Why are we even involved in Libia?

[lupi]

so why aren't we bombing syria yet?

 

[bfdd]

so why aren't we bombing syria yet?

bahrain?

 

[HomerJS]

It's a hoot watching the GOP trying to position themselves on this.

1. We must initiate a no-fly zone immediately. Obama does it and then...

2. I'm against the US participating in a no-fly zone. They get called on it and then...

3. Man I hope the American people forget #1.


BTW - Note to OP you were very close to accusing the US of invading Labia

 

[RabidMongoose]

so why aren't we bombing syria yet?

Europe doesn't need Syrian oil.

 

[BoberFett]

It's a hoot watching the GOP trying to position themselves on this.

1. We must initiate a no-fly zone immediately. Obama does it and then...

2. I'm against the US participating in a no-fly zone. They get called on it and then...

3. Man I hope the American people forget #1.


BTW - Note to OP you were very close to accusing the US of invading Labia

It's also a hoot watching Democrats do exactly what a neocon would do and then try to pretend that it's totally different.

 

[HomerJS]

It's also a hoot watching Democrats do exactly what a neocon would do and then try to pretend that it's totally different.

Bring together a coalition of the Arab League and the UN in 1 month.

Not imposing democracy by our military will but supporting Libya's own people to dispose dictator.

Turning over primary operations to NATO limiting risk to US soldiers.

Telling the American people the truth why we are participating in supporting the rebels instead of using the "mushroom cloud defense"

The similarities are striking

 

[BoberFett]

Bring together a coalition of the Arab League and the UN in 1 month.

Not imposing democracy by our military will but supporting Libya's own people to dispose dictator.

Turning over primary operations to NATO limiting risk to US soldiers.

Telling the American people the truth why we are participating in supporting the rebels instead of using the "mushroom cloud defense"

The similarities are striking

Just keep lying to yourself as the war escalates and lasts longer than you expected to. It'll help you sleep at night.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Bring together a coalition of the Arab League and the UN in 1 month.

We had a Coalition when we went into Iraq and got UN support eventually. Then again fuck the UN because we already had Congressional support and that matters a hell of a lot more then the shitty UN.

Not imposing democracy by our military will but supporting Libya's own people to dispose dictator.

We are using our military to impose who wins and loses.

Turning over primary operations to NATO limiting risk to US soldiers.

Cuzz the US is not part of NATO right and we aren't going to be there to baby sit the situation. :rolleyes

Telling the American people the truth why we are participating in supporting the rebels instead of using the "mushroom cloud defense"

The similarities are striking

Thanks for admitting that this has gone beyond a "no-fly" zone action to actually escalating a conflict to determine a winner and loser...hint "Using our miltiary to impose democracy".

 

[werepossum]

Secular Islam. That is the funniest thing I've ever heard.

Judging by what the main stream media has been telling us about Egypt, secular Islam = Muslim Brotherhood. YMMV

 

[Tom]

one word..

camel toe.

 

[werepossum]

Bring together a coalition of the Arab League and the UN in 1 month.

Not imposing democracy by our military will but supporting Libya's own people to dispose dictator.

Turning over primary operations to NATO limiting risk to US soldiers.

Telling the American people the truth why we are participating in supporting the rebels instead of using the "mushroom cloud defense"

The similarities are striking

LOL "Turning over to NATO" = Americans still pulling 90% of the missions, but Obama can now take credit OR run from responsibility as the situation warrants.

One thing I don't understand - his speech was all "ME, ME, ME, ALSO ME, ME, MORE ME . . ." Yet supposedly we were only helping out our allies. If this is truly Obama's baby, why the need to wait a month? And if he truly has been working on this for a month, then clearly he had plenty of time to take this to Congress for approval, just as both he and Biden have repeatedly insisted a President must do. So, WTF?

 

[Zorkorist]

I'm just amazed that Obama can declare war on a country... er, enforce a UN ruling in like seven days, when it took Bush like 3 months of public scrutiny before he actually "enforced UN resolution X," and invaded Iraq.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

I heard on the Radio today, that Obama's immediacy was as a result of a belief that Khadaffi was going to attack his own civilians and destroy them (ie. civil war).

But, when Iran's Greens, attacked their Government, and were duly suppressed, Obama was left actionless.

I guess there is a learning curve, even for Presidents of the United States.

-John

 

[HomerJS]

LOL "Turning over to NATO" = Americans still pulling 90% of the missions, but Obama can now take credit OR run from responsibility as the situation warrants.

One thing I don't understand - his speech was all "ME, ME, ME, ALSO ME, ME, MORE ME . . ." Yet supposedly we were only helping out our allies. If this is truly Obama's baby, why the need to wait a month? And if he truly has been working on this for a month, then clearly he had plenty of time to take this to Congress for approval, just as both he and Biden have repeatedly insisted a President must do. So, WTF?

I love people who are incapable of thinking past talking points. We have to keep our footprint on this as small as possible for better credibility on the Arab street. That is vital for long term success. Yeah practically as part of NATO we are involved but we are trying a different approach minus the chest thumping.

 

[werepossum]

I love people who are incapable of thinking past talking points. We have to keep our footprint on this as small as possible for better credibility on the Arab street. That is vital for long term success. Yeah practically as part of NATO we are involved but we are trying a different approach minus the chest thumping.

Yeah, I could tell that about you.

 

[lupi]

So who's in the lead for the next peace prize, ghadaffi? Hamas leader?

 

[Genx87]

So how humanitarian is it to prolong a civil war by weeks? Looks like Ghaddafi's troops are pushing the rebels back again even with a no fly zone. This could had been over by now if we didnt intervene. So are we going to start attacking his troops to "level" the playing field?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

There may be some Al Qaeda mixed in among the rebels in Libya, wouldn't it be ironic if the US armed them only to be attacked later by the same said people.

 

[jonks]

Gadaffi could have massacred the opposition by now if we didnt intervene.

ftfy.

I btw, am not opposed to intervention, merely the unilateral executive action in conducting intervention.

 

[Genx87]

ftfy.

I btw, am not opposed to intervention, merely the unilateral executive action in conducting intervention.

Yes he could have and this would be over would it not? Civil wars are ugly, often worse than foreign invasions. Our civil war was the bloodiest of any war we fought. Including World War II.

But the point is it would be done. Sounds like he is going to massacare them anyways. Except now more of these "civilians" we were trying to protect will be stuck in the crossfire.

Also what the hell kind of uprising is this where we are going to have to literally do their fighting for them to succeed? I cant imagine the cause is worthy enough if it requires us win it for them.

 

[Genx87]

There may be some Al Qaeda mixed in among the rebels in Libya, wouldn't it be ironic if the US armed them only to be attacked later by the same said people.

Yup, I mentioned this a few pages ago. The irony is just too much. Using our resources to help AQ take Libya.

/facepalm

 

[jonks]

Look there was going to be a squirmish whether or not we intervened, at least this way we have a shot at influencing the result.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Look there was going to be a squirmish whether or not we intervened, at least this way we have a shot at influencing the result.

If this allows Al Qaeda to get a good stronghold in Libya you have made the situation worse, not better.

 

[werepossum]

If this allows Al Qaeda to get a good stronghold in Libya you have made the situation worse, not better.

I'm not sure that is correct. Kadaffi was a long time sponsor of terrorism; admittedly he publicly renounces it when it looks likely to cause problems for him personally, but he always goes back to it. Only if al Qaeda gets a good stronghold coupled with strong access to government resources would things necessarily be worse. It's also possible that al Qaeda could get a good stronghold in Libya, but be opposed by the new government - sort of like in Yemen today, where the government is nominally our ally against terrorism but the nation itself is very friendly to Islamic terrorism.

It's also possible for terrorism to gain a better foothold in Libya if we did nothing. Everything one does has both cost and risks, including doing nothing.

 

[bfdd]

So much for "not forcing regime change", Obama authorized special forces to support rebel forces. Like I said, I don't care why we are there, but the double speak and hypocrisy is not acceptable.