We are still funding their military though, so that's something that should be brought up.

Tries. Fails.

Aye that's the irony of this, and tbh the worst part is not Coulter's comments, it's the bit at the end where Maher says (referring to bombing the country) "Libya we did, for humanitarian reasons".

Yes Maher, invading/bombing a country is always humanitarian, I'm so glad your shining beacon of morality is here to guide us through these dark times.

Sorry, but it's not that simple. There absolutely was a humanitarian case for military intervention in Libya.

Gadaffi was busy slaughtering his own citizens for having the temerity to suggest that they'd prefer someone other than him running the country.

Of course, invading/bombing a country is not always humanitarian, but neither is it never humanitarian either. Military intervention can be a moral course of action.

And then Bill Mahar goes on to defend the bombing for humanitarian reasons?

After I said that CNN reported that we just stopped funding them. Finally something sensible, now only if we could go back in time to when we started supporting Middle East and African dictators.

Ok, but there's been maybe a couple of cases where military interventions were conducted for humanitarian reasons, this wasn't one of them.

Actually we have an interesting history with Libya. The bombing of Libya in 1986 was the first bombing ever to be conducted for Live Television. It took careful planning but it happened just when nightly news came on in the united states, and they don't have bureaus in Libya so they had to find out that this stuff was going on well before in order to get people to film it.

The US has never been interested in humanitarian intervention and should never be given false credit for it.

Actually, to me, one of America's greatest achievements in the world was the Marshal plan. I'd say that was a good 80/20 humanitarian reasons vs. political.

Was it for humanitarian reasons? Or was it because we were going to get something in return?

Also that's not military intervention which was what we were talking about.

Compassion bombs should not be underestimated.

Newsflash: Ann Coulter has achieved maximum effectiveness through her formulaic use of distraction and disinformation, culminating in incensfotainment/disinfortainment for the so-called enlightened peepsters of planet media whore.

Question: Who fucking cares about Ann Coulter or who, what,why, where, and how Fox news belches THEIR version of bullshit? Media, is Media, is corporate fucking media,period. The only job of the mouthpiece of Babylon is to misinform, distract, and program monkeys into two or three simplistic, easily herded, robot-wage-slave designations.

Hold that line consistently though. In Iraq and Afghanistan, when it is pointed out that western actions there are not purpose built to kill civilians, the left is all over the fact that does not make them any less dead. In the case of Libya, the UN sanctioned bombings, even if engaged in for selfish gain, still saw the Libyan civilians no less alive. Gadhafi had promised a genocide, and was marching across the country implementing that genocide. The bombings stopped that. I say be consistent, and whether the bombings were driven for selfish reasons or not, the humanitarian cause of stopping a genocide was never the less averted.

Where you're going wrong Chaos, is that you're using common sense and logic. No good in arguments like these...

Maybe Maher should have used the sarcasm button . . .

@ghark
@notarobot

I recall news reporting just prior to military intervention in Libya was suggesting that Gaddafi's forces were approaching Benghazi and there were expectations of massacre if they were to reach it.

Wikipedia for what it's worth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

"9 March 2011: The head of the Libyan National Transitional Council, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, "pleaded for the international community to move quickly to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, declaring that any delay would result in more casualties".[38] Three days later, he stated that if pro-Gaddafi forces reached Benghazi, then they would kill "half a million" people. He stated, "If there is no no-fly zone imposed on Gaddafi's regime, and his ships are not checked, we will have a catastrophe in Libya."[39]"

"17 March 2011: The UN Security Council, acting under the authority of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, approved a no-fly zone by a vote of ten in favour, zero against, and five abstentions, via United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. The five abstentions were: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and Germany.[49][50][51][60][61] Less than twenty-four hours later, Libya announced that it would halt all military operations in response to the UN Security Council resolution.[62][63]"

Ann Coulter Sounds Like Moron, Tries to Save Face

Honestly, though, it's getting hard to keep track of who we have and haven't bombed these days.

The problem is A-it did not stop the train wreckage, B-it doesn't replace Gadaffi with anyone that is humanitarian so it isn't really doing jack shit. We would be better of jacking off at home imho.

But the main thing--all those assholes make themselves seem dumb so it's disingenuous to point out Coulter for her stupidity. If the title was Anne/Mahar and dumb guests make asses, I would upvote...

Naw...I tried that plan and it didn't divert Qadafi's advance in the slightest. Plus, I got pretty chafed.

If it looks like a moron and it sounds like a moron.

Yeah, yeah, but I bet she's a freak-a-deek in the sexy-room....

Ugh, I bet it's full of cobwebs