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.
Exactly. There is no strategic national interest for the US in Libya. If the Arabs want him out, let them do it. The Saudis and Egyptians have Billions of dollars worth of US military hardware. Why are we footing the bill for yet another military boondoggle again?
eygpt has is still without a govronment it is still military run till they stablize and have elections. But they were arming and helping the rebel forces from behind the secenes.
You know, I've never heard that assessment made here before. And I've certainly never heard it said so hypocritically within the same sentence.
It's actually a well known fact. The more outrageous a program is - whether reality TV or "news" - the more viewers tune in. CNN's trying to take the high road. The bias and manipulation of Fox is well, well documented.
That's all for a different thread - please stick to this topic.
Bluefly, best get your liberal friends back on board with Obama's war plan.
I'm neither conservative nor liberal. I'm certainly not an anti-war peacenik when the justification is right. I supported invading Afghanistan, opposed Iraq but thought Obama was wrong for opposing the surge in Iraq, and I think he's right for supporting the international coalition to keep the revolutions toward democracy and peace churning throughout the region.
It would be a round about way, but Obama may well earn his Peace Prize yet.
So you oppose France being involved in Libya's civil war?
France has no choice but to take a side and become involved. Basically they have to chose the winner and in fact there influence will ultimately decide the winner. If they don't chose the winner or sit by and watch then the winner (I hate that term in war) will cut them off catapulting there economy down. I support the side that they have taken because I want the people in and Kadifi out. However I wish that Kadifi had fallowed Mubaraks example but that was never going to happen.
I'm neither conservative nor liberal. I'm certainly not an anti-war peacenik when the justification is right.
Just trying to wrap my head around how attacking a country that hasn't declared war with us justified?
However, I'm sure you'll be right in line trying to convince '08 Obama supporters to back your man in '12 even though he's going against the very message he campaigned on.
Quote:
I supported invading Afghanistan, opposed Iraq but thought Obama was wrong for opposing the surge in Iraq, and I think he's right for supporting the international coalition to keep the revolutions toward democracy and peace churning throughout the region.
This is just a clever war of trying to support the pro-war Obama and demonizing the pro-war Bush.
Quote:
It would be a round about way, but Obama may well earn his Peace Prize yet.
Even our own officials don't know what the endgame is. Only time will tell if ground forces will be used. If they are it will be years, not days or months, before we leave.
Initial bombing called successful; endgame unclear - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110320/ap_on_re_us/us_us_libya_military - broken link)
"..but American officials on Sunday said it was too early to define the international military campaign's end game."
Just trying to wrap my head around how attacking a country that hasn't declared war with us justified?
No you're not. Just a few days ago all your radical extremist flip-flopper brethren were attacking Obama for not charging ahead and bombing Libya without UN / Arab League support. You're just trying to find a way to score cheap political points for your side. Did Afghanistan declare war with us? Did Somalia? Bosnia? Iraq? Grendada (under Reagan), Vietnam?
Weak, Summers73. Weak.
Quote:
However, I'm sure you'll be right in line trying to convince '08 Obama supporters to back your man in '12 even though he's going against the very message he campaigned on.
What has he gone back on? He said he is against stupid wars. He campaigned on expanding the war in Afghanistan. He never said he's against limited military interjections to stop bloodshed by a government in a critical region of the world. You should have followed his campaign rather than dismissing him right away if you're going to now pretend to know what he actually said.
Quote:
This is just a clever war of trying to support the pro-war Obama and demonizing the pro-war Bush.
He hasn't yet, can't see how he'll earn it here.
Wrong again, kid. I was behind Bush and his entirely Republican controlled congress when they invaded Afghanistan. Has nothing to do with who's in charge. It's the purpose. Unlike Bush, Obama wisely let the UN lead and is taking a backseat on a mission focused on human rights, not threats to our nation.
Huge difference.
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.
