*moved
He tends to sink to that level himself fairly quickly and invite the kinds of pissy exchanges that ensues.
Personally I think that we should provide some support, but if anyone wants some boots on the ground, they had better be from Europe. No US combat formations. Cruise missles, bombing runs, sure.
I don't doubt that we have some special forces on the ground now though. I can live with that.
Those 112 millions aren't lost. That's money for the arms industry.
You have to use missiles to build new ones.
Oh, well now thats a relief!
$1M per cruise is at least 50% profit.
These 14 billions aren't lost. That's money for the transportation industry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_dig
Do you pay attention to how foreign policy works with autocratic regimes in the middle east? Whats been going on with Pakistan for the last decade?
And who really cares what the autocrats think? I am more interested in that HUGE demographic of dispossessed male middle easterners aged 16-34 cheering on their Libyan brothers who we are helping win.
How do you think people in Egypt, Bahrain and Iran think about this? How it effects our regional credibility if we help those rebels actually win?
This is not going to help us anymore than Iraq helped us. You guys don't seem to understand that we can't bomb our way to achieving goodwill among the people of the middle east and we especially can't do it when we're training and supporting the people who keep the boots on their necks.
What about the past 50 years of foreign policy makes you think its possible to achieve good will with military action in the middle east? Just what exactly? Its mind boggling how we repeat the same mistakes over and over and over again.
Welcome to Middle-Eastern politics.
Protecting civilian lives. Not saying I agree or disagree with this assessment, but they've said exactly what they're doing, protecting a populated city from being s ed by heavy ordinance.These attacks are bad for so many ing reasons and Obama has yet to explain to us or congress just what the we're doing.
They openly lied in public. I don't see how that's better. We aren't going to full-scale war in Libya. We aren't going to have a campaign there, to say nothing of an extended campaign. They are completely different operations.Say what you want about the Bushes, at least they made the case for war in the public and not behind closed doors before rushing off. Transparency my ass.
Obviously its not going to be an invasion (yet - I didn't think we'd even attack so yeah) but the bull reason that its to protect civilians is so old I'm shocked anyone even accepts it as anything but bull . Protect civilians in Libya but ignore civilians elsewhere in the exact same region that are crack down upon? Ignore sub sahara Africa once again where worse atrocities are being comited but we're ready to rain down the cruise missiles in a country with an oil supply?
I'll never buy into the protecting civilians argument again from this nation because its a total crock of . Complain all you want about Bush but this is the same ing thing.
As for the Arab League, you guys can't sit there and tout them asking us to come in (which is wrong to begin with because they didn't) and then write off their bull as "middle east politics". Hilary Clinton was all over giving interviews over how great it was to have their support and how it was the deciding factor in going to war but we're just supposed to ignore it when they come out on the first day of operations and pull that sought after legitimacy right back? Sorry, no.
Obama will regret not explaining himself to the people a great deal. Support for this is incredibly low for the start of a military campaign and that support will erode away the longer we're involved. This country is sick of its two current wars and certainly didn't want to see us involved in yet another attack in the middle east no matter how short the duration.
Between these actions and gas prices going up Obama sees the possibility of being a one term president increase each and every day.
At least Obama had the U.N. mandate with these actions, is all I'm saying. That's a HUGE ing step, and nearly a first for recent American conflicts/politics. The fact that we aren't charging into this region Duke Nukem style, guns blazing, with middle finger extended to the rest of the countries we call our allies is a step up for me. It's still not ideal, and I don't like the situation at all, but at least we're on the same page as several other nations.
Obama has greatly disappointed me as a President, but at least he knows how to be a diplomat and cooperate with the body of the United Nations. Something most front-running GOP candidates couldn't care less about, especially recently. If McCain was in office, missiles would have been fired the day those tanks rolled toward Benghazi, whether Congress, the UN, or the American people wanted it. If nothing else, he's somewhat building back the reputation of the United States working in concert with other people to achieve goals, and there's something to be said for that.
"Obama had the U.N. mandate ... a first for recent American conflicts/politics"
in 2002, Powell LIED to the UN to get the mandate for UCA to invade Iraq.
Lying to get someone's approval doesn't really count, IMO. That situation soured fairly quickly on us due to those lies. This mandate was obtained by the UN with what seems to be minimal pressure from the US. We didn't bully them into this resolution or into the No Fly Zone.
He doesn't have to explain anything. His media friends lie for him rather well.
US jet crashes in Libya; fighting rages in cities
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/af_libya;...NqZXRjcmFzaGVz
is it true that if you don't use them, you lose them?
http://www.nationaljournal.com/natio...321?print=true
Meanwhile I'm sure there will be a lot of bull about how we need to cut costs and programs here at home. We always find money to give to the MIC but NPR!
SO ing infuriating.With U.N. coalition forces bombarding Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi from the sea and air, the United States’ part in the operation could ultimately hit several billion dollars -- and require the Pentagon to request emergency funding from Congress to pay for it.
Well, there's one shovel-ready job, I can get behind.
Sweet. This is the kind of stuff that really gets people behind you.7:25pm
Channel 4 News is reporting that six villagers in a field on the outskirts of Benghazi were shot and injured when a US helicopter landed to rescue a crew membr from the US fighter jet that crashed late on Monday.
It said the local Libyans who were injured in the rescue mission are currently in hospital and that one young boy is expected to have his leg amputated due to a bullet wound.
http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/afri...libya-march-22
I'll give you that oil plays a large part in this - but - what's your alternative? Should we not intervene in Libya because we can't intervene everywhere?
My understanding is that the European countries - France in particular - are spearheading this operation because they consider Libya to be "in their backyard." That might have as much to do with the intervention as the oil.
Then let them ing do it. Why must we be involved? Yes, we should not intervene in Libya for a variety of reasons not the least of which is its expensive as all ing , its counterproductive as , and it is exactly what Obama said he wasn't going to do.
To spin this as if we had non choice or that somehow France and the rest of Europe gets to tell us who to attack is ing infuriating.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
