Obama: US Launches Military Action Against Libya

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheWriteAlex said:
I respect your opinion and the sacrifices you made, but I also know many Vietnam vets who have an entirely different opinion about that war. That's all I'm going to say.
Click to expand...

but... you're siding with them more. on most cases - they lack validity. just saying.
 
BIDEN: "If he gives authorization to war without congressional approval, I will make it my business to impeach him!"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adpa5kYUhCA]YouTube - Could Obama be Impeached over Libya? Let's ask Biden[/ame]


Guess who are eating shoes and words now? Foot in mouth syndrome is rampant lately.

Teh man child is awol lately, too.
 
Also, that was said in 2007.

Guess Biden's silence is pretty damning, no?
 
I thought the US was ready to hand over control pretty soon? Also, why would he need congressional approval to support a UN "peacekeeping" process? :dunno:

Don't get me wrong, I think it was dumb of Obama to be talked into sending troops to Libya just because "everyone else is doing it". Still...I feel like NATO would take over if needed. So honestly, I don't know how we would stay out of this one.
 
sequoias said:
More war? :-/
Click to expand...

Yup but president is hardly to follow their promise about there will be no war at all, however I doubt because there will be always war for many years. I believe that Obama's action on Libya is justified and hopefully, it won't take too long like Iraq and Afghan. We had US involvement in Somalia and Bosnia before, along with UN for several years.

I feel bad for Libyan civilians to suffer from abuse and torture by Libyan dictator.
 
TinCanSailor said:
What??? We tested the weapons that are being used in Libya years ago. The U.S. does not use weapons as tests in war because if they went wrong, then civilians would surely die. Very bad PR.
Click to expand...

Agent Orange, anybody?
 
Bosnia, which came to symbolise Europe's failure to prevent bloodshed on its doorstep , could provide a model for a new era as the world confronts Muammar Gaddafi.

Diplomatic sources say that a structure which has kept the peace in Bosnia could be replicated as the international community enforces the no-fly zone over Libya.

Diplomats in Brussels have become embroiled in bitter exchanges in recent days as they try to establish a command structure for the Libyan operation that would meet Barack Obama's demand to relieve Washington of operational control.
Click to expand...

Split on Libya averted as Nato given military control | World news | The Guardian

We've dealt with Gaddafi before - why can't we talk to him now? If Obama can "negotiate with terrorists", why not this man?

What's our duty to Libya?

This isn't ethnic cleansing. This isn't genocide. :/ *sighs* Here we go again...trying to create peace amongst tribal conflict. This is a civil war.
 
Foxrac said:
Yup but president is hardly to follow their promise about there will be no war at all, however I doubt because there will be always war for many years. I believe that Obama's action on Libya is justified and hopefully, it won't take too long like Iraq and Afghan. We had US involvement in Somalia and Bosnia before, along with UN for several years.

I feel bad for Libyan civilians to suffer from abuse and torture by Libyan dictator.
Click to expand...

Bosnia was an epic failure! We came in waaaayyy too late and did little. We can't go policing every nation that resists democracy...Do you see us firing torpedos at Saudi Arabia?

Everyone jokes that WWIII will start in the Middle East...sigh...Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Palestine & Israel...:sadwave:
 
TheOracle said:
Bosnia was an epic failure! We came in waaaayyy too late and did little. We can't go policing every nation that resists democracy...Do you see us firing torpedos at Saudi Arabia?
Click to expand...
no. We WILL go in and stop any nation that commit genocide.

TheOracle said:
Everyone jokes that WWIII will start in the Middle East...sigh...Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Palestine & Israel...:sadwave:
Click to expand...
I don't think we "joke" about that. It's a logical assumption. The past 2 World Wars happened in Europe and Asia because of political ideology including Korean War and Vietnam War. Now Middle East's going thru a major political ideology change.
 
TheOracle said:
Bosnia was an epic failure! We came in waaaayyy too late and did little. We can't go policing every nation that resists democracy...Do you see us firing torpedos at Saudi Arabia?
Click to expand...

They were practicing genocide in Bosnia, so people had to intervene. Better late than never. Besides, wasn't it Tony Blair who pushed for an intervention in Bosnia?
 
Banjo said:
They were practicing genocide in Bosnia, so people had to intervene. Better late than never. Besides, wasn't it Tony Blair who pushed for an intervention in Bosnia?
Click to expand...

We were very hesitant to go in to Bosnia...Bosnia also made Europe look bad. But the thing is...we went into Bosnia too late. Wayy too late...and then it was more symbolic than anything.

What I'm saying is, if you're going to act as a police force and stop genocide, then you need to do it when it's happening, not wait til the dust settles.

Again: Libya is not like Bosnia. The ideologies, history, and current issues are all different. So we don't have "stopping genocide" to stand on. What we have is a civil war. We're trying to "spread peace and democracy" again.

The one thing that may make Libya different in terms of outcome is that this is a people-generated revolution. It's grassroots, not something artificially created from the outside.

Still, who will be in charge when this is over? Can they guarantee peace and safety? Democracy? Free elections?
 
Jiro said:
no. We WILL go in and stop any nation that commit genocide.


I don't think we "joke" about that. It's a logical assumption. The past 2 World Wars happened in Europe and Asia because of political ideology including Korean War and Vietnam War. Now Middle East's going thru a major political ideology change.
Click to expand...

And what were we doing in Vietnam? Helping France and "spreading democracy". :hmm:
 
TheOracle said:
We were very hesitant to go in to Bosnia...Bosnia also made Europe look bad. But the thing is...we went into Bosnia too late. Wayy too late...and then it was more symbolic than anything.

What I'm saying is, if you're going to act as a police force and stop genocide, then you need to do it when it's happening, not wait til the dust settles.

Again: Libya is not like Bosnia. The ideologies, history, and current issues are all different. So we don't have "stopping genocide" to stand on. What we have is a civil war. We're trying to "spread peace and democracy" again.

The one thing that may make Libya different in terms of outcome is that this is a people-generated revolution. It's grassroots, not something artificially created from the outside.

Still, who will be in charge when this is over? Can they guarantee peace and safety? Democracy? Free elections?
Click to expand...

There's also Rwanda. General Romeo Dallaire, a Canadian who disobeyed U.N. orders to withdraw from the country. He saved lives, but he considered himself a failure because he wasn't able to save everyone.

Politics, it's such an ugly word.
 
It's not popular for the US to "intervene" in other countries, but then when it's all over, Americans feel guilty. We *tsk* and *hmm* over Sudan, Bosnia, Rwanda, etc...but *put soldiers in danger*? :shock: I also (personally, unprofessionally, shot in the dark) feel that our acts in Afghanistan and Iraq have discredited any future attempts to "police" nations that maybe need a little smack-down.

Are Canadians the same way?

Do you think we would have been in Darfur if not for Iraq and Afghanistan? The American people "seemed" concerned, but there was no call for military intervention.
 
TheOracle said:
We were very hesitant to go in to Bosnia...Bosnia also made Europe look bad. But the thing is...we went into Bosnia too late. Wayy too late...and then it was more symbolic than anything.

What I'm saying is, if you're going to act as a police force and stop genocide, then you need to do it when it's happening, not wait til the dust settles.

Again: Libya is not like Bosnia. The ideologies, history, and current issues are all different. So we don't have "stopping genocide" to stand on. What we have is a civil war. We're trying to "spread peace and democracy" again.

The one thing that may make Libya different in terms of outcome is that this is a people-generated revolution. It's grassroots, not something artificially created from the outside.

Still, who will be in charge when this is over? Can they guarantee peace and safety? Democracy? Free elections?
Click to expand...

it's obviously a sensitive legal and international issue. you can't just step into other country and have your way just because you say it's wrong of them to do this and that.
 
Banjo said:
There's also Rwanda. General Romeo Dallaire, a Canadian who disobeyed U.N. orders to withdraw from the country. He saved lives, but he considered himself a failure because he wasn't able to save everyone.

Politics, it's such an ugly word.
Click to expand...

and Somalia.
 
TheOracle said:
And what were we doing in Vietnam? Helping France and "spreading democracy". :hmm:
Click to expand...

no. to stop the spread of communism. that was our goal. South Korea was a major asset for Americans in Vietnam... 2nd largest ally. Communism is our hatred and common enemy.

remember - USSR & communism fear (aka Red Scare) were very real at that time. now.... it's Islamophobia.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top