. n/t

[amandabeech]

3. I did not support Pres. Johnson in the Vietnam War because he was wrong.

I don't want any more U.S. casualities for questionable reasons.

I won't support the Pres., VP, Sec. Clinton, Amb. Rice, etc., because I think that they are wrong, and that this is very likely to end up badly for everyone involved.

[Pterodactyl]

8. I didn't support Johnson, either. But I hadn't been born yet!

[amandabeech]

19. I, for better or for worse, was already orbiting the sun and watching Walter Chroncite (sp).

n/t

[gateley]

4. I wholeheartedly support them on this action. I heard someone

from the CFR(!) the other day say that no President has had as much thrown at him as Obama has since he took office, and I have to agree. It seems as though it's been unrelenting.

I think the majority of the World supports him on this, too, as evidenced by the number of countries agreeing to participate.

:patriot:

[Pterodactyl]

10. I know! Last I checked, at least 12 countries were participating!

By the time this gets going strong, we'll have even more than the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" from the Iraq war!

[golddigger]

5. Time to break out the Brittany Spears quote.

[OHdem10]

6. Once our troops are committed, I stand with them. They follow

orders do not make policy. For everyone's sake I
hope this crisis gets taken care of and is over soon.
Now, that we are in it, win it and get home. No
long term comittment, please. Trying to get out
of Iraq and Afghanistan is wearing me down.

I am an old fashioned Liberal and once we are entangled
I support the President and Vice President. I trust
them more than a Republican to steer our part in this
foray.

[Frustratedlady]

11. Well said. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

27. so let me get this straight, as an 'old fashioned liberal'

you supported:
the Vietnam War,
the invasion of Grenada,
the invasion of Panama,
the invasion of Iraq,
the invasion of Afghanistan,
a whole slew of lesser misguided military missions ---

So when you say 'old fashioned liberal' you would be referring to the 'Scoop' Jackson, William Kristol, John Podhoretz brand of 'old fashioned' liberalism?

[Mimosa]

61. Who made the crisis? Did Libya recently attack the US or any of our citizens? n/t

[meow mix]

7. +very recommended

glad to see the world doing what is right

[BeFree]

9. right?

This is asinine. It is a sure sign of a failure of diplomacy.

This is more war and more blood on our hands and does nothing but feed the savage warmongerers.

This is the wrong thing, and the rest of the world knows it. Except the elites.

[gateley]

12. Diplomacy w/Qaddafi? Yeah, right. nt

[BeFree]

14. Yeah, diplomacy

Are you saying we never got the asshole to work with us before?

Why is it that supporters of 'bombs-away' always forget simple history?

Frankly, your question is just total BS. Shameful BS.

[gateley]

20. We got the asshole to work with us because Big Oil wanted to

go in there and profit from their resources, same old story. Other than that, how do you define his "working with us"?

And I take exception to your accusing me of posting shameful BS. That wasn't my intent at all, it's honestly how I feel. Your rush to judment is what's shameful.

So again, how do you define his "working with us"? And, where his citizens given a better life, freedom from oppression as a result?

[BeFree]

25. I get it

Your altruism forces you to ignore history and just toss bombs as a solution to this problem.

You deny diplomacy works. No rush to judgment from here, I've seen this shit before.

[gateley]

31. Boy, you love using the broad brush strokes, don't you?

I think diplomacy works better than any other approach, regardless of how you 'know' how I think. I do not think it works with everyone and history shows it does not work with Qaddafi. I don't see your response to my question asking you to cite what you consider we achieved by using diplomacy with Qaddafi previously - why not?

You paint me to be a war-monger, you've decided my solution is to toss bombs at a problem. You couldn't be more wrong. I'm curious as to how you think you know me so well. You're self-righteousness gets in the way of you being able to discuss something -- with an unimportant poster on a message board, no less -- respectfully and openly.

I've seen 'that shit' before, too, and if it were another action/approach we were taking, I'd be on your side. I just believe, sincerely, this is a different situation.

[BeFree]

36. "This is different"

My gawd.... no, it isn't. This is bomb tossing as the solution to a failure of diplomacy.

Diplomacy which you fail to recognize.
There is a history of successful diplomacy with this asshole. Why deny that history?

Your words here are all I have to go by, and like I said, I've seen this shit before.

I've seen you on numerous threads supporting this newest version of bomb tossing.
Are you now denying your own words?

[gateley]

40. Still waiting for your proof of "we've worked with this asshole before"

are you denying YOUR words?

And - huh? Denying my own words? I'm still saying the same thing, I support this action. What could be more clear than this? I'm giving my opinion only in stating I view this as "different". I may be proven wrong, but do I not have the right to my own opinion? I respect those of you who differ from me and would never presume to try to change your mind, which, by the way -- if that is your intent, your treating a fellow poster with condescension and slams is not the way to go about it.

Prove to me diplomacy has worked with him.

[BeFree]

43. heh

Just like I've given up arguing with climate change deniers, I am giving up arguing with history deniers.

But... Your last president made deals with Gaddafi, and Britain just made a deal with him on the Lockerbie bombing prisoner. BP and other oil companies made an oil deal with him just a few years ago.

You can have your opinion that war is the answer. But I piss on that.

[gateley]

44. Making deals for profit (which I referred to earlier) does not constitute

"diplomacy". The Lockerbie bombing prisoner was part of the deal to grant him "friends" status and an offshoot of the oil deals. If you only read the headlines, you'll never understand the entire situation. I was going to ask if you thought any humanitarian gains came from such deals, but since you seem incapable of answering my questions I won't even bother.

And I've given up on trying to just have discussions with people who are closed-minded and convinced they have all the answers and anybody who differs is wrong. I'm sure you won't miss me when I put you on Ignore. You're not worth a second more of my time.

Live well.

Peace.

[BeFree]

45. Good

Your 'war is the answer' creed should have you running scared.

[treestar]

17. Exactly.

[ClarkUSA]

13. Conservatives & Senate Republicans are all against disturbing the Gadhafi's oil-rich status-quo....

... via a no-fly zone. They want a declaration of war.

[Exilednight]

15. WTF are you talking about? McSame is out their spouting off that we should be doing more. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

18. They want a declaration of war, not a UN approved no-fly zone.

Thus, they would rather we not be there.

[TomClash]

16. To what end?

What is the objective? To end the civil war? Protect the rebels? Divide Libya? Oust Qadaffi?

[gateley]

22. Here's what Kerry had to say. I think it addresses your question --

not expecting you to change your mind, but it answered a few questions for me, anyway.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=633755&mesg_id=633755

[Pterodactyl]

23. Two objectives

1. Protect Lybians from a dictator.

2. To support Obama-Biden. We have one of the most change-creating groundbreaking presidencies in American history! You'll miss him in 2013 if we don't support him.

[bvar22]

29. For some, those questions do not matter.

"YeeHaw! Let the Bombing & Killing Begin!"
You're either with us, or with Gaddafi!"

[gateley]

39. You really think so poorly of your fellow DUers? The end I think

we're ALL hoping for is a quick end to this so the people can continue their movement. I'm viewing it as leveling the playing field by eliminating Qaddafi's weapons and aircraft he has been using to mow down his people. I could be proven wrong, but I think this is a different situation. I'm insulted by your assuming that we don't care what the end is, that we only want a fucking war. Like we're John McCain or something.

[xocet]

53. Agreed.

It is far better to stop Qaddafi from killing protesters and civilians than to remain apart and watch the atrocities continue. I am glad that the UN is behind this and am glad that the US is using its military to help in this operation. As stated above in the post to which this is a reply, "...this is a different situation."

[Warren Stupidity]

21. Sorry but this war is wrong.

[Pterodactyl]

24. So, then the UN is wrong? The Arab Lauge is wrong? Our allies are wrong?

Everybody is wrong?

[Warren Stupidity]

30. Yeah the 'Arab Lauge' is like totally wrong.

Yes, the specter of Western European ex-colonial powers rushing in to allegedly prevent a slaughter in oil rich Libya, while ignoring as usual the on-going slaughter in a whole bunch of other countries and silently acquiescing to our ongoing slaughter in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and having said NOTHING MUCH about our slaughter in Iraq or our ongoing violations of the Geneva Conventions, is too much for me. Surely they must be right. Surely a 'no fly zone' mission that now is expanded into some other mission that remains unstated must be a Good Thing. After all, what could possibly go wrong?

[Pterodactyl]

41. Oh no! I'm the first person ever to misspell a word on the internet.

I feel shame!

[gateley]

26. This is where we disconnect, I think. Those who are against this

are viewing it as a war, and I can only speak for myself as one who supports this, but I view it as responding to pleas for help to take out Qaddafi's weaponry to at least give these people a fair chance of achieving their goal of liberation/freedom.

I don't think this country nor any of the others participating are willing to engage in another war, and I don't think their citizens' would stand for it, either.

Here's how Kerry explained it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=633755&mesg_id=633755

[Warren Stupidity]

33. When you bomb some other nation you commit an act of war.

[gateley]

38. I won't argue with you. I understand your point, but I feel this is a different

circumstance.

Let's just hope this is over quickly, we're out, and the people of Libya can carry on toward their goal. I think we can agree that we'd like to see the best possible outcome since we ARE engaged.

[murbley40]

54. Standing with the President!

I agree with you completely, Gately.

[ClarkUSA]

28. What war? Prove that the UN-backed coalition of 12 nations and counting have declared war on Libya.

“The goal of this mission is not to get rid of Gaddafi,” Kerry added. “That’s not what the United Nations licensed, and I would not call it going to war. This is a very limited operation that is geared to save lives. ... It is not geared to try to get rid of Gaddafi, he has not been targeted.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=633755&mesg_id=633755

BTW, Qatar announced it was joining the coalition today.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. What? Are you daft?

When a foreign nation or nations commence bombing of your country, they have 'declared war', it is an ACT OF WAR, and no official paper is required. Except of course back here in the good old USA where that pesky constitution clearly requires just such a piece of paper BEFORE the executive branch STARTS a war.

[ClarkUSA]

34. No, I'm being factual, not imposing my subjective opinion on the veracity of world affairs.

Being "daft" is thinking one's subjective opinion overrules international law.

BTW, conservative and Senate Republicans actually want a declaration of war against Libya. Guess what? They're all against the UN resolution and establishing a no-fly zone because it doesn't meet their neocon goals.

That should be a clue for you.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheKentuckian]

48. We ratified the UN Charter which is a treaty. Congress does not need to declare war for us to aid

an ally for instance. We are bound by these agreements and the become formal law.

Effectively you are stating that absent a declaration of war from Congress the US is obligated to use our Security Council veto? I think that is a misinterpretation of the legal structure.

[Warren Stupidity]

50. we are not 'aiding an ally' we are participating in a war against a sovereign nation

one that did not attack us. That makes it an initiation of a state of war by the executive. The constitution clearly meant THAT PRECISE ACTION to be preceded by congressional approval. Treaties are 'the law of the land' (except of course when the president decides to ignore them, as in the Geneva Conventions), but they do not trump the constitution. Effectively I am arguing:
1) this is a war, pretending otherwise is dishonest;
2) as such it ought to be approved by congress.

I said nothing about our vetoing anything. Russia did not use its veto, it also is not participating in this war.

[TheKentuckian]

55. I did not say it was aiding an ally, I said like as in similar to.

Congress has been consulted, they ratified the Charter.

You are correct that we are not required to participate but it is certainly legal to do so.

[Mimosa]

60. Warren, that's how things 'used to be.'

I'm sick over this. As sick as i was when bush & Co invaded iraq.

I guess after Qaddafi has been murdered, Hallibuton and other allied corporations will go in and 'help' the Libyans. Sending American contractors again? Or will we pay the libyans enough to behave while 'we' take hold of the oil?

What the families of Saddam and Muammar al-Gaddafi's families had in common is they seemed to be diverting and pocketing income from the petroleum resources of their countries. Somebody way high up doesn't like the way they were doing business.

[Tippy]

35. K&R....This I support

[The_Casual_Observer]

37. Support a dirty proxy war?

No on your best day.

[NorthCarolina]

42. Thanks, but no thanks. Oh, and I'm not interested in buying a bridge either. nt

[madamesilverspurs]

46. Positive points for the OP

for daring to suggest support for a Democratic president on DU. That takes guts these days.

Agree with OP, by the way.

K & R

-

[Pterodactyl]

49. Yeah, it's getting more "underground" than Democratic around here lately.

[Mimosa]

62. Lately? Who are you? Some of us have been posting for 10 years.

Smells fishy to me.

[Pterodactyl]

64. Huh? I support Obama and that's fishy?

[AtomicKitten]

52. Good point. It is a paradox.

[whatchamacallit]

47. Hells no!

:nuke: :grr: :thumbsdown:

[Dokkie]

56. Not on this issue

I specifically voted for Obama because he was anti war. War and defense spending is my number one issue so I will be going against everything I stand for in supporting this administration and its new war.

The rest of the world and intervene in Libya but for god sake, give us a break

[Pterodactyl]

57. Oh, man. Triple whammy for you then.

We've still got troops in Afghanistan, still got troops in Irag and now this Lybia thing, whatever it turns out to be.

[Dokkie]

59. Afghanistan was wishful thinking on my part

because unlike most people, I did actually listen to his promises during the campaign. Iraq and Afghanistan are a bit out of his control but he did not have to join the Libyan war. There are loads of other countries in Europe and Arab world that can take care of it. Now we are hauling expensive equipments and lobbing million dollar bombs at the country.

[Mimosa]

58. WHY? I opposed Bush's intervention into Iraq.

Neither Iraq nor its citizens had attacked the USA or our citizens. Libya's government had not attacked the USA or hurt our citizens.

IF IT WAS WRONG WHEN BUSH DID IT IT'S WRONG NOW.

[Pterodactyl]

63. Here's why!

If you don't support Obama, he'll lose in 2012. Then where will we be?