The US attacks yet another country that has not attacked us

[Levant]

So how was Libya a threat to the US, France, or Great Britain?  And what is a "Coalition of the willing"?  Aren't any gang or group of bullies in any school just a coalition of the willing?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

we attacked?  when?

[Levant]

Turn on CNN

[Lennyjoe]

Started this morning.  Hitting AA sites with 110 cruise missles.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Berlin_discotheque_bombing
Revenge is a dish best served multiple times.

May G-man die in a fire, and do it soon. And may we leave the area immediately after this is over.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

SON OF A GUN  ! never thought obama had the nerve

[Levant]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Berlin_discotheque_bombing
Revenge is a dish best served multiple times.

Well, that certainly justifies it.  This is just a 25-year-late response to terrorism.

SON OF A GUN  ! never thought obama had the nerve

That is why he's the Bushmill President.

[PTK]

...he did it? Damn.

[Levant]

And that is a good thing?

[eyebrows]

 

And that is a good thing?

No, it's not.
Once we get bored of meddling in the affairs of Libya, maybe we can use more bombs to enforce what we think is right on yet another country. Lets make sure to choose one that is not a direct problem for our country. Like lets skip the Mexican border and attack Guatemala!!!!

[Laurent du Var]

"Operation Odyssey Dawn"

The US, GB and France are taking out air defense batteries on the coast, moving tanks
and strategic spots in Tipolis.

I didn't see that one coming. Tunesia, Egypt, Japan and now a full blown attack against Gaddafi.
Here is to him and his sons matching Saddam's end.   

[Levant]

I didn't see that one coming. Tunesia, Egypt, Japan and now a full blown attack against Gaddafi.
Here is to him and his sons matching Saddam's end.

Do the ends justify the means?  The US in yet another war?  Anyone the US Government doesn't like gets overthrown?  I wonder how Obama would respond to armed protests in the US.  Would he send troops on Americans or would he step down?  And if he failed to step down would Great Britain and France attack the US?

[French G.]

Oh god, the whining. I guess I'm the last hawk left here. I'm sick and tired of the hand wringing over protecting the poor misguided military children. They volunteered, they want to be there. Or, if they joined for the college money, ha ha, you deserve what you get.

Now, on Team America, World Police. Ok, have it your way isolationists. Let's bring them all home. I'm sure some other benevolent great power will spring up to protect the sea lanes, keep tinpot dicators from getting too bold and such. I'm sure they'll patch countries back together and leave them better than they found them, I'm sure that they will be lousy imperialists just like us. Or maybe.... Maybe yet another crazy dictator will arise, take over half the world, kill 10-20 million of his own and then 3 years too late we will fight him after we finish re-arming and re-training a military that both has boots and can pour piss out of them. And once again the cost in American lives will be lighter than everyone else but will be hundreds of thousands. I'd prefer to keep conflicts small personally, but it is proving a negative, we see a few dead servicemembers now and you can't prove to someone that the cost of isolationism would be much, much higher. Someone will police the world when we don't, the terms will not be near as favorable as us doing it.

Now Libya in particular. It is a legitimate question whether we should intervene. I personally fall into the adjust their mean sea level camp. It would be fine if we publicly said that it was an internal Libyan affair and we would do nothing. I find that morally wrong, but again, within our rights as a nation with no direct interest there. The chilling effect of people getting bombed by their own government no longer looking to the USA for help is pretty huge though, as is the void for some helpful little jihadis to step in, oppose the dictator and win a ton of hearts and minds.

But, as I said, legitimate decision whether or not we should be there. A decision that needed to be made on about day 2 of it being revealed he was sending attack aircraft against mobs of his own people, not 4 weeks later. Everyone knows that the "rebels" looked to us and Europe for help. It should have been a clear answer yes or no early, not leave them hanging, fighting with the hopes we'd save them. Sit with our thumb up our arse until everyone else says we got to do something, that's that good old USA leadership that made us great.

[Jamisjockey]

SON OF A GUN  ! never thought obama had the nerve

He didn't.  He was waiting on the UN, the Arab League, and the EU to tell U.S. to act.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

good point  still surprised he pulled the trigger   woulda loved to be a fly on the wall

[French G.]

good point  still surprised he pulled the trigger   woulda loved to be a fly on the wall

Don't worry, I'm sure he would have asked your opinion if you were. Wanted everyone else's opinion.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

yea  you see it the same way.... that way you can blame it on the fall guy dujour

[Levant]

Oh god, the whining. I guess I'm the last hawk left here. I'm sick and tired of the hand wringing over protecting the poor misguided military children. They volunteered, they want to be there. Or, if they joined for the college money, ha ha, you deserve what you get.

Well, you're defending a point that was never made.  Even so, I find it odd that someone would think it's ok to kill volunteers.  But no ground forces have been involved and no US troops have been in any danger so no one has made any such argument.  

Now, on Team America, World Police. Ok, have it your way isolationists. Let's bring them all home. I'm sure some other benevolent great power will spring up to protect the sea lanes, keep tinpot dicators from getting too bold and such. I'm sure they'll patch countries back together and leave them better than they found them, I'm sure that they will be lousy imperialists just like us. Or maybe.... Maybe yet another crazy dictator will arise, take over half the world, kill 10-20 million of his own and then 3 years too late we will fight him after we finish re-arming and re-training a military that both has boots and can pour piss out of them. And once again the cost in American lives will be lighter than everyone else but will be hundreds of thousands. I'd prefer to keep conflicts small personally, but it is proving a negative, we see a few dead servicemembers now and you can't prove to someone that the cost of isolationism would be much, much higher. Someone will police the world when we don't, the terms will not be near as favorable as us doing it.

Well, again, no one has made these arguments about attacking Libya - at least not in this thread.  You're defending an un-attacked position.

Now Libya in particular. It is a legitimate question whether we should intervene. I personally fall into the adjust their mean sea level camp. It would be fine if we publicly said that it was an internal Libyan affair and we would do nothing. I find that morally wrong, but again, within our rights as a nation with no direct interest there. The chilling effect of people getting bombed by their own government no longer looking to the USA for help is pretty huge though, as is the void for some helpful little jihadis to step in, oppose the dictator and win a ton of hearts and minds.

But, as I said, legitimate decision whether or not we should be there. A decision that needed to be made on about day 2 of it being revealed he was sending attack aircraft against mobs of his own people, not 4 weeks later. Everyone knows that the "rebels" looked to us and Europe for help. It should have been a clear answer yes or no early, not leave them hanging, fighting with the hopes we'd save them. Sit with our thumb up our arse until everyone else says we got to do something, that's that good old USA leadership that made us great.

At least now you've brought it on topic.  But how do we have the right to attack a country dealing with civil unrest?  If we have civil unrest or protests in this country are you suggesting that the Government should step down and leave the country in the hands of a few rebels?  And if it is government genocide that we are so valiantly defending against, then wouldn't Sudan be a better target for our military "protection"?

Instead, following on the huge successes in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're going to make the world a safer place by attacking Libya.  I'm sure Syria is next.

[French G.]

Unbroached subjects, think of it as a pre-dawn preemptive strike. I've heard all this before.  

I'm one of those volunteers. My only regret about my military service is I was never the guy with the trigger. I've done no-fly zones all over the world. Some people just need killing.

Well, again, no one has made these arguments about attacking Libya - at least not in this thread.  You're defending an un-attacked position.

Also, in light of your baitish looking OP, I can feed the troll whatever I got right? Everything I addressed was implied in your OP and title.

And if it is government genocide that we are so valiantly defending against, then wouldn't Sudan be a better target for our military "protection"?
Instead, following on the huge successes in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're going to make the world a safer place by attacking Libya.  I'm sure Syria is next.

Hey we agree on something! Yeah it was pretty lame ass of us to sit around and avoid any eye contact with reality all the years that people got slaughtered in Rwanda, Darfur and such. Economic sanctions do little to failed economic states, harsh words even less. Also, I think we put in a good turn in Iraq and Afghanistan. Glad you do too.

[AJ Dual]

He didn't.  He was waiting on the UN, the Arab League, and the EU to tell U.S. to act.

Yep. FRANCE was making him look bad.

And I might agree with the neutral/isolationist sentiments. America as some sort of ginormous libertarian Switzerland is appealing... However, we grabbed the tail of the world-cop tiger long ago and letting go now would only hurt us now.

[HankB]

Distinctly mixed feelings on this.

1. Khadaffi is not our friend. Berlin disco bombing. Lockerbie bombing. Khadaffi was up to his eyebrows in both. We should have taken him out YEARS ago. But we didn't.

2. It's not at all clear to me that the rebels/revolutionaries/whatever are going to be an improvement. Do we REALLY want a Moslem Brotherhood/Al Qaeda/Taliban government to form in Libya? This MAY be a case of "better the devil you know . . . "

3. We're effectively in a state of war with Libya. If Khadaffi has any operatives here, they can put uniforms on and . . . do something nasty. And when we catch them, they'll have to be treated as ordinary POWs. Not that we should avoid necessary action because of retaliation fears, just that we really need to think about what we're doing and be prepared if the enemy, for some reason, doesn't co-operate.

[TommyGunn]

 But how do we have the right to attack a country dealing with civil unrest?  If we have civil unrest or protests in this country are you suggesting that the Government should step down and leave the country in the hands of a few rebels?  And if it is government genocide that we are so valiantly defending against, then wouldn't Sudan be a better target for our military "protection"?

What a bizarre example of moral equivelance.  Gadhafi is a thug and a tyrant/terrorist.  His people are revolting --supposedly -- because they want to oust him and obtain a more just government.  Would you have taken Hitler's side in WW2?

So how was Libya a threat to the US, France, or Great Britain?  And what is a "Coalition of the willing"?  Aren't any gang or group of bullies in any school just a coalition of the willing?

That isn't the reason why this coalition is doing this.  Gadhafi is attacking his own citizens.  Does every thing we do in trying to defend civilians and deter thugs have to "threaten" us before we do something?
Go to Wiki and look up the Reverend Martin Neimueller.  There's a famous quote attached to him you might learn from.

And that is a good thing?

YES

Get your head screwed on straight.  Or is the rust preventing that?  Opposing evil jackwagons like Gadhafi is definantly a good thing.

[RoadKingLarry]

yea  you see it the same way.... that way you can blame it on the fall guy dujour

Hillary's war.

[Gowen]

Now that we are attacking, we need to go all the way and finish it.  

What I do not like is we are allowing the UN and every other group to decide who rules a country that has not attacked any other nation.  Yes, they were involved with a bombing and as such were under sanctions.  When they agreed to be inspected for WMD's they pass out of those sanctions.  Back to the point, what criteria is the UN going to use to determine who rules in Libya?  Please don't get me wrong, Gaddafi needed a bullet between the eyes and I would not have a problem if it was a US strike team doing it.  We were attacked and our soldiers killed, so we have the right to retaliate.  I have no faith or trust in the UN, nor obama for that matter.

[Levant]

What a bizarre example of moral equivelance.  Gadhafi is a thug and a tyrant/terrorist.  His people are revolting --supposedly -- because they want to oust him and obtain a more just government.  Would you have taken Hitler's side in WW2?

It is exactly the moral equivalent.  Hitler is not.  Hitler invaded other countries.  We didn't fight Hitler because he was killing Jews.  We attacked him because he was attacking allies.  Which ally did Gaddafi attack?  We're not fighting Gaddafi because he's killing his people.  We didn't care at all about genocide in Darfur.  There have been plenty of opportunities for the US to use its military might to prevent government genocide and we have not taken any of them.  This is about US financial interests alone.

There's a famous quote attached to him you might learn from.

Nice parlor trick.  I know the quote.  That situation is not this situation.  Gaddafi has not been attacking his citizens until we encouraged the Egyptians which encouraged the Libyans.

I despise Gaddafi as much as any American might but the US cannot go around destroying civilizations to ensure our access to the world's oil.  Look at Iraq.  Has it worked out well for us to overthrow a Mid-Eastern dictator?  Is the world a safer place? Are we winning the war on freedom otherwise known as the war on terror?  Well, yes we are defeating freedom but we're not doing anything to reduce terrorism.

Get your head screwed on straight.  Or is the rust preventing that?  Opposing evil jackwagons like Gadhafi is definantly a good thing.

A good thing, how?  It makes the world safer?  Makes the Mid-East more stable?  Or just because it's the moral thing to do?  Well, you can't claim morality in this short term situation while completely ignoring genocide in other places.