i say, lets go for it and help out the french and italian supplies of oil. The French especially have been so helpful of us in the past. wasnt it the french that wouldnt allow us to cross their air space when we bombed libya in the 80's? leave it to us to pick a side in a civil war between terrorist groups.
Roma?? What US interests? USA Interests?? regarding support for Bush going into Afghanistan and Iraq There was nearly universal support for going into Afghanistan . I have NEVER said otherwise do not try to rewrite history. There was not the same support for going into iraq. Even you can't pretend there was. Was obama for instance in support? Are you really trying to say people didn't ask when Iraq attacked us? What interests do we have in Iraq? Why are we only taking out Saddam if it is to save people? Why not Sudan, Iran etc etc etc etc Remember the outcry that Bush did it for oil? Not sure why you are trying now to rewrite the years long vitriol.
Sixty-six percent support of Iraq invasion per Gallup. You'd be rewriting history if you bothered to read it in the first place. US interests? Stable oil supply, reputation as champion of self-determination are two that come immediately to mind. You may recall an actor named Reagan wanting us to be a "shining city on a hill." In addition to possibly being the right thing to do, it could also benefit the US to aid the rebels. You'll have to ask questions that have not already been answered to get much more response from me. Relevant questions, not second-rate sophistry or intentional obtuseness.
I thought Bush invaded Iraq because they would not comply with UN sanctions. The US chose to enforce those sanctions. There was a vote in the Legislature and they approved the uses of force. Some countries followed, most didn't. I understand the reason to fight Libya but it seems like there is little to no legal justification.
roma Once again if you read I said the same support as for going into Afghanistan and there was not. Do you deny there wasn't outcry that we were invading a country that had done nothing to us? Do you deny Obama said Saddam posed no threat to us or to his neighbors? Do you deny rant after rant after rant that Bush sent our military into action for OIL? Do you deny that haters insisted if we were going to remove a evil tyrant we should remove ALL evil tyrants? Did You Roma support the war in Iraq? Do you still?
roma so at the beginning you didn't think a war in Iraq to remove a murderous dictator would be in our long term best interests? Of all the reasons others used to not go into Iraq that was never mentioned so you get points for being against it for unique reasons. but now you think going into Libya is in our interests and will be worth the cost? based on what? What if we are still there is 3 years or5? We have no money now to pay for this, something which was not the case in 03. Of course one could also say if we hadn't gone into Iraq we might have money for going into Libya. Please don't paint what I posted as Bush good. Obama bad. I do not like the direction Obama wants the country to go and I did support Bush when I thought there were WMD. I did not support him on many other issues . BUT the hate from many for 8 years only to now see those same haters saying it is a good thing to attack Libya. that it is somehow all of a sudden in our interests and represents our ideals to free a people from a tyrant who kills his own smacks of hypocracy. Note I am not saying you are one of those people who used all the cliches we know. I was interested to see what US interests you think getting rid of Gaddafi serves. I frankly do not know how I feel about this action as i do not know what we are trying to achieve. Are we trying to get rid of Gaddafi? Are we tryng to create a new state around Benghazi?Are we only trying to moderate his use of force against people trying to overtake his sovereignty. ( you remember the old." we call them insurgents, they call themselves freedom fighters, the opposite of that is Gaddafi is only retaining his control) I wish as I know most in Congress do, that Obama would have explained what he was thinking when he authorized use of force.At least explained it to the leaders of Congress
if you were going to support going into Iraq on the basis that Sadaam was a bad guy for massacreing his own people then it is not so much a reach to support this effort on the same basis. Is it right or wrong? I think it is the right thing to do, though I will say that Will makes some great points. It is the right thing to do if there is a clear right and wrong side from which to choose. I am not sure there is one in this case. Perhaps the same could be said of Iraq as well. I do know that if you have the means to stop violence against innocent civilians at the hands of a dictator then you should likely stop it. Again that being said there are countless other place where the same thing is going on to a much larger scale. I am not going to beat up Obama on this because on the surface it appears it is he is doing what is right. I reserve the right to watch how we proceed through the military engagement and how we handle the fall out. I have little confidence he will handle either of those with much aplumb, but I really hope to be wrong on that.
2000 thanks for the great info It was said during a briefing yesterday that it was a mixture of new and older Tomahawks so some would have cost the 1.1 mil and some would have been at the 550 k or so. Not sure which the Brits used Plus they fired some more off today. Actually several news sources do report we sent B-52s. for exactly the targets you mentioned. edit to add B-2's have also been over there. flying from Whiteman AFB Mo and back looks like everyone is sending and using as much hardware as they can. Get it done quickly here from a Canadian source "Four massive B-52 bombers, each carrying 30-tonnes of bombs, also hit 20 Libyan targets – runways, radars, missile sites." The Link it makes sense you'd want to take out their runways and bombs would do it nicely.
i could see sending the B-52s after the air defenses have been eliminated. It wouldnt appear that Libya had much in the way of air defenses to begin with.
Libya and Iraq are two completely differnt situations. I agree with George Will, too many unknowns. I am a believer of if we do anything we go all in. Which includes boots on the ground and the rebuilding of the nation after the military aspect is done. I don't believe in devastating and destroying a country and leaving. I take as positives Germany, Japan and South Korea. So far we have been unsuccessful in Iraq and Afghanistan but it generally takes a generation or two to determine if rebuilding a country is successful. I agree with GW, too many unknowns, but if we do anything we do it all out and plan for the next 50+ years. Otherwise stay out. If we can't committ for the next 50 years, then stay out and let someone else do the dirty work. We can support their frontlines all we want.
Ron Paul had a good take on the situation on CNN last night if anybody saw that. I am for selective bombing by the allied nations in order to knock out some of Gadhafi's defenses. Make it a fair fight and wait and see how the situation develops. There are too many unknowns. What if we spend all these resources to overthrow one dictator just to find out it was basically a military coup that we supported and another dictator takes over?
Make it a fair fight? Jeezus. A fair fight means it may last a long time and a lot of people get killed. If you get in a fight you want it to be very unfair and short. Going in and leaving both sides with pointed sticks the same size means you end up with almost everybody blind. That is not a good result. If they want Q out of there, they need to use the power necessary to get him out. Period. And for the idea that there are too many unknowns in Libya, I would point out that there were a whole lot more in Iraq---we just didn't know they were unknown, to borrow a phrase from our former secretary of defense. A key to victory in any war is to realize that you really never know everything you need to. But you should anticipate that things may not go exactly as to plan and you may have bitten off a much bigger chaw than expected. Then you get to spend a trillion dollars learning what you did not know. What a bummer for the GIs and Marines. But it provides BAMC with a lot of work.
Better, but..........this is not a people of Libya v. The Tyrant episode. Some of the residents of that idyllic land are resisting him but for reasons we have not a clue about. Who they are, where they developed their fighting skills, where they got their weapons and what they plan to do after taking power from The Tyrant are as clear as tar. We have no clue. The Shah of Iran was A Tyrant. Aren't we glad the people rid the world of his influence? Aren't the people who run Iran now so much more to our taste? No? Well, maybe the Tyrant we know is better for us than the Tyrant we don't know. And who knows who is best for the people of Libya. If you don't know if there is any gasoline in the tank, you don't light a match and look in there to find out. We don't know in Libya.
