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.
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'.
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'.
Well, there you have it....JUST because we have no "boots on the ground" does not mean war......who cares about all the bombs we dropped...
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'.
Since Obama has proven to be just as much of a warmonger as Bush, it's just easier for his supporters to re-define war rather than having to justify his actions.
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.
Maybe we are, maybe we are not. But the fact that two officers say something is not definitive proof.
And disagreeing with somebody does not mean you are calling them liars.
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'.
Were there troops on the ground in NYC on 9-11-01?
Well, there you have it....JUST because we have no "boots on the ground" does not mean war......who cares about all the bombs we dropped...
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
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.
