portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

human & civil rights | imperialism & war

Ten Top Ways Libya 2011 is Not Iraq 2003

The differences between George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya.
Here are the differences between George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:

1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.

2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.

3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.

4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).

5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.

6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.

7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last "days, not months" before being turned over to other United Nations allies.

8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.

9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration's 'coalition of the willing' in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.

10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions

OK, I'm convinced 22.Mar.2011 20:51

coaster

It sounds like a real good idea to bomb Libya.

Obama should not be trusted 22.Mar.2011 22:01

historian

"President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last "days, not months" before being turned over to other United Nations allies."

Wasn't it Rumsfeld who said something real similar about Iraq?

Candidate Obama also pledged to seek Congressional approval for stuff like this. Why believe his new pledge?

. 22.Mar.2011 22:02

.

Liberals desperately want to hold onto the notion that the U.S. should be bombing countries halfway around the world because we are the moral ones. They never learn.

Oh, and BTW, the US is in command of the operation and Obama has declared that the US mission is to remove Gaddafi - so much for just imposing a no-fly zone to protect civilians. The no-fly zone is already established, yet the US is escalating the pace of attacks. So with the 124 tomahawk missiles and 100 tons of other ordinance fired or dropped on Libya, how many people have we killed? Some of the targets of US bombs are civilian sites and the US bombed the capitol Tripoli.

According to the WSWS: "The highway linking rebel-held Benghazi and Ajdabiya, a city that remains under Gaddafi's control, was littered with the "burnt out wreckage of what was Gaddafi's armour and tanks," Aljazeera correspondent Tony Birtley reported Monday. These soldiers were massacred by US jets as they retreated from Benghazi under a unilateral ceasefire decreed by Gaddafi but rejected by the US and its allies. It was Gaddafi's second appeal for a ceasefire in three days."

Also from the WSWS: "International condemnation of the attacks mounted on Monday. The US, France and Britain, while operating under cover of the UN resolution, are acting outside of the official structures of NATO. Formal NATO participation has been blocked by Turkey, which opposes military action against the Gaddafi regime.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Monday condemned the operation as a "medieval call to crusade" and called the UN Security Council resolution allowing the attacks "defective and flawed." Russia, along with China, Brazil, India and Germany, abstained from voting on the resolution, thus allowing the US, France and Britain a veneer of diplomatic legitimacy for the war of aggression.

Speaking at a meeting of the African Union, South African President Jacob Zuma said Monday his government opposed "the regime change doctrine and... the foreign occupation of Libya." Zuma was part of a high-profile African Union committee that had intended to travel to Tripoli to broker a peace deal between Gaddafi and the rebel forces. The US-led coalition refused to allow them to land, however. India has called for an immediate cessation of air strikes, and China convened a United Nations Security Council meeting Monday to discuss Libya."

So look past the UN facade and this is a US operation whose scope includes regime change. This is a war of aggression by the US.

the lies just flow 23.Mar.2011 00:46

from obamas mouth

Now the liar-in-chief Obama is claiming that Gaddafi is a direct threat to US national security... Except it is the US bombing the hell out of Libya, not the other way round.

Obama is such a liar. He is a murderous war criminal and should be in jail. That there are millions of liberals/progressives still defending him shows just how brainwashed and obedient they are.

Obama is 23.Mar.2011 00:50

loathsome

There is no doubt that U.S. participation in the Anglo-French-American attack on Libya is completely unconstitutional. As Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, before becoming president Barack Obama, a graduate of Harvard Law School and a former law professor, accurately described the limits of a president's authority to initiate a war in cases where the U.S. has neither been attacked nor is in imminent danger of attack:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.



Everything this vile man says is a lie!

. 23.Mar.2011 01:43

.

Juan Cole is a sell out as he grovels at Obamas feet

hmm 23.Mar.2011 01:50

Jason

The Libyan War: Unconstitutional and Illegitimate
 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27739.htm

The UN vote for a no-fly zone was opposed by Russia, China, India, Brazil and Germany. Voting with the US was France, Britain and a bunch of small countries easily swayed by US power (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal and South Africa). Much of the world opposed the idea. Now seeing how it is going, other countries are backing away. Norway for example has withdrawn its jets because this is a US operation, not a joint NATO operation.

Regarding the Arab League request for a no-fly zone: "And what of the alleged moral authority provided by the Arab League? A week after calling on the UN to impose a no-fly zone on Libya, the Arab League reversed its position, once western bombs began to rain down on an Arab country. Explaining the reversal, Amr Mussa, the secretary general of the Arab League, said: "What has happened in Libya differs from the goal of imposing a no-fly zone and what we want is the protection of civilians and not bombing other civilians.""

Now Obama is claiming that Gaddafi is a direct threat to national security. An obvious lie.

hmm 23.Mar.2011 01:51

Jason

The US action in Libya goes well beyond a no-fly zone. Obama declared that the US objective is regime change which goes well beyond the UN accord. Also,the bombing is not under the control of NATO but is a US operation and has included the bombing of civilian sites.

From the WSWS: "International condemnation of the attacks mounted on Monday. The US, France and Britain, while operating under cover of the UN resolution, are acting outside of the official structures of NATO. Formal NATO participation has been blocked by Turkey, which opposes military action against the Gaddafi regime."

and:

"Speaking at a meeting of the African Union, South African President Jacob Zuma said Monday his government opposed "the regime change doctrine and... the foreign occupation of Libya." Zuma was part of a high-profile African Union committee that had intended to travel to Tripoli to broker a peace deal between Gaddafi and the rebel forces. The US-led coalition refused to allow them to land, however."

These 'Top Ten Ways' Arguments Are All Hollow 23.Mar.2011 08:32

blues

/ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
\____________________

The UN Security Council authorized nothing at all:
_____

Article 27

1. Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
2. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.

 http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter5.shtml
_____

This means, an abstention, not being an affirmative vote, is the same as a dissenting vote (there exists no UNSC "veto," thus the lack of affirmative votes of the permanent members prohibited this attack). The Libyan Invasion (or "action") was never authorized by the UN at all.
_____

Webster Tarpley:

Interference in Libyan internal affairs violates UN Charter

Diplomatic observers were shocked by the sweeping resolution passed by the Security Council, which allows "all necessary measures" to be used against Libya. The United Nations Charter strictly limits Chapter 7 military actions to threats to international peace and security, which Libya has never represented, but rules out interference in internal affairs of member states. The pretext cited in this case was the protection of defenseless civilians, but it is clear that the rebels constitute an armed military force in their own right. Since no state can be an aggressor on its own territory, the Security Council resolution stands in flagrant violation of the UN Charter. Russia, China, Brazil, Germany, and India abstained. The resolution contains an arms embargo against Libya which the US is already violating by arming the rebels through Egypt.

 http://tarpley.net/2011/03/19/obamas-bay-of-pigs-in-libya/
_____

So, even if the Security Council resolution had been legitimately passed, it stands in gross violation of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.

The US Congress is now quite disturbed that this war was begun with no action at all on it's part. Congress was in recess during the entire period in which it was begun. So there is not even a Constitutional fig leaf to allow this war to be commenced with any Congressional consent.

/ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
\____________________

There is no indication that the Qaddafi government had lost control of Libya, or that it had attacked peaceful protesters. Rather, the Libyan government was attacking heavily armed "rebels," mostly in the eastern area of the country. These "rebels" appear to have been mercenaries from England, Israel, and the US, who had trained and armed aggressive tribal warriors (including members of al Qaeda) with tanks, heavy arms, and apparently even jet bombers.

/ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
\____________________

There are very real ongoing civilian massacres occurring in Saudi Arabia, Gaza, etc, etc. The UN does not ever do anything about those, however.

/ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
\____________________

The Arab League is a club of 22 members, many of which are far more vicious and repressive than the Qaddafi government. They are not at all in agreement about the War on Libya.

/ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
\____________________

In fact, the resolution specifically allows all "necessary actions" including the insertion of ground forces (and the mercenaries and special forces that are already in place). So the above claim is simply false. Only an "occupation" (whatever might constitute that) is prohibited.

/ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
\____________________

The allegation of (authorized) massacres of peaceful civilian demonstrators is likely to be false.

/ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last "days, not months" before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
\____________________

Israel took the "lead role." President Obama's pledges are not universally trusted.

/ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
\____________________

The Qaddafi government has turned over massive quantities of guns and heavy weapons to the general population. So there may well be a prolonged battle with the foreign agents, mercenaries, and their trained warlords, at least until occupation forces are inserted.

/ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration's 'coalition of the willing' in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
\____________________

We won't know about any bribes or arm-twisting for some time. It's a bit odd that these "humanitarian" countries are so willing to work with the nation that perpetrated Fallujah, killing countless women and children with white phosphorus, "depleted uranium, and saturation bombing. And which has slaughtered over one million Iraqis to enforce freedom.

/ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions
\____________________

Since when has Qaddafi attempted to undermine anything? Any genuine Tunisian or Egyptian "democratic experiments" are rather unlikely in any case.

Unlike Tunisia and Egypt, etc. (especially Egypt). Libya has not kept all its economic resources in the hands of its rulers. The Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is truly socialist, with the highest literacy rate, general prosperity, health care, longevity, etc. of all nations on the African continent. This is perhaps not surprising, as it has about six and a half million citizens, and over 10% of the world's petroleum assets.

Please feel free to repost this where these "Top Ten Ways" arguments are posted.

The Golden Rule 23.Mar.2011 14:51

Wrench Monkey

If we have the right to attack a nation-state that we view as treating its people badly, then all other nation-states have the right to attack us under similar circumstances.

Who can deny that we treat our minorities badly, including torture of them in our filled-to-the-brim prisons?

See:  http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-march-21-2011-sarah-vowell for Jon Stewart and John Oliver on America's Freedom Packages.

Down with the Qaddafi Regime and NO to Imperialist Intervention! 23.Mar.2011 14:54

Cort Greene cort.greene@gmail.com

I am against intervention but where were those anti imperialists vocies when Qaddafi started working with the CIA in 1999, was a rendition point for torture by Egypt and the CIA and turned over all their documents on the IRA and other groups.

Libya was never socialist and the so called "peoples committees" have not been in vogue since 1988 and has been privatizing and working with capitalists since the late 80's also.

The Libyan leader condemned the uprising in neighbouring Tunisia amid reports on January 15th of unrest on the streets of Libya.Also he has blamed the recent unrest on Al Queda.

In a speech on Jan.15th Qaddafi, an ally of the ousted president, Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, said he was "pained" by the fall of the Tunisian government. He claimed protesters had been led astray by WikiLeaks disclosures detailing the corruption in Ben Ali's family and his repressive regime and said they were written by "ambassadors in order to create chaos".

In 1979 Qaddafi supported "reactionary" Muslim groups and sent Libyan troops into Chad in a coalition with French imperialism to take over the country.

Qaddafi deported over 30,000 Palestinians during the 1990's and Israeli military sources consider the fall of the Gaddafi regime to pose a "strategic danger" especially on the Zionist entity's southern front. Israeli army radio said Friday morning that Libya had greatly improved its relations with Israel as of late, and pointed out that the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs, Avigdor Lieberman, made special efforts to compliment Gaddafi during the board of ministers and security board meetings. He said that Gaddafi is a "credible leader".

The allegation of (authorized) massacres of peaceful civilian demonstrators is true and started in the middle of Januray during non voilent peaceful protests in support of the other Arab revolutions and you should have been following Libyan blogs or Al Jazeera to see this.

I knew it would just be a matter of time before someone blamed this on Israel 23.Mar.2011 15:32

notazionist

Israel, an offshore U.S. military base and a client state of the U.S., wants the same outcome in Libya as its master: a pro-U.S. empire supporting government. Ghadaffi is as irrelevant as Sadam Hussein was.

I am convinced 23.Mar.2011 18:17

observe and retort

I am totally convinced that the US Gov/military is now in a highly active state of psy-ops on US citizens. The psy-op techs are using Internet, social networks and indymedia type sites to conduct their ops.

I do not have proof, I just look across the whole thing and when I see so-called activist anti-gov sites and peeps posting support of US intervention, I am convinced that psy-ops are in place.

Be careful out there today kids.

. 23.Mar.2011 21:12

.

Yes, that is the case with the psyops

Obama 23.Mar.2011 21:14

Is a murderous war criminal

Obama is so disgusting. His fake pretentious smile. The way the lies so easily flow from his lips as he pretends to be earnest. He is revolting!

FU 23.Mar.2011 21:15

Cole

Top 1 way that Libya is not Iraq:

The current pResident is a democrat and I blindly support democrats and don't care how horrible their crimes I will still blindly support them.

Gotta 23.Mar.2011 21:17

Say it

I need a bath just thinking about how reprehensible Obama is. He is worse than Bush. He has 4 wars of aggression going. He didn't even make a pretense of getting approval from Congress. Bush talked about the unitary president, Obama is that tyrannical dictator that Bush aspired to be

Stellar 23.Mar.2011 21:20

Region

Obama is a sham, a con man, a fraud. And all the clueless liberals bought the lie hook, line and sinker!

Juan Cole is a moron.

George 23.Mar.2011 21:23

Who wrote some books

How many times are the fucking liberals going to fall for the same crap? WAR IS PEACE - We have to bomb them to help them!! WAR IS PEACE

. 23.Mar.2011 21:24

.

Juan Cole is a turd

Liberals 23.Mar.2011 21:27

are idiots

The liberals are such idiots that Obama could nuke the whole world and they would still be defending him!!

so 23.Mar.2011 21:27

there

Juan Hole is a clueless brain-dead loser

a 23.Mar.2011 21:29

quote

Few have any illusions about the actions of the "coalition." Even the guru of liberal interventionism, Michael Walzer, believes that this is the "wrong intervention." Why does the West seek to bomb Libya and not the Gulf States or Ivory Coast, or Darfur or indeed the Congo is plain to see. The answer to every question is the same: oil. For Bahrain's democracy activists the authorized intervention came from Saudi Arabia, whose interest is to crush dissent in the peninsula and to preserve the monarchies that encircle the first amongst equals, the realm of King Abdullah and the oil barons. Yemen is on the brink. Deals are being struck. Senior figures in the military and in the political wing who abandon Ali Abdullah Saleh have already been given assurances from their powerful backers. As long as the revolution does not go too far, and as long as the military can contain any move to radical democracy, all will be forgiven. The bogey of al-Qaeda takes care of Washington, and that of radical republicanism takes care of Saudi Arabia. Ivory Coast, Darfur and the Congo remain outside the realm of care.

Jumpin 23.Mar.2011 21:31

Barbera

"7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies"

If Bush were President, nobody would take this kind of crap seriously. The US pushed for this resolution but did it by proxy just so the murdering warmonger Obama could have his lackeys like Cole say this kind of drivel.

big 23.Mar.2011 21:33

balls

Obama is the most corporate friendly president in the history of the US. This is a straight up war of aggression launched by Obama. It cannot be blamed on Bush. This is Obama's bloodlust at work.

deja 23.Mar.2011 21:41

vu

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

"A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions"

Yes, we have to stop him fast. He is the bogeyman!! millions are at risk. He might destroy the world!! This Cole guy sounds EXACTLY like the Bush apologists on Iraq. EXACTLY the same. Shows that when it comes right down to it, the Republicans and Democrats are exactly the same

doi 23.Mar.2011 21:46

tright

Obama is a bloodthirsty fascist tyrant who was just itching to finally have a war that was all his.

pissed 23.Mar.2011 21:47

off

Juan Cole has been wishing for years that he could get his fingers on the trigger and drop a few of those big ones on some of those brown people. This is as close as he gets

tiny 23.Mar.2011 21:48

tot

juan cole is a bad man :(

Obama is a war-mongering Uncle Tom 23.Mar.2011 22:06

Told you so

When he was running for office, I called it: Obama is a war-mongering Uncle Tom.

same song different verse 23.Mar.2011 22:07

soloist

He's ending up worse than Bush Jr. There were more Predator drone attacks during the first year of Obama's administration than during both of Bush's terms put together. Each pResident has been worse than the one before him for quite some time now. Party -- and color -- doesn't matter. Gender won't matter in 2012 when they install Palin (to get rid of Roe v. Wade).

fuck the liberals 23.Mar.2011 22:09

made up

White guilt and an expensive media campaign put Obama in office. The liberals are the most clueless fucking fucks in this whole society. Check out Emma Goldman's Autobiography. Nothing has changed. The fucking liberals will fuck you over every fucking time, and Obama is their man.

Obama is a war-mongering Uncle Tom 23.Mar.2011 22:10

Told you so

When he was running for office, I called it: Obama is a war-mongering Uncle Tom.

Barrack: Big fat fucking Fake Head 23.Mar.2011 22:20

someone who knows

He's a one-termer and he's always known that from the beginning. His job is to make unpopular decisions and be voted out of office. They'll take care of him and his family for the rest of his life, and being so young, he might have a lot of it left. It's a good deal for him.

Obama isn't even "black" 23.Mar.2011 22:24

Fact-checker

He is half African, half American, but is not an "African American" or "Black" culturally-speaking. He is using his skin color to masquerade as someone who cares, but he is not. The Blacks that are falling for us are the biggest dupes of all.

little 23.Mar.2011 22:46

bastard

Juan Cole is defending a murderous regime. Shame on him

. 24.Mar.2011 10:42

.

Liberals only hate tyranny when it is not their guy in charge. Otherwise they are fine with it. As the old saying goes, scratch a liberal, find a fascist.

Obama 24.Mar.2011 10:45

is grotesque

Obama is a bloodthirsty ruthless tyrant. He just dresses nice and uses words liberals are conditioned to like. But behind the facade he is contemptuous of his constituency and he gets a secret pleasure in ordering the deaths of people.

agood 25.Mar.2011 15:51

idea

Obama is a fascist dictator and the people of this country should rise up against him and the UN should make a no-fly zone over the US

tf 25.Mar.2011 17:21

lib

Obama is a wienie

obama 26.Mar.2011 10:26

what you asked for

Hope all of you are happy with your obama vote. I said all along that all you were so lame-minded that you were falling for a charismatic liar. I was reading the Left Behind book series during the campaign, and I had to keep checking if I was reading the news or the fiction book. Obama IS Nicolai Carpathia because he is such a liar and salesman, and the majority of Americans were too blind to see through him. During his campaign, he never SAID anything of substance--he just promised of lot of hope and change, never explaining anything. You fell for it, and now you reap your vote.