We reserve the right to NOT SUPPORT dumb wars that are expensive in treasure and life, where there is not a payback that is worth the cost of the war, like Iraq in 2003-2010.
It is also NOT TRUE that there are only two kinds of people in the US, conservatives and liberals. There is a large segment of independent moderates, that some on the left label as liberals because they listen to Rush too much, and they are wrong.
One man's civil war is another's multi-party system.civil war, whereas in Iraq we created one
you confused me.
On another note:
Wonder why we are really in Libya.... Wallstreet ripping off the Libyan people with Gadaffis help?
I wonder if something is misrepresenting Libyas funds or if Gadaffi is a direct part of the collusion.
Also, you cant help others make war on a country and say you aren't part of the war. If you peel a potato and feed a combatant you are just as much a part of the war as a missle strike or laser painter.
Is society was made of coral our world would be floral.
Whether Bush lied or not, even Bill Clinton and much of the world community said Iraq had WMD's and would use them. Don't try to make this Libya situation a Bush thing. It's not, it's an Obama thing.
In response to the OP:
1) Anyone who didn't realize that the day this mission moved beyond humanitarian objectives was the day it started, needs to pay more attention
2) Obama =/= NATO. Just sayin'
3) I'm not sure what the presence of attack helicopters has to do with anything. I don't think they are ours (American).
- Colonel Paul YinglingNobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.
Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.
All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
I don't remember if it was day 1, but when euro countries recognized the transitional government as the legitimate government of Libya and many in NATO flat-out said that Gaddafi had to go...
Does it seem reasonable for those countries to declare that Gaddafi is, once again, the legitimate government of Libya?
Now has troops in country where?increased hostile actions in Pakistan and has attacked Libya and now has troops in-country there.
Anyway, regarding Pakistan:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Militar...S-drone-attackIlyas Kashmiri, a top Pakistani militant and senior Al Qaeda operative, reportedly has been killed in a US drone strike in the tribal territory of South Waziristan, according to press reports and a statement from the group he headed.
Kashmiri is believed to be behind some of the deadliest attacks in India and Pakistan, including a 2009 suicide attack on Pakistan’s spy agency and attacks on US forces in Afghanistan.
He is the operations chief of a group called Harakut-ul Jihad Islami, which has some 3,000 militia members and is classified by the US as a terrorist organization tied to Al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and the Punjabi Taliban.
A Newsweek profile headlined “Is Ilyas Kashmiri the New Bin Laden?” said he “has the experience, the connections, and a determination to attack the West – including the United States—that make him the most dangerous Qaeda operative to emerge in years.”
I'm not sure about that source. If true, Obama is doing well in Pakistan.
Last edited by ecofarm; 06-04-11 at 01:51 PM.
Your facts are a little wrong. The rebels took refuge in towns that tacitly supported their cause and then were bombed and sieged.whereas, in Libya, this brutal dictator has been slaughtering people in active rebellion to his government. And we jumped in...on...who's side exactly? We are engaging in the ouster of a government...and thats OK...just cause. Just not in Iraq. Wait...what?
Repubs just want to attack Obama for anything. Granted, we should not be directly promoting regime change. I'm not sure if the objectives could have been met any other way though.