Neo-Cons Applaud Obama’s War, Call For Occupation Of Libya (Iran, Iraq)

[summers73]

Originally Posted by Smash255

I support the No-Fly zone, as far as an actual war and sending in ground troops into Libya, I am against that.

Do you support the No-fly zone as it's implemented by Obama? Meaning, launching missiles into the country itself?

[oz in SC]

Originally Posted by Minethatbird

Maybe you should applaud Mr Kristol as a conservative that practices what he preaches????

Kristol is a neo-con.

William Kristol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[oz in SC]

Originally Posted by Smash255

I support the No-Fly zone, as far as an actual war and sending in ground troops into Libya, I am against that.

You do know the no fly zone allows the coalition to attack anything that might be a threat to civilians or civilian areas right?

Meaning any and all Libyan armed forces,including their navy.

The resolution, adopted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter:

• demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;
• imposes a no-fly zone over Libya;
• authorises all necessary means to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas, except for a "foreign occupation force";
• strengthens the arms embargo and particularly action against mercenaries, by allowing for forcible inspections of ships and planes;
• imposes a ban on all Libyan-designated flights;
• imposes an asset freeze on assets owned by the Libyan authorities, and reaffirms that such assets should be used for the benefit of the Libyan people;
• extends the travel ban and assets freeze of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 to a number of additional individuals and Libyan entities;
• establishes a panel of experts to monitor and promote sanctions implementation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...esolution_1973

[Minethatbird]

Originally Posted by oz in SC

Kristol is a neo-con.

William Kristol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your point being ......?

[oz in SC]

Originally Posted by Minethatbird

Your point being ......?

He is not a conservative,hence the term neo-conservative.

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by oz in SC

It seems the leftists are salivating over the idea of having their VERY own little war with a nation that was no threat to the USA....

Must get them all tingly feeling.

And who would know better about tingly feelings than the rightists... I will take your word on THAT. However, we shall see if it translates to real war with foot soldiers on board. I think shutting down Gaddaffi is a necessity, and you clearly prefer to turn your head away, from fear repeating your mistakes in the past.

Would UN Peacekeeping on ground in post-Gaddaffi era while the nation stabilizes politically, if it happens, fit your idea of war?

[Smash255]

Originally Posted by summers73

Do you support the No-fly zone as it's implemented by Obama? Meaning, launching missiles into the country itself?

Being aimed at targets that impact enforcing the no-fly zone, (such as some of the air systems and Military targets) I'm fine with, though going much beyond that, I would be against.

[oz in SC]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

And who would know better about tingly feelings than the rightists... I will take your word on THAT. However, we shall see if it translates to real war with foot soldiers on board. I think shutting down Gaddaffi is a necessity, and you clearly prefer to turn your head away, from fear repeating your mistakes in the past.

Would UN Peacekeeping on ground in post-Gaddaffi era while the nation stabilizes politically, if it happens, fit your idea of war?

Here it is again,this idea that as long as you don't have ground troops it isn't a war.

How positively Orwellian....

I imagine to all the dead Libyans it might be thought of as a war but what would they know.

[summers73]

Originally Posted by Smash255

Being aimed at targets that impact enforcing the no-fly zone, (such as some of the air systems and Military targets) I'm fine with, though going much beyond that, I would be against.

Inconsistent definition is inconsistent.

No-fly zone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[oz in SC]

Originally Posted by Smash255

Being aimed at targets that impact enforcing the no-fly zone, (such as some of the air systems and Military targets) I'm fine with, though going much beyond that, I would be against.

Then you must oppose the current no fly zone.

It allows the 'coalition' to attack almost anything including power stations....not sure how a power station would be a target but who knows since we are redefining words nowadays.