Some Questions about our involvement in Libya

#101
#101
first off there is already a US casualty. second the iraq war was supposed to be over in a couple of days as well. third what makes you think this administration has any better idea about the rebels being "good guys" than prior ones did with huseein. last how do you think these rebels will be able to stabilize the country if they can't even defeat their own govt? thinking the US wont have to have a peace keeping force is absurd.
 
#102
#102
droski said:
first off there is already a US casualty. second the iraq war was supposed to be over in a couple of days as well. third what makes you think this administration has any better idea about the rebels being "good guys" than prior ones did with huseein. last how do you think these rebels will be able to stabilize the country if they can't even defeat their own govt? thinking the US wont have to have a peace keeping force is absurd.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The whole, "we were told to prepare for casualties" stuff is bunk. That wasn't until we were well into the occupation phase. Originally, it was going to be a week long campaign.

I was dating a very vocal war critic at the time, and she and her friends were much more critical of Iraqi casualties, civilian collateral damage, environmental degradation due to depleted uranium rounds, and asymmetrical warfare issues than with US casualties. That was an after-thought until the occupation.

No, this is starting out very similar to the second Iraqi War.
 
#103
#103
droski said:
first off there is already a US casualty. second the iraq war was supposed to be over in a couple of days as well. third what makes you think this administration has any better idea about the rebels being "good guys" than prior ones did with huseein. last how do you think these rebels will be able to stabilize the country if they can't even defeat their own govt? thinking the US wont have to have a peace keeping force is absurd.
Click to expand...

Damn that joevol, every time I read Hussein I now automatically assume someone is talking about Obama.
 
#107
#107
lawgator1 said:
Similar, I would agree.

I doubt you will see much unless and until we either incur some significant loss or it looks like there might be some modification to the "no boots on the ground" claims.
Click to expand...

Similar is a stretch. There is no WMD history or touting current WMD levels. The UN angle here is purely humanitarian. The UN angle with Iraq was about proliferation of WMD.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#108
#108
lawgator1 said:
I think people need to realize that Obama has to hedge his bets a little here in terms of who is going to win. He has publicly stated that Ghadafi has to go. But he can't say that we are bombing so as to meddle and force that to happen.

Everyone knows it to be the case. But there is some fallout involved in that being policy.
Click to expand...
Hedging his bets via military force. Sounds stupid.

Either we're in it to win it or we stay home. This one of the few areas where Powell had it right.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#109
#109
BigPapaVol said:
Similar is a stretch. There is no WMD history or touting current WMD levels. The UN angle here is purely humanitarian. The UN angle with Iraq was about proliferation of WMD.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

What did the chief inspector have to say on that matter again?
 
#110
#110
The foolishness on this board is actually starting to make me wonder why I spend one minute of my day in this forum. And I don't mean the silliness of "real world gorillas" or "Ali vs Liston."

I'm talking the freakin' brain chuck of history less than a decade old starting to pop up in this thread. Is a primer on the last 10 years really necessary? Are we seriously going here?
 
#111
#111
IPorange said:
What did the chief inspector have to say on that matter again?
Click to expand...
What has the history of that outfit been. How does he pronounce his name? What did the actual protagonist say? What did he use on his own folks prior?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#113
#113
BigPapaVol said:
Similar is a stretch. There is no WMD history or touting current WMD levels. The UN angle here is purely humanitarian. The UN angle with Iraq was about proliferation of WMD.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

There is certainly a WMD history - but we are fairly confident that it is just that, history....at least with respect to a nuclear program.
 
#114
#114
volinbham said:
We were wrong on WMD. However, it was conventional wisdom that we were right.
Click to expand...

I think that we were legitimately worried about chemical WMD, quite suspicious of biological WMD, and on the nuclear front, we didn't really care....we were going to make a case despite the fact that intelligence was saying one thing and DOE experts were saying another. Same thing goes for Niger. The nuclear angle was touted in public, but the plan had already been justified to those that made it, regardless of the nuclear angle, IMO.
 
#115
#115
TennTradition said:
I think that we were legitimately worried about chemical WMD, quite suspicious of biological WMD, and on the nuclear front, we didn't really care....we were going to make a case despite the fact that intelligence was saying one thing and DOE experts were saying another. Same thing goes for Niger. The nuclear angle was touted in public, but the plan had already been justified to those that made it, regardless of the nuclear angle, IMO.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
#116
#116
manofactiontpc.jpg



Sultan Knish a blog by Daniel Greenfield


Osama Bin Laden's 1996 fatwa against America
was the first domino in a chain of events that
was meant to accomplish three goals.

1) Unify Muslims in a war against Western
civilization

2) Topple the governments of the Muslim world,
and replace them with fully Islamist regimes.

3) Build a regional and then global Muslim
Caliphate

Phase 2 is now well under way. And America
and European warplanes are bombing Libya to
help clear the way for it. Just as we already
did in Yugoslavia and Iraq. It is unknown
whether Bin Laden is still alive or not, but his
goals are being met. Muslims now see the
defeat of Western civilization as an important
and an achievable goal. Our democracy and
nation building efforts have toppled much of
the old order, and those best positioned to
benefit from it are the Islamists.
---------------------------------

What did we do wrong? For one we have never
stopped refighting World War 2. Treating Korea
and Vietnam as if they were parts of Europe was
bad enough, but throwing the Marshall Plan at
the Muslim world is completely unforgivable.

After WW2 we could at least rely on being able
to roll back Germany, Italy and Japan to their
pre-Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo states. But what
in the world did we think we were rolling Iraq
or Afghanistan back to? The stone age. The
Abbasid Caliphate?
Click to expand...

obama_golfs_libya-sm.png
 
#121
#121
Quote from the article:

"Protecting the innocent and conducting combined operations are what we are designed to do, our forces are doing both as part of the U.S commitment to protect Libyan citizens."


Since when did it become America's responsibility to protect citizens of other nations?
 
#122
#122
We haven't fought a war since WW2 that I would say was justified or for the righ reasons.
 
#124
#124
IPorange said:
Ah, revisionist conservatives. The parties really are the same. It's just a matter of who is in the White House.
Click to expand...

How am I revising?

I was never for the Iraq war.

If you'd known me 10 years ago, you'd have known that.

Remember me? I like to drop bombs and walk away. Clinton bombers in the night style.
 
#125
#125
Clinton is also my favorite president since Reagan. I hated both Bush's and like the new guy even less. Would have preferred Hillary over Mccain as Hillary actually has some balls and doesn't just go with whatever is popular.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top