Obama: US Launches Military Action Against Libya

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheOracle said:
woah woah woah. There are no clear enemies or allies in war...
Click to expand...
In all wars? I don't think that's a true statement.
 
Jiro said:
I saw that today at gym. Secretary Clinton said that it's legal within UN Security Council Resolution. Enforcing UN resolution.. no problem... but I've got a big problem with funding and aiding Libyans with weapons and money.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that usually turns around to bite us later.
 
Jiro said:
good gracious - I hope not.

I'm praying this is all part of deception to force Gaddafi out of office.
Click to expand...
Does removing Ghaddafi out of office include his sons? If not, won't his reign be perpetuated thru them? :dunno:
 
Reba said:
The difference is that Ghaddafi, as the nation's leader, orders his troops to kill civilians as part of an official policy.
Click to expand...
they get praised for it as hero.

Reba said:
When American troops go rogue and commit atrocities (as described in that article) they do it as part of their own sick behavior, not part of an official military policy.
Click to expand...
they get prosecuted for it as murderer.

are you still confused, Steinhauer?
 
Reba said:
Does removing Ghaddafi out of office include his sons? If not, won't his reign be perpetuated thru them? :dunno:
Click to expand...

Most likely. It makes sense.
 
Reba said:
The difference is that Ghaddafi, as the nation's leader, orders his troops to kill civilians as part of an official policy.

When American troops go rogue and commit atrocities (as described in that article) they do it as part of their own sick behavior, not part of an official military policy.

Collateral casualties mean people who were not the primary targets are injured or killed as a result of being in proximity to the primary targets. It doesn't make their casualties any less tragic but it does make a difference as to circumstances.
Click to expand...

I am still waiting to see the statistics of the innocent casualties that Gaddafi has killed, as opposed to the number innocent civilians our Nation has killed in Iraq and Afghanistan (whether intentional or not).

Also, Gaddafi did not invade another country to kill those innocent civilians. Also, they don't produce 2% of the world's oil.

If our whole reason for being in Libya is to defend innocent civilians - then why HAVE WE NOT BOMBED CHINA FOR THE SAME THING?


edit to add: China was not killing armed "peaceful" protestors. Also, they don't produce 2% of the world's oil supply.
 
Steinhauer said:
I am still waiting to see the statistics of the innocent casualties that Gaddafi has killed, as opposed to the number innocent civilians our Nation has killed in Iraq and Afghanistan (whether intentional or not).

Also, Gaddafi did not invade another country to kill those innocent civilians. Also, they don't produce 2% of the world's oil.

If our whole reason for being in Libya is to defend innocent civilians - then why HAVE WE NOT BOMBED CHINA FOR THE SAME THING?

edit to add: China was not killing armed "peaceful" protestors. Also, they don't produce 2% of the world's oil supply.
Click to expand...
I'm not defending Obama's decisions on Libya. I merely explained the difference between the actions of Ghaddafi and the actions of our military.

I didn't know China was included.

Whether the casualties were intentional or not is an important difference.
 
We're not wiping out Libyan civilians. That would be counter productive. We are, however, trying to eliminate Ghadafi and Friends by force, cause you know he's not gonna show up at the Hague.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top