A Sea Of Red

Well, looks like we've gotten involved in yet another mess in the middle east. Why can't europe just take care of it themselves?

I'm oversimplifying of course, but I just feel we've gotten into another conflict we have no business being in. Any thoughts?

Agreed, we have no business getting involved. We don't even import any oil from Libya. It has nothing to do with humanitarianism. We're broke and can't afford to be involved. Actions such as these have unintended consequences and initial reports have already indicated many civilian deaths in our attacks.

Covert Hawk wrote:Agreed, we have no business getting involved. We don't even import any oil from Libya. It has nothing to do with humanitarianism. We're broke and can't afford to be involved. Actions such as these have unintended consequences and initial reports have already indicated many civilian deaths in our attacks.

More civilians that already had been killed by Qudaffi?(Sp) There is a difference between civilians being killed and civilians being targeted.

And for the record, Libyan oil reserves are being explored and accessed by American companies.

We have no business being involved in Libya. I don't care if we had a repub as president I would say the same thing. Libya has not attacked us, therefore let the Muslims kill each others, just means less terrorists in the future.
Funny I believe it is in the Sudan where there are people being killed, the US and UN are doing nothing to stop it. Must be because oil is not coming out of that country, just saying.

agreed, and thats all I really should say on the topic

Initial reports are saying civilians are being killed? That is a possibility when Libyan forces are using human shields. Keep in mind though that the source is Libyan state TV. They aren't exactly "fair and balanced."

Maybe it's just me but I think "civilian casualities" are completely irrelevant to the matter.

I hear ya, but I don't think people should take the word of Libyan state TV. Other than that I can't really comment on anything else due to my job.

bravo269er wrote:I hear ya, but I don't think people should take the word of Libyan state TV.

agreed.

4everfsu wrote: Funny I believe it is in the Sudan where there are people being killed, the US and UN are doing nothing to stop it. Must be because oil is not coming out of that country, just saying.

4ever you are absolutely right about Sudan..... Most government officials opinion is that "it's just a bunch of Africans killing each other". If what is going on in Darfur isn't genocide, then I don't know what is. Check out the video, "The Devil Came on Horseback", but I'll warn you it's pretty graphic.

After the holocaust of WWII we said never again, then came Rwanda and we said never again, and now it's Darfur. When is never again, really going to be never again?

ECUnited wrote:

4everfsu wrote: Funny I believe it is in the Sudan where there are people being killed, the US and UN are doing nothing to stop it. Must be because oil is not coming out of that country, just saying.

4ever you are absolutely right about Sudan..... Most government officials opinion is that "it's just a bunch of Africans killing each other". If what is going on in Darfur isn't genocide, then I don't know what is. Check out the video, "The Devil Came on Horseback", but I'll warn you it's pretty graphic.

After the holocaust of WWII we said never again, then came Rwanda and we said never again, and now it's Darfur. When is never again, really going to be never again?

I'm not disagreeing with you so don't misunderstand, but if there's a civil war anywhere in the world, why is it any of our business?

What gets me is the fact that we get involved in other countries matters. It's not our business. You can't say the Muammar Gaddafi is attacking innocent citizens with air-strikes - he's defending his government against citizens with guns trying to take over the country. What would have happened to us if France came in during the civil war and took the south's side? They didn't and after history played out - we ended up alright. War is war - I'm just sick of NATO and the U.S. trying to make the playing field even. What happens if Cuba strikes us? Will Nato say we can't use air, because that wouldn't be fair?

Just get out of everyone's business and let them fight it out on their own.

prototype wrote: Just get out of everyone's business and let them fight it out on their own.

And all of God's people, say AMEN!!!

Certainly glad the French didn't have that attitude around say....the late 1700's

If the earlier reports were true about Gadaffi, being behind the Pan Am bombings in the late 80s, I definitely feel like we should bring him to justice.

Something to consider. This has been my thought towards the UN. I would absolutely LOVE to get out of the UN....but if we did, the UN doesn't go away, and who's left calling the shots?

Again, just something to consider, and if it's going to be done, it has to be done right, or we'll just make a mess of it (much like Egypt is shaping up to be).

In response to this, many of my friends will drag out the well-worn, "why should America be the world's policeman?" argument. To which I respond: America must be the world's policeman because there is no alternative. Though, actually, that's not quite true. There is an alternative - the United States could withdraw from an active role in world affairs, which would be followed swiftly by anarchy, an assertion of foreign (likely Chinese) power, and a cataclysmic end of American prosperity. That is the alternative on offer here, ladies and gentlemen. We cannot choose between the United States as a quasi-imperial power and the United States as a nation of Jeffersonian yeoman farmers, isolated from the world behind two oceans. That choice went off the table, at the absolute latest, at Kitty Hawk.

American economic power is inexorably bound up with American military power. America's predominant place in the world's economic order is dependent upon America's status as a Superpower. That's because America's outsized influence in world affairs allows it to sustain a world system wherein America's free market system can out-compete most of the world. This is the best option available for most of the world because, frankly, the openness and diverse interests contained within the American political system prevent excessive abuse of that position of dominance. One cannot possibly imagine that a Chinese hegemony would suffer from any sort of enforced benevolence.

A retreat from military leadership would ultimately be one from prosperity as well, as alternative powers stepped into the void and shaped the world's economic landscape to their advantage. That is why the United States and its allies must police the world. Because if they don't, someone else will - and the result will be to our disadvantage.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/ ... r_the.html

prototype wrote:What would have happened to us if France came in during the civil war and took the south's side?

We wouldn't have all these friggin' Yankees moving down here.


Oh, and good job using the Civil War example as opposed to the Revolutionary War one.

The Marquis de Lafayette is disappointed at the Civil War reference. If the French had helped the South we would have had at least another 40 years of slavery. Glad they kept their noses out of that one and not the one in the 1770s.

As for Libya, I am conflicted. I was a big proponent of the No-Fly Zone weeks ago when the rebellion began. But I'm not quite sure how I feel about current efforts that frankly came too little too late.

blwall1416 wrote:

prototype wrote:What would have happened to us if France came in during the civil war and took the south's side?

We wouldn't have all these friggin' Yankees moving down here.


Oh, and good job using the Civil War example as opposed to the Revolutionary War one.

Now if he would have referenced the English coming into help out the South during the Civil War he might have had a point. But for that pesky slavery issue the Brits would have done everything in their power to help Bobby Lee and the boys. BUT, since England was the 'birthplace' of abolition, they just couldn't bring themselves to do it. It would have been globaly advantages to England to have the US divided in 2 parts. It would have kept their influence around the world.
Just sayin.

It's kind of random but about 2:50 I was driving into Roanoke and you could see what obviously looked like a missile launched into the sky. Not sure where it came from, but it had the obvious entrails, plus the black smoke.

Two thoughts on the matter:
1) If we are following the French in this one, as was stated on Saturday, does that mean we have to soil our pants and surrender to the Germans at the end of this thing?

2) The internets are full of wonderful information on what people have said in the past:
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." - Candidate Barack Obama, December 2007

Oopsie!

This is just Obama's plan to get the troops out of Afghanistan...he never said he wouldn't send them somewhere else.

TDDance234 wrote:This is just Obama's plan to get the troops out of Afghanistan...he never said he wouldn't send them somewhere else.

You know, it's interesting how Democrats I know always attack me for hating all Democrats and stuff. The wars are something I agreed with them on, and then they get in power and start fighting their own personal wars.

Regardless, Obama has lied, simply because liberals want the power. That's why they never closed Guantanamo. Because technically, THEY control it now.

jbock13 wrote:Regardless, Obama has lied, simply because liberals want the power. That's why they never closed Guantanamo. Because technically, THEY control it now.

Well, I think a big part is that they were extremely ignorant about Gitmo, and the admin now realizes why it's so important to the US. They can't close it, regardless of how much they hate it. Sometimes reality sets in and you can't do everything you thought needed to be done.

In Libya, though, I don't think anybody knows exactly what we're doing. It's very confusing.