The stupidity of saying that the US is at war with Libya (Representatives, middle east)
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.
I've seen plenty of people here say the US is involved in a third war. I get it, they don't know much, have trouble getting through a newspaper and need to get their opinions from biased talk radio. I thought I'd post some people who have good right credentials and background.
For background on the issue, the UN authorized countries to use force to save the lives of civilians. Nato stepped in here led largely by France. The US is participating in a limited role where civilian lives are at risk and are providing largely logistical support (refueling, jamming telecommunications and also some military combat flights). The US was heavily involved at first to create a safe flight zone. The bulk of the actual bombing has is being carried out by European NATO countries
Robert Gates was George HW Bush's head of the CIA and was appointed by W (with his nomination passing 95-2) as the Secretary of Defense. The US Air Force's webpage quotes him here as saying, "Our goal right now (in Libya) is actually very limited," he added. "It is basically a support role."
Also, recent Republican presidential nominee and war hero John McCain said that the United States is only taking a back seat role in the operations in Libya.
Knowing this, if you still insist on saying that the United States is at war with Libya, then you are calling two decorated former US military officers (one of them being a former POW) liars. If you're doing that, shame on you.
According to the mindless stream media....... bombs with "D" on them=good bombs.........bombs with "R" on them=bad bombs.
That was to assist NATO. NATO is with us in Afghanistan and we are the major member. While I question why NATO exists, as long as we are a member we are committed
We were never technically "at war" in Viet Nam, either. We haven't been in a declared war since WWII.
Doesn't change the fact that we have bankrupted our nation waging pointless and unwinnable wars (call them conflicts if you like) for reasons that have nothing to do with defending our nation.
Arguing semantics doesn't change the over-a-trillion $$$ costs, the death and maiming of thousands of fine young Americans, the total lack of goals or even definition of "winning," and the fact that our nation's economy is now crippled and non-functional under a government grown bloated and insane on war-mongering.
Meanwhile, we all face the retiring of the Baby Boom, skyrocketing health care costs, massive unemployment and underemployment, wages stagnated since the 1970s, and a $14.3 TRILLION dollar national debt that necessitates total dollar devaluation, zero interest rates for retirees and savers, and an economy floundering with no manufacturing base or other solid engine to support the nation in coming years. Not only do we not have the money to deal with ANY of these issues, but we are paying huge taxes just to pay back the massive debt with interest.
War-mongering destroyed our economy and our nation. Let's at least put a stop to it now, before the whole thing crashes and we have to start again from scratch.
We're just now hitting $1 billion spent on Libya. War or not, time to end it. The fact we are wasting more money in a time when we need it most pisses me off. No comparison to Bush though, so you can drop that. We spend more than that per week in Iraq.
We have never been 'at war' with Libya which is why Obama did not need to go to congress. Bush got backing from congress because he put troops on the ground from the get go. Until Obama puts troops on the ground, he does not need to get congresses backing which is why the majority of congress has not said anything concerning Lybia after the 60 days were up. Right-wing pundits are callign it a war because they hate Obama and anything he does is wrong and 'against the law' even though they have no clue about 'the law'.
Actually I despise war no matter which Republicrat idiot is playing "Macho Man" in starting it.
Back this up to 2007 and we would see the exact same debate, with the exact same back and forth arguments, except each of you would be saying the opposite thing you are saying now.
We have no business being there, war, peace, relief effort, or any other effort. Why is US the only country to be involved in every conflict on the globe?
Let their neighbors deal with them, including Italy who's behind the corner. For once, lets take time off and watch others fight.
I've seen plenty of people here say the US is involved in a third war. I get it, they don't know much, have trouble getting through a newspaper and need to get their opinions from biased talk radio. I thought I'd post some people who have good right credentials and background.
For background on the issue, the UN authorized countries to use force to save the lives of civilians. Nato stepped in here led largely by France. The US is participating in a limited role where civilian lives are at risk and are providing largely logistical support (refueling, jamming telecommunications and also some military combat flights). The US was heavily involved at first to create a safe flight zone. The bulk of the actual bombing has is being carried out by European NATO countries
Robert Gates was George HW Bush's head of the CIA and was appointed by W (with his nomination passing 95-2) as the Secretary of Defense. The US Air Force's webpage quotes him here as saying, "Our goal right now (in Libya) is actually very limited," he added. "It is basically a support role."
Also, recent Republican presidential nominee and war hero John McCain said that the United States is only taking a back seat role in the operations in Libya.
Knowing this, if you still insist on saying that the United States is at war with Libya, then you are calling two decorated former US military officers (one of them being a former POW) liars. If you're doing that, shame on you.
There is nothing in the Constitution or laws that talks about if the UN "authorizes" the USA to participate in a multi-lateral use of force that this exempts the President from skirting his required duties to bring about the use of force.
That's absurd. You just spent four paragraphs on straw man argument...LOL
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.