Libya under attack

[davdah]

Birds away!




Today Libya came under fire by U.S., British, and the French forces with France firing the first rounds via air strikes on specific anti-air targets.

More.

[davdah]

Birds away!




Today Libya came under fire by U.S., British, and the French forces with France firing the first rounds via air strikes on specific anti-air targets.

More.

[ProudUSC]

Another war in the making. Just what we need, but I guess intervention was required at this point. I hope they finish this quickly and with minimal casualties.

[davdah]

Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya. We might as well just declare war on the whole middle east and be done with it.

Taking a step back, by what authority does anyone have to interfere with a country in turmoil? This isn't like Iraq where they were trying to take over other countries and we were stopping it. Who's to say how accurate the reports are coming from the opposing side. We got shnookered in Iraq with the imaginary WMDs. This is probably the same krap.

During the financial crisis there were riots in some European countries. Why weren't they shelled and tomahawked and their leaders asked to resign? This is getting out of control and we're stepping in too deep. One was bad enough, now we've got three fronts with Japan flooded, on fire, and glowing in the dark.

They said the same thing about Iraq. It'll be over in a few days. We're still there, years later.

[ProudUSC]

Ghaddafi has been bad news from way back. He's now killing his people just like Hussein did. They need to get him out of there and then leave the Libyan government to figure out what to do next. It's not up to the US or any other country to install a new government. Some countries are just not ready for a democracy. Iraq is a prime example. I guarantee when we pull most of our troops out of their, stuff will hit the fan. They've got all this religious infighting going on and noone can change that.

[Brit4064]

Not so liberal now is he davdah (Obama)? Amazing how fast you can change your tune though. I bet in 2003 you were cheering on Dubya. Now it's a bad thing to be fighting. Make your mind up!

Two big differences this time around is that the Libyan rebels started an uprising and asked for international help unlike in Iraq where Bush decided we needed to do a preemptive strike because of the alleged WMDs he had (which was never fully verified) and whose use was apparently imminent

I echo Proudie. Once "mission accomplished" they should leave and let Libyan people decide what happens next. Hopefully it won't be like Iraq where we have been stuck for years.

[davdah]

I think you need to call in your reinforcements Brit. More wars have been started by the left than right. So much for that argument.

Iraq had a leader with a propensity for invading other countries. intervention was much more justified then. That isn't what's going on here. It's a civil war of some sort where circumstances aren't quite clear. We stepped in too soon.

I wasn't cheering on anyone in 03. You should realize there has never been a case where we went it and tossed a few missiles and called it a day. This will surely turn into a long drawn out expensive endeavor. We'll assume liability for trying to introduce some brand of democracy denied people for decades. Two or three days? Nope, ain't gonna happen.

You've got terrorists waiting in the wings for an opportunity to waltz in and assume control. A population in a state of confusion and angry. A government divided between solidarity and change. The clean up and infrastructure repairs alone will take months not to mention lots of $$$.

We can't afford these sort of good will on a global scale missions any more.

Oh Iperson, you have no clue what you're talking about as usual. Just for the record.

[Hudson]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ProudUSC:
Ghaddafi has been bad news from way back. He's now killing his people just like Hussein did. They need to get him out of there and then leave the Libyan government to figure out what to do next. It's not up to the US or any other country to install a new government. Some countries are just not ready for a democracy. Iraq is a prime example. I guarantee when we pull most of our troops out of their, stuff will hit the fan. They've got all this religious infighting going on and noone can change that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So where was the UN when Ghaddafi revolted against the current government of Idris I? Beggers cannot be choosers here Proud.

This is something that the US should have left alone. I fear that no matter what happens, we weill be blamed for it by people who have a very short memory.

[Hudson]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brit4064:
Not so liberal now is he davdah (Obama)? Amazing how fast you can change your tune though. I bet in 2003 you were cheering on Dubya. Now it's a bad thing to be fighting. Make your mind up!

Two big differences this time around is that the Libyan rebels started an uprising and asked for international help unlike in Iraq where Bush decided we needed to do a preemptive strike because of the alleged WMDs he had (which was never fully verified) and whose use was apparently imminent

I echo Proudie. Once "mission accomplished" they should leave and let Libyan people decide what happens next. Hopefully it won't be like Iraq where we have been stuck for years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Brit,
Iraq and Lybia are two different situation. Iraq became a problem after it invaded Kuwait and did not heed UNSC Resolution in 1992. Everything that came after that is due in part of the cease fire agreement and UNSC Resolution 678 and others that followed. The lack of cooperaton among the IAEA inspectors was one of the grievances, not to mention a lack of compelte disclosure of its weapons. It even placed false blame to one of Saddam's son in law who was murdered by Oday, under his fathers orders. Libya is strictly an internal affair. It would be similar if the UN imposed a no fly zone on Canada if the Quebecans decided to revolt against the Canadian government.

Getting UN approval was a necessary step for internatinal recognition to make this action legal in the eyes of the world. But if a Republican president was in office, it would be a different story altogether. Nevertheless, it sets a dangerious precedent for future internal affairs and there will be those who will use this precedent for ulterior purposes.

As for mission accomplished, it should be defined first what the mission is and what the objectives are. But leaving is not exactly an option that can be immideately revealed. The US did this in Afghanistan in 1990 and look how that turned out. The same is with Lybia, Iraq, and every other ME nation. The politics involved is much more complex than the media gives credit for.

[davdah]

If we walked out once Sadamm was cuffed and snuffed Iraq would have plunged into the middle ages and be run by a mish mash of war lords and terrorists.

An open military action against mother Russia? In the 80's? Oh yeah, that would have ended real well.

[federale86]

Typical leftist hypocrites.

[Brit4064]

Davdah, remind me which country Saddam invaded in 2003? Oh yes, that's right he didn't.

He did invade Kuwait in 1990 which warranted the international response that happened. That was a just war IMO. The Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz 2003 bash wasn't. The WMD threat was talked up so as to get more countries on board and have a UN resolution approving the war.

Iraq didn't have a civil war until we removed Saddam from power. Then it became one and we were stuck in the middle trying to keep the peace. Hence the switch to "bringing democracy to Iraq" approach. That wasn't part of the original plan. They didn't have any kind of exit strategy. Having removed Saddam, they thought the locals would thank them. That didn't happen. Instead, the US was increasingly seen as an occupying force and the seeds of resentment began. Before you say it, Al Queda was not in Iraq until after the war began. So very different to the 1991 war which was meticulously planned and executed with comparatively minimal loss of life on both sides.

[davdah]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> simply regulate it for the greater good </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The greater good? The usual predicate and ambiguous justification for some atrocity committed against an individual. Who determines what the 'greater good' is? Of course, the left does. The people aren't smart enough to do that for themselves. That's the trademark and true motive of the left. They want to control you. individual freedom just gets in the way of the greater good. Why do you need freedom anyway when the state needs it for the greater good. The greater good makes you poorer, dumber, and in many cases, dead.

Brit, you should go back and do some fact checking on what was going on back then. Although some here think what's printed in some lefty extremist blog is the undeniable truth without questioning the source, there is always more to the story. More often than not when it comes to events that far up the political food chain, a lot more.

The more some of these morons claim to know this or that, the more likely it is a lie. I would go so far as to say some of it may even be enemy induced propaganda. Like Iperson here. Funny how she was so against Iraq when there was substantially more public information available condemning what Saddam was doing. Yet, here she is in a near euphoric state and clueless as to the rhyme or reason for it all.

In what looks like to become Obama's war, it is more than a call from rebels for help. There are countless civil uprisings and so forth occurring all the time and yet we pay no mind to it. Has anyone actually seen this so-called uprising? The give away during his speech was the comment, '...what's in the interest of the United states....' Little things like that count for more than you may realize and isn't just tossed in for effect.

That comment should make the lefties recoil since they would expect only the warmongering rightwing (sic) to make that statement. But wait, the left does instigate more military conflicts. Oh, those pesky facts.

Back to Saddam. He's ordered invasions before. If I had to guess, and that's all we can do since we aren't privy to the details. Regardless how insistent some progressive whackjob sitting at starbucks claiming to know the truth is, we don't have any facts. He was probably gearing up for it again.

[Brit4064]

You have a selective memory too davdah.

Remember in 2002/3 many countries were urging Bush to wait another 6 months because there were signs of civil uprising? Certainly after the original Gulf War, some in the Iraqi military attempted unsuccessfully to remove Saddam from power. He was not popular with his own rank and file military.

Remember people asking why invade Iraq to remove Saddam now? Why not do the same with other equally deserving nasty dictatorships around the world?

Exactly the sort of questions you now ask of the Obama Administration.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> what's in the interest of the United states </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didn't we hear that from Bush too? Can you say OIL?

I guarantee if the tables were turned and McCain had won in 2008, you'd be backing him to the hilt saying things like "for the common good" and "protecting our interests" etc.

I say again davdah, Obama isn't so liberal after all is he? I'm sure the far-Right will still say he's Socialist LOL

Chill out and have some of these davdah

[davdah]

You obviously don't understand English or our government that you claim to be such an authority on.

Question: Who is the commander in chief? Taking that context is the statement, Obama's war, incorrectly made?


Survey Says....No, it is correct since Obama is the commander in chief and in similar situations where a point of contact is given it is proper to cite the owner or leader of the given event.