Quote:
Originally Posted by scout
I think I could take some of you much more seriously if you applied the same set of rules to both sides of the political fence. Unfortunately, there seems to be a double standard applied that is directly correlated to which party currently resides in the White House.
|
If you think that is the case, perhaps you can explain how a limited action under a NATO banner and UN mandate is in any way comparable to a full scale unilateral (in all but name) invasion and occupation of an Arab nation against the wishes of most other countries, particularly those in the Arab world.
If, in fact, the same set of rules applied - no UN mandate, commitment of over 100,000 US ground forces, a long-term occupation, etc - then you might have a legitimate argument.
---------- Post added at 08:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:18 AM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
...Dont confuse support for a no-fly zone with support for a war. I suspect many Democrats, like myself, support the limited actions to date and even a continued, preferably lesser, role of the US in maintaining the no-fly zone; I wouldnt support further US intervention with ground troops....
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
...i support this phase of the action with ambivalences. i do not support the idea of ground involvement.
|
What double standard as compared to Bush's invasion and long-term occupation of Iraq?
I think I could take you much more seriously if you explained the double standard...instead of just taking a shot and running away.