Saturday morning funny: Co-workers disuss Libya vs. Iraq

Is the war in Libya more justified than the war in Iraq? (H/T Neil Simpson’s latest round-up)

I wonder when someone is going to make one of these for Christian apologetics.

Neil’s latest round-up contains other interesting stories as well – an open letter to universalist pastor Rob Bell, an open letter to left-wing apostate Brian McLaren, an article about how General Electric is getting a tax break from Obama, and another universalist pastor who was fired by his United Methodist congregation.

5 thoughts on “Saturday morning funny: Co-workers disuss Libya vs. Iraq”

  1. Thanks for the link. I’ve thought the same thing on the apologetics front. I started one on pro-life reasoning but need to get around to finishing it.

  2. If you honestly think the same rationale is being used for the no fly zone in Libya as was used for the all-out invasion of Iraq then I think your love of invasions is getting the better of your reasoning.
    I don’t mean to offend WK, but honestly.
    The no fly zone in Libya was (i) initially called for by the Libyan peoplep themselves, (ii) agreed upon by Libya’s neighbours, the Arab League and the African Union, (iii) even got a UN security council resolution, which is notoriously hard to do when it comes to military action and (iv) even included usually dovish nations in Europe as part of the coalition. So basically everyone’s consent has gone into this apart from Gadaffi’s himself.
    Now I will be the first to criticise Obama, so don’t go thinking I’m some kind of Obama lover. I also think his foreign policy absolutely stinks, and that he doesn’t really have any idea what he is doing. He changes his mind on a weekly basis, and has no consistency with the way he treats his allies and enemies.

    Obviously the coalition force from this is going to be far smaller than the Iraq one, because the aims of this mission are far more modest.
    The Libyan people also explicitly asked that there would be no foreign troops on the ground in Libya. They asked for a no fly zone and it was given, on the basis of protection of citizens, NOT regime change.
    This is not the international community sticking their fat fingers into other people’s business, invading the country with foreign troops without anyone’s consent, occupying it for a decade and then propping up unpopular governments. This, rather, is countries working together simply to stop Gaddafi bombing his own people. The rationale in the resolution is humanitarian protection, not regime change.
    It does not authorise sending in troops on the ground in an invasion of the country and occupying it with the foreign troops, rather it is destroying Gaddafi’s military capabilities so he can’t carry on bombing his own people.

    You claim that Bush invaded Iraq simply because he thought there was a POSSIBILITY it had WMDs.
    LOL, don’t make me laugh!!
    Cheney said on 8/29/02, “Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale.” So he stated unequivocally that Iraq had WMDs, not that it was POSSIBLE.
    Again, here is Donald Rumsfeld on 9/18/02, “Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent – that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons… And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons.”
    Again, does that sound like the language of possibility to you?

    No, the Bush administration claimed time after time that Iraq definitely had WMDs, that they had extremely strong evidence of this and that we are all in grave danger. The war was NOT on the basis of humanitarian concern for the Iraqi people, so let’s not pretend that it was. The Bush administration said that they invaded iraq because it posed a threat to national security for themselves and for israel. That was simply untrue. They claimed they had strong evidence for WMDs in iraq which made them certain they were there, and warranted quotes such as the ones I have used already (I have plenty more of those where that came from), YET this supposed evidence has never been shown to anyone and in fact it has been revealed that they had no such proof. That makes each of those statements a lie.

    But regardless, do you REALLY think that a country having the POSSIBILITY of having weapons is a good enough reason to go out and invade them? Really?

    You shouldn’t feel like you have to defend everything the Bush administration did. I know he did some good things, but also did some foolish things. I am a conservative, that means that I am CAREFUL with foreign policy and don’t like going invading other countries with no evidence of them posing a threat. I am against the Iraq war, but I believe in just war theory. It did not satisfy the criteria.
    I am in favour of the no fly zone, and was in favour of SOME kind of initial military action in afghanistan but thought it was ill-thought out, badly executed and I don’t know what we are still doing there now.

  3. You’d be great at it. You just pick the scene and characters then type in the dialog. There is something unique about how the read the lines. It helps makes points that get lost when there is too much emotion in the voices.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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