112 Cruise missiles - What a mistake

[vy65]

Lol Assad sympathizer.

[CosmicCowboy]

Are these reasons why the international community shouldn't have gotten involved in Libya?

Are there reasons why the international community didn't get involved with all the other Genocidal African Dictators and we just sat by while they slaughtered their people?

[vy65]

Are there reasons why the international community didn't get involved with all the other Genocidal African Dictators and we just sat by while they slaughtered their people?

I don't see what that has to do with my question.

[CosmicCowboy]

Chump, you are like a ing parrot.

Do you ever have an original, well thought out take on anything or is the best you can do just to come in and nip and snipe at others?

[ChumpDumper]

Are there reasons why the international community didn't get involved with all the other Genocidal African Dictators and we just sat by while they slaughtered their people?

Are there reasons why the international community did get involved with another genocidal Arab dictator and we sacrificed thousands of American lives to that end?

[ChumpDumper]

Chump, you are like a ing parrot.

Do you ever have an original, well thought out take on anything or is the best you can do just to come in and nip and snipe at others?

I'm asking you whom you are parroting.

You still haven't answered.

[CosmicCowboy]

I don't see what that has to do with my question.

Your stupid question?

Yeah, we just put our international stamp of approval on whatever ed up mess eventually comes out of Libya.

Just like Bush in Iraq, there was no thought on what our end game would be if the revolt succeeded.

[TDMVPDPOY]

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn....why-not-syria/

If Libya, why not Syria?
Editor's Note: Tom Malinowski is the Washington Director for Human Rights Watch. Previously, he was special assistant to President Bill Clinton and senior director for foreign policy speechwriting at the National Security Council. The following is an edited transcript of his oral response to the following interview question: If Libya proves successful, why not Syria?
There are big differences between Syria and Libya in terms of the kind of intervention that’s possible or desirable.
In Libya, the opposition found itself in the first week of its revolt in control of almost half of the country’s territory. And then a conventional armed military force marched in their direction with bloody intentions. It was possible for NATO to interdict that force and protect the civilians in opposition-held areas by air power alone.
In Syria, that’s not the case.
The protest movement is dispersed throughout the country. The Syrian government and military still control every city in the country.
Even if an armed military intervention were welcomed by the Syrian people, it’s hard to see how air power alone could protect them from Assad’s snipers and tanks.
On top of that, it wouldn’t be welcomed because the Syrian opposition has said very clearly that they don’t want that kind of outside intervention.
They do want political support; they want economic sanctions; they want a lot of other things but not military intervention. So there are those differences.
All of these regimes are fairly hollow at the core. They resist change violently as long as they can. But once people lose their fear and once people supporting or defending the regime conclude that the tide has turned against them, they tend to collapse relatively quickly.
So I think you do have this common pattern of apparent stalemate for weeks or months on end followed by very rapid collapse. That’s what happened in Libya and it will be interesting to see whether something similar happens in Syria.

u also forgot syria has many allies thats willing to help it fight a war...lebanon, iran and some arab states...all can change if those allied countries end up in arab spring

[CosmicCowboy]

Are there reasons why the international community did get involved with another genocidal Arab dictator and we sacrificed thousands of American lives to that end?

The only variable I see that Iraq and Libya have in common that those genocidal dictators in Africa didn't have was oil.

So Chump, you support war for oil?

[vy65]

Your stupid question?

Yeah, we just put our international stamp of approval on whatever ed up mess eventually comes out of Libya.

Just like Bush in Iraq, there was no thought on what our end game would be if the revolt succeeded.

Lol you're getting ted on and are just making this worse.

Please explain how the UN and NATO were invovled with Bush's invasion of Iraq.

[CosmicCowboy]

Lol you're getting ted on and are just making this worse.

Please explain how the UN and NATO were invovled with Bush's invasion of Iraq.

Please quit asking me to do the homework on your stupid questions. Google is your friend.

[ChumpDumper]

The only variable I see that Iraq and Libya have in common that those genocidal dictators in Africa didn't have was oil.

The Sudan has plenty of oil.

[ChumpDumper]

Please quit asking me to do the homework on your stupid questions. Google is your friend.

I only found your list on other forums.

Where did you find it?

[vy65]

Please quit asking me to do the homework on your stupid questions. Google is your friend.

Yeah, we just put our international stamp of approval on whatever ed up mess eventually comes out of Libya.

Just like Bush in Iraq, there was no thought on what our end game would be if the revolt succeeded.

You brought it up. You have homework to do.

Lol Assad sympathizer.

[CosmicCowboy]

The Sudan has plenty of oil.

Sorry, the sudan is so ed up theres nothing even we could do to fix it.

[jack sommerset]

The important message is that war is good under a democratic president and you don't need permission from congress.

[ChumpDumper]

Sorry, the sudan is so ed up theres nothing even we could do to fix it.

So you think the others can be fixed.

Nice.

Is the genocide still going on in the Sudan? What do your sources say?

[CosmicCowboy]

I only found your list on other forums.

Where did you find it?

Chump I found the list on a forum and then proceeded to provide independent verification for the list so give it up. You've beat that straw man enough. If you can refute the facts then refute the facts. Otherwise just shut the up.

[ChumpDumper]

The important message is that war is good under a democratic president and you don't need permission from congress.

jack is now a cons utional scholar.

[jack sommerset]

jack is now a cons utional scholar.

Chump now loves war.

[ChumpDumper]

Chump I found the list on a forum and then proceeded to provide independent verification for the list so give it up. You've beat that straw man enough. If you can refute the facts then refute the facts. Otherwise just shut the up.

Which forum?

I didn't see every point you already knew but paraphrased from some Arab guy you don't know independently verified.

You still have some work to do.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The important message is that war is good under a democratic president and you don't need permission from congress.

nah, just the one's where we sacrifice 4400 lives for nothing..even a dumba$$ like yourself could figure that out.

[ChumpDumper]

Chump now loves war.

Nah, I'm just entertained by your and others' partisan love for dictatorships.

[ElNono]

The important message is that war is good under a democratic president and you don't need permission from congress.

Not really. I certainly don't agree with that message. I especially don't agree with the 'don't need permission from congress' part.

The good part of the message is that working with international allies under the umbrella of the UN can bring positives, including saving money and american lives.

[vy65]

So lemme get this straight:

Unilateral war (ignoring the wishes of the international community/pissing them off in the process) with a country that leads to a ground troop presence for years along with tens of thousands of dead Americans is good?

Multilateral air and missle support (under the au es of the UN and NATO) with a country with no ground troop presence and minimal US casualties is bad?