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.
What an utter and complete idiot. Wow, are we lucky he chose Palin as a running mate.
What's your opinion of the "international effort to carry out airstrikes" in Libya? Did it get your goozle when Obama jumped at the chance? What's the difference here?
We should stay out of this internal Syarian blood bath.
What's your opinion of the "international effort to carry out airstrikes" in Libya? Did it get your goozle when Obama jumped at the chance? What's the difference here?
McCain is pro-any war, any time. It wouldn't matter if it was two tribes in Paraguay, he'd demand we jump into it.
What's your opinion of the "international effort to carry out airstrikes" in Libya? Did it get your goozle when Obama jumped at the chance? What's the difference here?
What's your opinion of the "international effort to carry out airstrikes" in Libya? Did it get your goozle when Obama jumped at the chance? What's the difference here?
If you don't already know the difference, it would be pointless to explain it.
What's your opinion of the "international effort to carry out airstrikes" in Libya? Did it get your goozle when Obama jumped at the chance? What's the difference here?
Somewhat skeptical. In retrospect, it was not worth the trouble.
Is that old fart trying a coup? I thought the President ran the country.
As with everything going on in the world today it's purely political. I am sure there are already talks going on to do the same thing but if course once it's carried out he and some other hacks from the GOP will try to say it's because of their doing.
There is a reason why people without actual power and control can shout stuff like this out to the public. No one believes them and they have no accountability in the end.
What's your opinion of the "international effort to carry out airstrikes" in Libya? Did it get your goozle when Obama jumped at the chance? What's the difference here?
I was supporter of Libya albeit very wary. While there are many similarties, there are also quite a few diffrences
Quote:
Syria looks like Libya all over again. A brutal dictator uses his military to repress his country’s protests. A civil war erupts. And, oh yes, a split opens among American liberals over what to do about it.
.....
There are two significant reasons the administration has not pushed for military intervention, however. First, the international consensus that existed on Libya is not present in Syria. Russia and China vetoed a Western- and Arab-sponsored U.N. Security Council resolution condemning the Syrian government. Imagining that they would agree to a military intervention is simply fanciful.
What hasn’t been much discussed is why China and Russia vetoed the resolution. And here we circle back to Libya. The resolution authorizing military action in Libya was limited to protecting civilians in Benghazi and other areas. NATO and its allies quickly went beyond the scope of this mandate, using airpower to assist the rebels in defeating Col. Gadhafi and his forces. Such actions may have been morally justified, but they didn’t go unnoticed by the Chinese and Russians, who are extremely sensitive to infringements on state sovereignty (lest they be targeted one day). Tellingly, foes of the proposed Syria resolution explained their decision in terms of national sovereignty. Russia’s foreign minister said that “the Security Council by definition does not engage in domestic affairs of member states.” Russia’s U.N. envoy faulted the resolution for aiming at “regime change,” even though the wording of the text notably did not call for it and the Arab states explicitly rejected Western military intervention.
The second reason Libya isn’t acting as a template for Syria is one of logistics. As Middle East expert Marc Lynch has explained, “Military intervention in Syria has little prospect of success, a high risk of disastrous failure, and a near-certainty of escalation which should make the experience of Iraq weigh extremely heavily on anyone contemplating such an intervention.” The Syrian opposition, impressive and courageous as they have been, is divided, weak and controls no territory. Air power of the sort the West can provide would not be effective in preventing civilian deaths, and the fighting is taking place in densely populated cities. For these reasons and more, a Libya-style no-fly zone simply won’t fly.
.
He can afford to talk tough because he isn't on the line for anything
He's providing 'political cover' for President Obama, should the President launch military strikes. And I think the President wants to do that, and McCain understands. Wink. Wink.
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.
