Liberal Talk Show Host Ed Schultz Suspended Over Disparaging Remarks

Name a President in the last 65 years who doesnt fit that description.

 

His action prevented the death of tens of thousands of Libyans. And yes that number includes innocent children and babies (redundant) you propagandist. Or did you think Khaddafi was bluffing when he said he would kill all the rebels?

So your opinion is that genocide is acceptable and that the US should sit back and watch it happen. Now I call that, CRIMINAL.

 

Where's the hope? Where's the change? Are you turning a blind eye, too to the killing of innocent children?

 

YOUR rhetoric is propagandist, but you can't see it! And, no, using the term "children" and "babies" is not redundant. "Children" can mean adolescent humans who might have the ability to try to escape bombs. "Babies" (in the context in which I'm using the word) means infants who are unable to even walk, much less run, hide or even know what a bomb is. I don't agree with America killing children or babies, but you seem to find it justifiable and that is sickening.

You have an extremely bad habit of putting words in someone's mouth. Genocide is despicable, but, if we're going to become the world's policeman, then we should police the entire world where genocide is happening. Wouldn't you agree with that? The basis of your entire argument is that it's fine to invade a country in order to prevent the killing of human beings (even if our actions are responsible for the murder of innocent people). I suppose you would agree that it would have been fine for England to invade the U.S. in 1861 in order to prevent the Union from killing Confederate troops. You're wrong for defending Obama's invasion of Libya and the subsequent murder of innocents. War is not the answer.

 

Innocent of what? Can you name a President within the last 65 years that doesnt fit your definition of a war criminal?

 

Are you serious? I'm talking about innocent children. I'm not even going to bother responding to you. And, dummy, I'm not saying that other presidents WEREN'T guilty, I'm just adding Obama to the mix. He's no saint, you know... I just thought we were in for some change, that's all.. oh, well......

 

No I'm not serious. Lighten up Francis. I saw a picture of a teenage boy mutilated by Lybian. If I had the power I'd like to bomb the $hit out of that guy.

 

OK, I thought you were being serious. Lightening up mode engaged.

 

In Libya we had two choices. The first choice was to do nothing and watch tens of thousands of Libyans die. The second choice was to intervene and deal with the collateral damage that would certainly result. The death toll is a fraction of the number that Khaddafi would have killed. Saying that war is not the answer because people will die is naive and illogical. Both scenarios result in the loss of human life. Intervening prevented many people from being killed including children and babies (redundant). It seems that you are justifying the death of thousands of Libyans as long as the United States is not involved. In other words, their lives only become meaningful if we kill them. If Khaddafi kills them, well, you can live with that huh?

Honestly, I don't have a problem with being the world's policeman. However, where I live, police get paid, and paid well. After each one of these incidents is concluded, we should hand the country who we helped a bill. Libya owes us many billions of dollars at this point in my estimation. I see no reason why we should continue to undertake these humanitarian military operations for free. If they want our help, they can pay for it.

 

I'm curious, what would be different today if Obama lost to McCain? What would he have done differently? Would we be in Libya? I'm having a tough time guessing lol