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.
Making excuses for the murders of innocent people based upon skin color because of the possible actions of other people of the same skin color is wrong,period.
I imagine so,doesn't excuse those killing innocent people though.
Yes.But we are only concerned with the USA,being Americans and all.What the French people think about the French involvement in this oil war is up to them.
My politician does.
Well, then ask him to get a spine and do something about it instead of providing lip service. I'm sure he has "friends"?
It is not an excuse when we know such immaturity and stupidity prevails even here at home, that the majority is always looking for an opportunity. And, I'm sure, Gaddaffi could use more of that one-sided propaganda. It helps his cause.
Such as this one. Is there a completely innocent side, that you know for sure, in this conflict? Are you sure Gaddaffi's people aren't engaged in similar acts?
So maybe we just should have stayed out of the whole thing cause nobody seems to know who anybody really is!
So maybe we just should have stayed out of the whole thing cause nobody seems to know who anybody really is!
That would be how an ideologue along the lines would go about his/her business. Others might decide action or inaction based on inside information that not all of us have access to. We, after all, went for inaction when it was Saddam gassing Kurds.
Having said that, I support engagement under UN but limited to No Fly Zone, to ensure the Libyan military and Gaddaffi's mercenaries aren't engaging in genocide and violent suppression. I do not support a direct arming of rebels, or even fighting for them.
But interventionist progressives would complain that the government isn't doing something!
Unless the man in charge has a (R) by their name.
Wow, usually at least six months passes before the revisionism starts.
So, now these people are progressives?
Sarah Palin
Newt Gingrich
William Kristol
John McCain
Joe Lieberman
David Cameron
...
"February 25, 2011 — In a distinct echo of the tactics they pursued to encourage U.S. intervention in the Balkans and Iraq, a familiar clutch of neo-conservatives appealed Friday for the United States and NATO to "immediately" prepare military action to help bring down the regime of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and end the violence that is believed to have killed well over a thousand people in the past week."
Wow, usually at least six months passes before the revisionism starts.
So, now these people are progressives?
Sarah Palin
Newt Gingrich
William Kristol
John McCain
Joe Lieberman
David Cameron
...
"February 25, 2011 — In a distinct echo of the tactics they pursued to encourage U.S. intervention in the Balkans and Iraq, a familiar clutch of neo-conservatives appealed Friday for the United States and NATO to "immediately" prepare military action to help bring down the regime of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and end the violence that is believed to have killed well over a thousand people in the past week."
Why are they rebels now but insurgents, infidel-spouting islamofacist inhumane killers before and just from where are they getting their weapons if Gaddafi is such a dictator? Aren't they all the same people (both sides of the Libyan conflict) that danced in the streets on September 11? Just who is arming them? Yes, I know the world is fighting about arming them but I want to know where their weapons are coming from now? I think this whole thing is one big clusterf**k.
To me it's not worthwhile to do this unless we keep Libya after the "regime change" is over. Maybe we can drill then and the heads of the "progressive" gasbags in this country will pop off.
Such as this one. Is there a completely innocent side, that you know for sure, in this conflict? Are you sure Gaddaffi's people aren't engaged in similar acts?
There is no innocent side in a civil war. Just
innocent civilians on both sides.
I remember when this all first started, there was
a student interviewed who stated "What civilians
is the UN coming to protect? The ones without
guns, or the ones with guns.
This is a civil war. Our presence just escalates
this. Anyone can see, NATO's motivation is to
overthrow a country, without a clue as to who
will replace it, or whether it needed
replacing in the first place. That is clearly not
the intent of a UN resolution for humanitarian
aide.
The one who seems to have a very big hand in
this is Hillary. Libya's civil war is nothing like
her husband's Bosnia. I just don't think she
knows the difference. But, it will end the same
way with our intervention - being a mistake.
There is no innocent side in a civil war. Just
innocent civilians on both sides.
That is hard to argue against. However, are civil wars always evil, and especially those starting it are? Or, could they be against oppression?
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.
