Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In exchange for what? Who in Libya is better than Ghaddafi?
Why is that our place to say? Who's better than Mubarak in Egypt? I don't know. Let the people decide. I'm pretty sure they can find someone with a few more marbles in place.
All this resolution is doing is providing the ability for the people to oust their dictator, reform government, and, if the trend of surrounding nations continues, build a more democratic system.
so what if Qaddafi decides to use tanks and artillery instead of aircraft?
If that happens, I suppose it will require Hillary to go back to the UN and renegotiate, and hoping China does not veto our brilliant foreign policy plan - waiting for the UN to tell us what to do.
I suspect your comment is more about a distrust of an international governing body. The details you're asking about get worked out as the process unfolds on the ground and new resolutions are presented at the UN. I imagine that if ground forces are necessary at some point, they will authorize ground forces.
The first move was made. Libya responded by grounding its forces. As Sanrene says, probably a wise move to retain power. But, now it's up to the rebels to decide to keep pushing or not.
Why is that our place to say? Who's better than Mubarak in Egypt? I don't know. Let the people decide. I'm pretty sure they can find someone with a few more marbles in place.
All this resolution is doing is providing the ability for the people to oust their dictator, reform government, and, if the trend of surrounding nations continues, build a more democratic system.
My point exactly....it's NOT our place to say. But enforcing a no-fly zone is explicitly picking the rebels in that fight. That's not your right to do. And if Ghaddafi wins, we'll look like fools.
No thanks. We look like big enough fools in Iraq and Afghanistan without picking up a new locale to look idiotic in.
So it is OK to help other people but just not our own? Got it!
That's always been the right wing mantra. Spend trillions elsewhere, but if a nickel goes to an American citizen, it's Marxism. But then...you knew that already.
My point exactly....it's NOT our place to say. But enforcing a no-fly zone is explicitly picking the rebels in that fight. That's not your right to do. And if Ghaddafi wins, we'll look like fools.
No thanks. We look like big enough fools in Iraq and Afghanistan without picking up a new locale to look idiotic in.
We're not picking the next leader. We're picking the right for people to choose their leader because that is what they are demanding with these revolutions. We (the international community) are saying people have a human right to redress their concerns about government without being bombed and gunned down for it. Obama's sided with the people in every uprising so far. Only difference is that this one hasn't proceeded as peacefully.
It's a human rights issue at this point, not just a political one. Waiting for the international community to form a united front on this issue was wise.
Very silly, al qaida is a clear and present danger. Are you suggesting we were trying to bomb innocents in the tribal regions? Again the stench of the moral equivalence.
The only problem with going after him is we lost sight because W wanted to go after Iraq more.
Why is that our place to say? Who's better than Mubarak in Egypt? I don't know. Let the people decide. I'm pretty sure they can find someone with a few more marbles in place.
All this resolution is doing is providing the ability for the people to oust their dictator, reform government, and, if the trend of surrounding nations continues, build a more democratic system.
You think the baker and candlestick maker will be forming a government? We don't even know who the leaders of this rebellion are, you are just assuming they are freedom loving people, and not vengeful anti-Qaddafi wannabe tyrants.
Right and wrong is black and white issue. Either the no-fly zone was the right action to take, or it wasn't.
If our foreign policy is to defer to the decisions of the UN before taking any action, then we are rudderless and have no foreign policy at all.
And the president supports the NFZ, so what's your point?
A wise foreign policy is working with the international community, which is what we did in this case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
