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.
Ummm... what's wrong with CNN? They're the most balanced between the loony left MSNBC and the loony right Fox.
Anyway - the opinion is from an expert in national security at NYU. So, unless you have a problem with NYU, please focus on the content and not the messenger.
Easy for the Arab League to "endorse" a no-fly zone while not contributing to the effort.
Basically, Obama waited for permission to strike, whereas GWB took the initiative. This is all political posturing on the part of the Obama Administration. I can't count how many times Secretary Clinton reiterated that this was an "international coalition" in yesterday's presser. My point? It was excruciatingly obvious that the word passed down to her from the President was to make sure she doesn't paint it as an American intervention.
Those who are quick to point out the other countries' involvement sure are slow to admit that the United States is providing far more support than any other country.
That sure sounds like a "US led" effort to me, just like Iraq.
We all know why we have joined the UN resolution to attack. Why would he waste time explaining what's all over the news?
Actually it's not been justified and the motives and mechanisms are highly suspect and questionable, even among the ranks of the heretofore staunch Obama supporters.
And because it's "all over the news" doesn't mean a thing.
WMD's were all over the news at one time.
Easy for the Arab League to "endorse" a no-fly zone while not contributing to the effort.
Basically, Obama waited for permission to strike, whereas GWB took the initiative. This is all political posturing on the part of the Obama Administration. I can't count how many times Secretary Clinton reiterated that this was an "international coalition" in yesterday's presser. My point? It was excruciatingly obvious that the word passed down to her from the President was to make sure she doesn't paint it as an American intervention.
Those who are quick to point out the other countries' involvement sure are slow to admit that the United States is providing far more support than any other country.
That sure sounds like a "US led" effort to me, just like Iraq.
Yes, this whole UN coalition crap is just a pure excuse.
This is the same UN which put Libya into it's human rights council (http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2010/05/obama-administration-refuses-to-condemn-libyas-election-into-the-un-human-rights-council/ - broken link) with Obama's approval. You know, the same UN which is now endorsing attacking Libya for human rights violations.
BTW, Russia, China, and Germany are NOT on board with this. So much for world support.
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.
