US Attacks Libya

[jsteele]

Here is an illustration of the problems with trying to create democracy at gunpoint:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8398519/Libya-US-fighter-pilot-rescued-by-transformer-aircraft.html

"The other pilot was reported to be safe and in 'American hands'. Six villagers were believed to have been shot by a US helicopter during his rescue."

So, a US fighter jet whose mission is to protect villagers crashes with its pilots ejecting. US aircraft arrive with guns blazing, despite that this is near Benghazi which is exactly the city we are allegedly protecting. I guess those villagers don't have to fear Qaddafi anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think we have played this pretty well so far. Let the Brits and France take the lead. We lob a few cruise missiles - might as well be a war game or target practice. Hopefully the army has a coup against whathisname and we can all go home.

Except that no one had planned who would take the lead after the US's initial lead.

The lack of planning here is unbelievably irresponsible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Except that no one had planned who would take the lead after the US's initial lead.

The lack of planning here is unbelievably irresponsible.

quess what? Nobody cares!!
Big men play politics, if it goes this way or that, the Libyans will be worse off

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Here is an illustration of the problems with trying to create democracy at gunpoint:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8398519/Libya-US-fighter-pilot-rescued-by-transformer-aircraft.html

"The other pilot was reported to be safe and in 'American hands'. Six villagers were believed to have been shot by a US helicopter during his rescue."

So, a US fighter jet whose mission is to protect villagers crashes with its pilots ejecting. US aircraft arrive with guns blazing, despite that this is near Benghazi which is exactly the city we are allegedly protecting. I guess those villagers don't have to fear Qaddafi anymore.

well I HOPE (though who knows with Obama's kill teams) they shot the villagers because they were being shot AT. I'd imagine the rules of engagement are pretty limited.

but you are right that this could be a complete clusterfuck, and we have no idea which tribe lives where, who supports who, who to trust, who wants to be liberated, who wants to take over power, etc. disaster in the making. thanks Obama.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we have played this pretty well so far. Let the Brits and France take the lead. We lob a few cruise missiles - might as well be a war game or target practice. Hopefully the army has a coup against whathisname and we can all go home.

Except that no one had planned who would take the lead after the US's initial lead.

The lack of planning here is unbelievably irresponsible.

It will get sorted out. The reality is that the urgency of the situation does not allow for good planning and buttoned down agreements. But we didn't control the timeline. It was dictated by the fighting on the ground.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't follow. I agree with the PP that Bush was acting in good faith, and that 99% of the intelligence supported that Iraq had WMD. So where was he not wrong? Obviously Saddam was a bad guy, a murderous dictator, but that wasn't the reason for the invasion. It was the supposed failure to comply with UN resolutions.

And that 99% percent of evidence was gotten with a google search
They had no weapons of mass destruction.

FYI the African nations have condemned the attack on Libya. And nobody know who Gaddafi will be replaced by, or if he even will be replaced

That's true even here. It's not a good enough argument to support a wacky dictator anymore.

[Anonymous]

"Nothin but nothin is sweeter than this. Watching liberals fall all over themselves and argue with each other about whether we should bomb a country that didn't attack us now that they are doing it. BUSH WAS RIGHT !!! he supports this action I'm sure."

This started when Kadafi attack us back in the day and that clown ronald (lets name everything after him before people realize what he did)reagan. He dropped a few bombs, lost a plane, then tucked his tail and ran, just like in Beirut. (reagen legacy, cause american casualties, they will run) We have been trying to mop up the mess for years

[Anonymous]

There is always a convoluted / grasping argument for why Obama / democrats/ liberals are SO dissapointing. The actual reason is simple, liberal ideas always fail because they fail to take reality into account.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we have played this pretty well so far. Let the Brits and France take the lead. We lob a few cruise missiles - might as well be a war game or target practice. Hopefully the army has a coup against whathisname and we can all go home.

Except that no one had planned who would take the lead after the US's initial lead.

The lack of planning here is unbelievably irresponsible.

It will get sorted out. The reality is that the urgency of the situation does not allow for good planning and buttoned down agreements. But we didn't control the timeline. It was dictated by the fighting on the ground.

This is not a good enough reason.

[Anonymous]

16:40 Wow you just call reagan a liberal. I see you point he increased taxes and spent a lot! Look up in the sky....it's the chicken hawks, first the say let's go, last in line to fight! Maybe that can the the GOP's election song?

[Anonymous]

Why are we in NATO? It looks like we are fight for germany's oil supply and they won't help, Turks want out, other countries in NATO will not let us use their bases(which we paid for) what the f? Lets get out of this thing! Some congressman should look into how much money we would save by pulling out of NATO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are we in NATO? It looks like we are fight for germany's oil supply and they won't help, Turks want out, other countries in NATO will not let us use their bases(which we paid for) what the f? Lets get out of this thing! Some congressman should look into how much money we would save by pulling out of NATO

NATO is not a one week deal. It is the most important military alliance in the world.

[Anonymous]

Please NATO is a joke. The other NATO countries do not have the capability to do anything. NATO is a one side "alliance". We spend all the money and allow the Europeans to spend a fraction on their military. If the shit hits the fan, NATO will not stand with us. Indeed "NATO is not a one week deal". NATO will not last a week. Please Germany, France, etc will not come to our aid. Let them secure their own oil!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothin but nothin is sweeter than this. Watching liberals fall all over themselves and argue with each other about whether we should bomb a country that didn't attack us now that they are doing it. BUSH WAS RIGHT !!! he supports this action I'm sure.

There is absolutely nothing "sweet" about this situation. Whatever your political leanings, your comments are callous and out of place. Our president and other world leaders are trying to protect a group of people who have the determination and will but lack the money, military equipment, and numbers to bring down their evil "leader" without help. I'm sure it's been a very hard decision for President Obama to make. He needs our prayers, not gleeful mockery from posters like you.

[Anonymous]

Jeff, I know you are a big free speecher and all that, but for goodness sakes, could you PLEASE block the crazy guy? How are we supposed to have a reasonable debate????

Can we vote him off our DCUM island?