back down Khadafy....

Tim said:
So are you the type that would watch an adult beat a kid with a bat and not help? I mean why intervene in matters that don't concern you? Right?
Click to expand...

Your allegory is simplistic, but I'm sure it appeals to some.

I don't want to risk our troops over a civil war in a faraway land. I have no more to say on the matter.
 
I just don't understand the lack of humanitarian compassion today. It sucks to be in the position we are, but it would be unconscionable to sit idly by and watch the wholesale slaughter of innocent unarmed people by a dictator that is willing to use his military for that purpose. When we can use a few cruise missiles and fighter jets to control the situation. It's not like we are sending in ground forces to topple a regime, we already made that mistake in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
Why is it that so many people think the US is involved in this all by their lonesome? Canada is involved, France is involved, England is involved and so is Italy. There's probably others as well but they aren't on the tip of my tongue right now. Bout time the fucking UN earned their dough.

There is no place in this world for brutal dictators that slaughter their own citizens for the sake of staying in power. The sooner they are dispatched the better off the world will be. Unfortunately that's the price the free have to pay in order to grant the same to everyone. Is it worth it? Look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself what it would be like if you were in the oppressed persons shoes.
 
Tim said:
I just don't understand the lack of humanitarian compassion today. It sucks to be in the position we are, but it would be unconscionable to sit idly by and watch the wholesale slaughter of innocent unarmed people by a dictator that is willing to use his military for that purpose. When we can use a few cruise missiles and fighter jets to control the situation. It's not like we are sending in ground forces to topple a regime, we already made that mistake in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Funny, you seemed very opposed to the Iraq war and removing Sadam because he's a nasty piece of work, a few years ago.
 
Peter Parka said:
Funny, you seemed very opposed to the Iraq war and removing Sadam because he's a nasty piece of work, a few years ago.
Click to expand...

Saddam was an evil man and I wouldn't lose a nights sleep if a truck fell on him.
If he was using his military to kill his citizens wholesale, then yes, send in the cruise missiles and bomb the shit out of his military.
But we went in not because he was killing his people, but because Bush wanted vengeance for his daddy and Cheney wanted Haliburton in there.

If we took the same approach in Iraq as we are taking in Libya, I would have had much less of a problem with it. But we didn't go in there to save his people, hell over a million of them died because Bush needed to be a fucking douche bag cowboy.

But as far as Libya goes, the UN security council voted to create the no-fly zone and I think it's exactly what needed to be done. We are not trying to take out Gaddafi or overthrow his government, just keeping his military from slaughtering his people. I mean who the fuck uses his military to fire live rounds into unarmed citizens protesting? He was using gunships killing these people... It needed to stop and I'm glad the world stepped up to the plate on this one.
 
Tim said:
And for those of you that even hint that this unconstitutional, get real. Learn the facts and read your history.
Click to expand...
Then enlighten me, because I've been reading and checking, and I can't find anywhere that authorizes the President to unilaterally attack another nation that isn't attacking us or seriously threatening us. He has to get permission from Congress, who represents We The People.
 
Accountable said:
Then enlighten me, because I've been reading and checking, and I can't find anywhere that authorizes the President to unilaterally attack another nation that isn't attacking us or seriously threatening us. He has to get permission from Congress, who represents We The People.
Click to expand...

to be fair,this was in the aftermath of 9/11,america had been attacked and was seriously under threat
 
Accountable said:
:D Yeh, that one's not lost on me one bit. But seriously, There's no believable way to link Qadaffi (He With Name of Infinite Spellings) suppression of his rebellion with the so-called War on Terror.
Click to expand...

I do agree with you on this. I don't think this had to do with our security one bit.

It had everything to do with stopping a slaughter. Which I'm ok with if we are able to lob a few missiles in there.

All wars are evaluated on a cost benefit basis... This one has a huge humanitarian return for little cost...
 
Tim said:
I do agree with you on this. I don't think this had to do with our security one bit.

It had everything to do with stopping a slaughter. Which I'm ok with if we are able to lob a few missiles in there.

All wars are evaluated on a cost benefit basis... This one has a huge humanitarian return for little cost...
Click to expand...
No doubt, but there's a process. That process is to keep power-drunk politicians from violating the rule of law. We should make Washington follow it.
 
I think his out in this situation will ride on the fact that he did consult with congress first... But you're right, it should have been done in a very clear cut way. It would have passed no problem, so what was the problem, time?

I keep hearing about the fact that he has 60 days to go to congress according to the war powers act, but I haven't looked into it yet
 
Back
Top