Why aren't we doing more to help ourselves?

OK, what I'm waiting for here are the comments of all of the Obama supporters who regularly visit this site and demand that Bush be tried for war crimes for invading a country who "did nothing to us".

Doesn't anyone remember the air-strike that Clinton did in 1998???

This was to remove Saddam from power and destroy his WMD...

Air strikes do NOTHING in the 'Long Run' unless you are willing to place 'Ground Troops' in following the destruction of the Air Power and Command and Control.

How many of his own citizens did Saddam KILL after this and prior to Bush II sending US Troops in??? It was Tens of THOUSANDS and the UN did NOTHING when Saddam gased(WMD) his own people...

I do not support Gadhafi or the things he has done for the last 40+years. But a 'Show of Force' & 'No Fly Zones' have proven they do not work...

What about; France, Italy, Yemen, Syria, Thailand, etc, etc, they ALL are killing protesters that want to overthrow their governments...

IMO - It is ALL about the OIL and protecting the western investments... Not about the PEOPLE, because Gadhafi and his Military is going to butcher the opposition...

If you want a good laugh, look at the tonnes of mustard gas that Gadhafi has.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared to hint as much when she told the House Appropriations Committee on March 10 that Gaddafi “still does, as you probably know, have some remaining chemical weapons and some other nasty stuff that we’re concerned about.”

reference - http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/gaddafi_could_turn_to_libyas_mustard_gas_stockpile_some_officials_fear/2011/03/16/ABT9iEt_story.html?wprss=rss_middle-east

Yep we are going to end up with the MED Battakion in Libya, they a have 400 of them floating around off of Libya already.

I made landing in Libya in 1960, with M Co. 3rd Bat, 2nd Marines and the British 4.0 Commando.

Landings there are not going to be any fun at all. Flat, no vegetation, no cover

Impeach Obama now and if one member of our military dies, try him for Murder 1

Obama is a typical liberal hypocrite. Obama was against the war in Iraq and one of Bush's harshest critics. When Bush attacked and eliminated an oil rich Arab dictator (Hussein) who murdered his own people in order to free the people of Iraq, then according to Obama it is the crime of the century. However, now its OK for Obama to attack and try to eliminate an oil rich Arab dictator (Gadhafi) who murders his own people because Obama says he is "protecting the people" of Libya. Classic liberal hypocrisy on display. Cannot help but LOL at this absurdity.

Obama has broken his promise on just about everything else too such as closing down Gitmo and shutting down military tribunal trials for terrorists. It's plain to see Obama cannot be trusted to do anything he says. He has no principle, no courage, no direction, no confidence, no moral compass, no competence, no leadership ability and most of all, no business being President. He is a weak, incompetent, party boy, and HE MUST GO. Thank God November 2012 is just around the corner.

Oil or people? Is the Lyban economy oil? If so, don't the people get something to say about it?

I wish we were only doing this because of the oil.. Even in Iraq did we take any of the resources?? NO we did not.. we like to dump money into this @!$%#hold countries make us go broke and get nothing out of it.. If it was for the oil that would at least be something for our trouble.. Sure beats paying 4.00 a gallon for gas, we we are broke and have no jobs over here. That used to be the reason wars were fought.. resources! We cant afford to be the spearheading group here anyway. Need to focus our attention on the U.S. for a change and the fact that our govt is going have to shut down and we are borrowing money from China.. yeah these are bigger problems... the E.U. can handle their problems in their back yard! It is B.S. we take a country over then rebuild it and give it back.. WTF...We are stupid! We could use that money to give me a decent paying job with some benefits so I can feed my family, or not let these moron governors cut all our eduction benefits like they are doing.. Wake up people we need to be doing what some of these other countries are doing HERE!!!! Where oh where has our backbone gone??

AC Robertson IMO - It is ALL about the OIL and protecting the western investments... Not about the PEOPLE, because Gadhafi and his Military is going to butcher the opposition

I totally agree with you. If it were for humanitarian reasons, Kennedy wouldn't of left the Cubans stranded in the Bay of Pigs invasion by pulling the promised air support and having them slaughtered. But, there is no oil in Cuba so that wasn't really all that important and yet Cuba is 93 miles from our coast not thousands like these other countries. Look at the genocides that have taken place in African countries yet not one bomb was dropped to protect those poor souls.
I'm not for any president as IMO they are ALL crooks and paid puppets. When Bush II stood up there and said we were invading Iraq for humanitarian reasons besides of course, the WMD I damn near passed out in disgust

watt:

And getting rid of Saddam Hussein was NOT good for the people of Iraq????

Bush attacked Iraq for a purely personal and PNAC reason.......it had nothing to do with Saddam's killing of his own people, first Saddam attempted an assasination on Daddy Bush shortly after Clinton was elected [as daddy Bush went to Kuwait!!]

Second, Saddam was about to turn the sale of his oil to Euro only currency for purchase.........??? Ever wonder how that went over?? Wel Saddam is dead!!

Third, Bush never allowed the UN to vote and withdrew the Invasion of Iraq from the table when he found out China, Russia, France and Germany all were going to use Veto Votes for the Invasion............hence the great line Bush told the world.........Either you help us or We Will Go It Alone!!

Who is to say that the rebel's leadership is any better than Gadhafy himself ?

So we have to destroy everything first - then find out ?

I see this as an internal matter for the Libyans to resolve.

Refinement of Bush's Quote: "Your with us or against us, We Will Go It Alone"

"Odyssey Dawn"

Why do we give these operations such silly names. This invasion should be called "Bring on the Jihad!!" or "Skull cracker" or "Death by remote control" or "Smarter than Bush did it".......

Rico, believe it or not....this one is not Bush's fault

Robert from Eglin........we are not borrowing money from China, do some history work and look up the Regan 1985 purchase of the Russian Ruble with 400 Billion Dollars of Taxpayer Money.......then see how much was made by 1987 after the Russian Economy resurged when the Communist fell to the Democracy.

the FEDERAL RESERVE is sitting on what was $17 TRILLION DOLLARS of proffit in 1987 [which Regan inteded should have been given to the American people and it was not].......

So with a bit of imagination what would 17 Trillion look like with 24 years of interest compunded??????

WOW...the bushies are out of hiding...this is quite different,I think and hope, from Iraq. And from North Korea. I am completely 100% convinced that you cannot wim someones freedom for them and give it to them on a silver platter. France helped us but didn't win it for us and give it to us. It is likely that the Libyan people just need a little help. I don't think it's about the oil. He is teetering. North Korea is not in a state of crisis as far as toppling their tyrant. Until they are willing to fight and die for their freedom, it is a waste of time and blood and lives to do it for them. There are millions of them and one of him. The Libyans have proven they are willing to die. They deserve help. The Iraqis weren't rising up against Saddam in any kind of serious way with serious numbers. We shouldn't have gone in there. And I have in recent weeks, much to my chagrin, heard some Iraqis saying that they feel they are worse off now under Al Malaki than they were under Saddam. Again, I repeat, this is Iraqis saying this...not me. So my son did 2 tours of duty over there to entrench another tyrant who will shoot his own people? No one knows how the mess will play out in Libya but if we can level the playing field and just give the Libyans a fighting chance without having to win this for them, I think it is the right thing to do.

@ wilburn 1942...every man or woman who enlists does so at their own peril. As did my son. He was warned repeatedly by me and advised against it. He placed himself in harms way. If any of our guys die over there, I will grieve for them and their family but to blame Obama and even allege murder is ludicrous. They assumed this risk when they enlisted. Not one of them was drafted. And at least, this action was entered into with full knowledge of the circumstances and most of the repugnicans and Obama haters have savaged him for NOT jumping in. So how can you now rip him for doing what his opponents and enemies wanted him to do earlier? You Black President Haters really should decide on one position other than "we hate Obama-the black president" and stick to it. Bush lied repeatedly to get us into Iraq. It is provable. Obama didn't. The differences are as great as day and night. I just hope we have to wisdom to only help and not try to win it for them.

Rico - "Robert from Eglin........we are not borrowing money from China.."

That statement alone leaves me to suspect that your post might not be the most factual.....not to mention that the Soviet Union did not collapse in 1987...it was 1991...ooops.

The white house did the right thing. Innocent people were being slaughtered so that one man could stay in power. How could any of you disagree with that?

The day someone tries to change our constitution to hold on to power will be the day we are in this very same situation. If it turns to violence, we will be asking for help too.

You all need to THINK about what really happening here.

THis is a historic moment. Things will never be the same after this. Oppressive regimes the world over are very nervous right now.

Rico 111

Regarding your earlier statements, Bush got Congressional approval, and had actual allies that went with us, just as we are doing now. I didnt like going to war back then, and given our current Presidents platform that he ran for President on, I find it wholly hypocritical and laughable watching libs bend themselves into pretzels to defend this man.......and noooo its not because he is black hahahah.

Wow Coastal, very well said!

Coastal Exchange,

The hypocrite is the POTUS and the people supporting this person.

He has KILLED 800+US Troops in Afghanistan and accomplished NOTHING. Escalating the conflict for Personnel and Political gain. Instead of using the UN to do the job of 'Nation Building' like the UN Mandate stated in Dec 2001...

Using the CIA to ASSASSINATE supposed Terrorist and even targeting a US Citizen. ALL of this in VIOLATION of the US Constitution and EO 12333, plus numerous International Law. This action has KILLED hundreds of INNOCENTS...

What has the people that have been yelling for Bush IIs head done??? NOTHING

These are the HYPOCRITES...

Kornfed...there are a lot of reasons to object to Barack Obama. I have very ambivalent feelings about him. I will quickly admit to helping elect him but given the choice between him and the ticket of McCain (the economy is fine)/ Palin (I can see Russia from my porch and don't ask any hard questions), I would choose him again. I think we really need Howard Dean. Maybe even Huckabee would be better...maybe. I was appalled that he picked Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers to fix the train wreck of an economy that they helped wreck. I have many reservations about him now. But here's the thing: When people like wilburn1942 and other obvious racists like Barbour, Miller, McConnell, Cantor, and Boehner rip him on absurd, superficial and even made-up excuses, it makes it much less likely that legitimate criticisms get through. The Obama opponents would be much better served by going after his policies and his selections rather than going after him. And no one, I mean NO ONE, could be more objectionable than Bush, Bush, or Reagan. These idiots all thought they were God and not subject to law. I think Obama is a good guy...just not a very good president...at least not yet, or circumstances have not yet vindicated him. But there is yet time. But as long as fools and hate mongers like Mitch McConnell focus all of their efforts on beating down our president rather than advancing the best interests of our people (jobs, jobs, jobs, reign in the banks and insurance companies and hospital profits), then it is almost certain that our country will flounder. You guys need to forget that we have a black persident and start thinking about what we need to do to help our next door neighbors. And maybe him being black is not an issue to you. I hope not. But I am certain that most of the people who hate him so vociferously do so simply because he is black. Get over it. Let's move on and get this country back on its feet. Let's end the wars and feed, educate, and heal our kids. Is Obama being black really more important than taking care of our kids and grandkids??? I hope not. It isn't to me.

Exceptional post thomas.

Well Thomas, I can understand that you have a bias torwards your ideology, just as I have mine.

And no one, I mean NO ONE, could be more objectionable than Bush, Bush, or Reagan. These idiots all thought they were God and not subject to law

Plug in Barack Obama here, the same accusations can be made about your man. I think you should leave Reagan out of that list to be honest,,,,although that could be my own bias shining through.

But as long as fools and hate mongers like Mitch McConnell focus all of their efforts on beating down our president rather than advancing the best interests of our people (jobs, jobs, jobs, reign in the banks and insurance companies and hospital profits), then it is almost certain that our country will flounder.

A President must deal with that environment. Example; look at the @!$%# Bush had thrown his way.....He is STILL being hammered haha. Obama will have to do what he thinks is best despite such an atmosphere. It's part of the job.

Bush attacked Iraq for a purely personal and PNAC reason.......it had nothing to do with Saddam's killing of his own people, first Saddam attempted an assasination on Daddy Bush shortly after Clinton was elected [as daddy Bush went to Kuwait!!]

LMAO! The entire international community was behind and signed UN Resolution 1441. Saddam never complied and also had broken 60 other UN security Council Resolutions which had been mostly created under the Wild Bill Clinton era. Hardly...Hardly, this was a PERSONAL issue! Hell, even Hillary made the case for the US led invasion of Iraq! You know history is a B!$@#, but all you have to do is open up a few books and read before forming an "unedumacated" opinion!!!

Yeah but he used lies to get international support.

Stop glossing over the real truth of the matter.

I supported the invasion at the time, but facts are facts.

Thomas Blue - "When people like wilburn1942 and other obvious racists like Barbour, Miller, McConnell, Cantor, and Boehner rip him on absurd, superficial and even made-up excuses, it makes it much less likely that legitimate criticisms get through. The Obama opponents would be much better served by going after his policies and his selections rather than going after him."

Please provide one example where any of the above have attacked Obama personally, as opposed to criticizing his policies. And if you can't, which I'm sure you cannot, then you are nothing more than the despicable, racist, hypocrite of which you are accusing others of being.

Thomas Blue... you are a racist. Your son is a hero (against your wishes).

"France and Britain have taken a lead role in pushing for international intervention in Libya. The United States, after embarking on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, acknowledged on Saturday it was in charge of operations but said it intended to switch to a "coalition command" in the coming days."

Obama certainly wouldn't want to be accused of being in charge of something that might be criticized later. Ever since his days in the Illinois Stae Senate, where he usually voted 'Present' on tough issues, that's been his typical response - let someone else be responsible - and take any blame if things go wrong. Actually, that's a typical lawyer's perspective - to avoid risk at all costs, which is why lawyers typically make poor leaders and business owners.

Mr. Blue,

I fail to understand why you do not address the issues brought up by the so called "bushies" its not that he has gotten us involved in yet another military action. It's the fact that he bashed Bush for Iraq and if you believe that Libya is not the same you are the one hiding under a bush. How many did sadam kill, gas or execute. Didnt matter thats not why we were there if it was why are we not intrested in Bahrain, Yemen, Somalia or one of the other dozen or so countries that commit the same atrocities. Its the fact that we nor anyone else in the world could care less about a country that has not material wealth of intretst to us. Obama is no better than Bush I actually was agreeing with him not getting involved until of course he got involved.

The fact that Libyans are willing to die should have no bearing on this thank God that the British did not take that attitude during our civil war or slavery may have raged on for who knows how long. We have no business over there, we had no business in Iraq, I agreed with Afagnistan due to Al Qaida attacking US but Its time to leave there as well let their country rot these people will not help themselves they will just have another dictator who refuses to give up power wether it be Libya, Iraq, Afganistan or anyplace else greed and thurst for power in that part of the world will always overcome democracy. And for all posters please leave race out of this I am offended that anyone actually believes that the color of a mans skin qualifies or disqualifies him to a job

Who are we trying to fool here? We are kidding ourselves. Democracy does not work over there, never has, never will. The elections are either fixed or they vote for an idiot who promises free sh!t (kind of like us).

At some point after the major combat had ended in Iraq and we were trying to establish some sort of government, I heard someone say; "What Iraq really needs now is a ruthless dictator." Libya will too.

This is all about oil and power. Nothing more.

Just to reitterate, clearly this makes Obama a war criminal worthy of citizen's arrest; what, with a third illegal war. Impeach Obama for crimes against humanity! It's time to ratchet up support; where my pink ladies at, Holla if ya hear me, What! Come on my Democratic Congressional Brothas and Sistas, it's time to hold hearings against this war-mongering President. This cowboy attitude has to stop. What are we, the world police? This is why everyone hates us around the world. We just want their oil. This is a crusade brought on by evil Christians who want me to go to church on football day. He's just finishing his daddy's war; he should be clearing brush in Crawford... wait a minute... hold on... I'm getting confused. But seriously, I appreciate the Libtards (And you Ron Paul Freaks) here who are at least consistent in their condemnation of all things war. Although, I do think you live in a delusional self-concocted fog of free-spirited fairies and unicorns and you should probably wake from your hazy reverie and join us in the real world where their are bad people who need to be eradicated for the safety and security of so many others. Life is not always rainbows and lollipops and while I do not know if taking out the tyrant will result in a more peaceful and friendly Libya, I can't say this move on Obama's part is going to upset me. However, I have a feeling that most of you are not going to be consistent in your outrage; and that is because you're stupid. :)

The right's strategy is to crucify Obama for not taking action soon enough, and now that we are involved in a UN sponsored event (very different from Iraq) crucify him for going in.

The hypocrisy for the right, is that they supported Bush and Iraq in "going it alone".

I think in the end the right is just jealous that Obama got international backing, something Bush could not do.

Where are the Dems in Congress? Are they missing in action?

Eric,

You may want to check your history although Bush my not have had international support he did have support from most of the same oil hungry nations now attacking Libya

Yes!!! Well done Obama!! Nice balance!! Great job of coalition building.

C3. Command, control, communications. Our best.

The time is right. Let's keep boots off the ground!

Nice job Mr. President and Secretary Clinton.

Let's hope this proves to benefit the whole Middle East.

Dictators be ware.

JQ 12261891 "Just to reitterate, clearly this makes Obama a war criminal worthy of citizen's arrest; what, with a third illegal war. Impeach Obama for crimes against humanity!"

I wonder if the Nobel Peace Prize Committee is still happy with awarding Obama the award, based on his 'rhetoric', and nothing else.

Eric, the following countries participated in Iraq. You may want to broaden the source of your reading.

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Entreat, Estonia, Ethiopia, France (until 1998) Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan (post conflict), Kuwait, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Turkey, Urganda, United Kingdom, United States and Uzbekistan.

I find the hypocracy the people above me funny. You were all so pro-War with Bush, just because he had an excuse to go into Iraq. This has been what the US Military strategy has been for decades after Nam. This is nothing new.

The reason you are all so mad about this is because your more anti-Obama than people who really have a sound political viewpoint. I bet you all believe that if you blame everything on Obama then somehow it will be his fault, even though you most likely voted for Bush twice and don't want to accept reasonsiblity for having a part in the USA's current mess.

Eric-913730 "The right's strategy is to crucify Obama for not taking action soon enough, and now that we are involved in a UN sponsored event (very different from Iraq) crucify him for going in. The hypocrisy for the right, is that they supported Bush and Iraq in "going it alone". I think in the end the right is just jealous that Obama got international backing, something Bush could not do."

Nice try at a 'spin', but Bush also had a U N Security Council Resolution (#1441) and an international coalition, as well as bipartisan congressional support in place when he attacked Iraq.

Try doing a little research before making ridiculous statements.

Brantley and failed experiment,

Bush did not a yes from the UN security council did he. Bush did not get the green light from the Arab league did he?

Obama has done far more to build the right coalition than Bush did.

Obama's brain-washed, leftist supporters have forgotten that Saddam had been massacring his own people, specifically the Kurdish minority, before Bush II invaded. I don't understand what the difference is? Saddam was a brutal dictator and so is Gadhafi.

The glaring hypocrisy here on the part of the left concerns oil and the impact of turmoil in Libya on the global price of oil. I believe that our true motivation in Iraq was also oil with some minor variations. So what's the difference? At a very important meeting concerning college hoops brackets, one of Obama's "brilliant" advisors told Obama that we had to act in Libya because of the soaring price of oil and its impact on the US economy. If the high price of oil wrecks the "recovery" (what recovery?), Obama won't even be able to run for re-election. If you haven't realized by now, with Obama it's all about Obama and his personal political position, not about you, me, or US. So get over it.

Waterdog, this intervention was clearly driven by halting the slaughter of human life, not oil.

The US gets most of its oil from Canada.

Gotta love the right. Gotta value money over human life.

Eric,

Ok thank you for clearing that up so it is ok for Obama to bash Bush for Iraq but not a problem for him because the Arab league and UN say it is ok.

Nice to know who is calling the shots think I'll call the UN and Arab league about my taxes maybe they can set Obama straight

And if it is humanitarian in nature why arent they rusing to help those other nations that have no oil? Democrat, Republican no matter niether is consistant

Eric you're clearly not understanding the irony of blaming this on oil; I think much of that is facetiousness due to the fact that the same reason is given by your fellow Leftists for Bush's invasion of Iraq. Please do not say that this accusation is true after just saying we get most of our oil from Canada; if you do I can't talk to you anymore.

Waterdog,

Look in the mirror before you call anybody brainwashed. Most of our comes from Canada:

Spend any amount of time on google to research your facts before making claims.

So all please take note. Obama has Hillary front and center on this for one reason and one reason only. He is covering his left wing back side. Note as well his retoric on "This is a very limited engagement", also with one purpose. If the polls go south on him he will weasle his way out, at least in his mind. This guy is absolutely amazing. If the outcome is good and polls go up he will claim all the glory.

The man lives in a world with the mentality of a middle school popularity contest. He is a spineless leader with zero morals convictions. All he is concerned about are his polls...

@ceo722851...how about when Joe Wilson yelled out loud during the SOTU address," you lie!". That sounded pretty personal to me.

@ Obama a failed experiment...I am amused that you would call me a racist when you don't even know what color I am. But I am not a racist. However, growing up in the south, I have seen it first hand many times, very openly and never understood it well. FYI, I am white. I tire of whites that hate blacks and I have known many. I notice that white racists tend to be more open with other whites. Yes, my son is a hero and is paying for it today. I thank you. So does he. I didn't want him to entrust his life to an untrustworthy president. I love my country and respect the military. But the soldiers deserve our unconditional support. I don't think Bush gave it.

@ Mark Brantley...nice post. It's refreshing to have someone disagree without being disagreeable. But Libya is different from Iraq. I agree with you on Afghanistan. And I regrettfully must agree that I am not sure that Obama is better than Bush. Better intentioned maybe, but making many of the same mistakes. One thing about Libya is that this shouldn't be our war. If the rebels lose...well, then they lost. We can't and shouldn't win it for them. No ground troops. Just keep Kaddafi from using his amored and air advantage. Good luck to the rebels. But they must win it themselves. And the fact that Libyans are willing to die has a lot to do with it. I will bleed or sacrifice to help someone who is giving it their all. But I won't do it all for them. And I especially won't even help someone who isn't willing to help themselves. If it's not worth their death, it's sure not worth ours. Let them keep their oil. We should have gotten off of that stuff decades ago. The faster they jack up the price, the sooner we will get off of it.

Oh and Eric we import the majority of our oil from Saudi Arabia and Mexico believe it or not

QUOTE: The right's strategy is to crucify Obama for not taking action soon enough, and now that we are involved in a UN sponsored event (very different from Iraq) crucify him for going in.

That's what makes their commentary meaningless. They would disapprove of anything he did simply because he is their target. Look at health care-- his plan is very much like Mitt Romney's plan but they like Romney's and dislike his.

Their commentary is the same thing as writing "s**t" on a subway wall, then dashing away and feeling cool about themselves. There's no substance to what they say. It's just a bunch of noise.

I don't like Romney's plan; it's a disaster and I won't vote for him in the primary. Admittedly, if it is him vs. Obama, well that's a given. I think he actually likes our country.

@ceo-722851... as far as Haley Barbour is concerned, you must be joking. Do I really need to document his overt racist actions and statements of the past? Really...it speaks for itself. He can't help himself...every time he opens his mouth.

Eric-913730 "Bush did not a yes from the UN security council did he. Bush did not get the green light from the Arab league did he? Obama has done far more to build the right coalition than Bush did."

I guess the UN Security Council Resolution #1441, plus almost 50 other countries in Bush's coalition against Iraq wasn't good enough for you. You had to find one small group that didn't support it for it to be the 'right coalition'.

lol

?

Thomas Blue and Rico: Would you finally stop turning the race card already? It's very old by now. Everytime an American citizen chooses to criticize Obama, it isn't about race. If it hasn't already, that line is just going to backfire in your faces. Big-time.

Mr. Blue: You're ambivalent about Obama? Now why would that be?(sarcasm alert) Who exactly is this man? I've done quite a bit of research, and I still don't have a clue about who he is and what exactly he believes aside from the re-distribution of wealth and the lowering of standards on just about everything including healthcare, housing, and education.

Roy Wilson: You da man. Remember how Obama worked the BP spill? Let BP take total control so that when everything goes wrong, they will get the blame while the federal government did absolutely nothing for months. Then, after months of a continuing catastrophe, came a much delayed resolution by BP, Obama took full credit, even though his administartion did not deserve a single ounce of it, and did a photo op in Panama City with the wife and kids. Watch closely what he does and never mind what he says. His words are nothing but a distraction. It's like Three-Card Monte.

Thomas Blue -

On your Haley Barbour accusation/question, the answer is yes, I would like you to document his racist rants; I would say it is the sort of accusation that warrants some hard evidence seeing as it is an attack of somebody's character. The predictable, "actions speak for itself", run in make a quick accusation and insinuate it is common knowledge, you have to admit is pretty pathetic tactic. I don't know much about Haley Barbour and maybe you're right, but still, if you're gonna call someone a racist, you should probably back it up with your countless examples.

This is nothing more than an economic "hit". (Reference: John Perkins - Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.) Gadhafi is a proverbial flea on the a$$ of a rat. If his countrymen want him gone, let them do it. This is not our problem.

Questions we really need to ask ourselves:

1. Why are we really there?
2. Why does the UN have the authority to tell any country what it will do?
3. Will/Would the UN do the same to the US (or any large, industrialized nation/country)?

And that's just the start with.

Sorry, but I believe we've been under "one world rule" for years. Most people just don't realize it... Yet.

There should be a caption under the UN flag that reads:

"My name is Legion, for we are many"

Michigan and Eric: I did do the research. Turmoil in Libya raises the global price of oil. It doesn't matter that we import most of our oil from Canada or from any other country. Not been to the pump in the last month? How are those $40,000 Volts treatin' yas? Must be nice.

Siara: This story isn't about healthcare, but healthcare experimentation on a state level is far different than experimenting on 50 states all at once, especially when my own leftist congressman can't even begin to explain the federal healthcare law to his constituents. I haven't declared my support for any '12 candidate, but the huge difference is that Romney was big enough to admit that the Massachusetts experiment might have been a failure.

@JQ 1226189.. I'm about to be busy the rest of the day so don't have time to research and document all of Barbour's gaffes. Calling him racist is much like calling Palin a woman. But one quickie that comes to mind without research is that even though he grew up in Mississippi in the 50's, he didn't see any racism and didn't feel like the country needed any laws to level the playing field. Now I guess you could agrue that he's just stupid or oblivious and that he didn't, in fact ,see any. But he's older and further south than me and I sure saw plenty. So much that I am sick of it, even though I'm white. If you like, I'll post more later, but I'm off to spend time with my war hero today. Have a great one!!!

Rico

try again with the libbie talking points...Iraq was under embargo and couldn't sell oil to anyone who sanctioned the embargo (that would be U.N. members)...EXCEPT for the U.N. of course!!!...they were caught red handed in the "food for oil" scam against there own embargo...Kofi Annan and Benon Sevan should have been tried for running the scam.

nice try but fail

Thomas Blue

and your whole family history should be scrutinized for their racism, because I am sure they were participating in it at the same time as you claim Barbour was, and I doubt that you can prove otherwise.Have a great one!

Thomas Blue - "@ceo-722851... as far as Haley Barbour is concerned, you must be joking. Do I really need to document his overt racist actions and statements of the past? Really...it speaks for itself. He can't help himself...every time he opens his mouth."

Nice try race baiter...but you made a broad, blanket statement regarding several people and you were challenged to provide evidence of your bigoted, fallacious remarks. As expected, you could not....the only example you could come up with was to isolate one individual from the South. Again, I challenge you to provide one racist remark uttered by Haley Barbour regarding Barack Obama. The remarks he has made in the past in general conversation are no worse than......let's see... Joe Biden calling Obama "clean and articulate"? Or maybe try this one, "You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent." And finally Bill Clinton talking to Ted Kennedy. "A few years ago, this guy (Obama) would be getting us coffee."

Are those the racist remarks you're talking about...race baiter?

Thomas Blue, racism has nothing to do one's own color but your perceived notions of other groups based on color. Your statement, "You Black President Haters really should decide on one position other than "we hate Obama-the black president" and stick to it" is racist. Racism comes in all colors and all areas of this country and the world. You'd better serve yourself and your cause by pointing out racial remarks that Barbour, Miller, McConnell, Cantor, or Boehner made.

Listen to the tea head defend the racist. Sorry racists it's not about cards its about you not liking other races then throwing a temper tantrum when you get called on it.

Watch the body count and see if the number killed by coalition forces in order to "protect the people of Libya" doesn't exceed the number killed by gadhafy forces. Truth is the first caualty of every war.

Our government is just looking for an excuse to do what they want to do. THe real questiuon is "What are they trying to do?". I don't think it's what they're telling us.

Obama, a failed experiment "Racism comes in all colors and all areas of this country and the world."

Very true. Some races seem to think that the term only applies to "Other" races but certainly not to THEM.

Racism is a tendency to treat others significantly differently 'based on race', and that is certainly true of some people of ALL races.

Interestingly, a 'race neutral' study was made regarding people's attitudes towards others with a study group comprised of people of all major races, and guess who turned out to be the most "racist" of all in their attitudes towards others - the Blacks, which is not that surprising, since they are commonly allowed to refer to people of other races with derogatory expressions, and nobody gives it a second thought. Such 'special treatment' based on race is one of the reasons that 'racism' is still so prevalent. I think it was Chief Justice Roberts that said "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." As long as we continue with 'special treatment based on race' (Quotas, etc.), there will be continuing problems of racism. That is a two way street.

Martin Luther King, in his famous "I Have a Dream" speech said;

Too bad that after all of these years there are still people that think that they deserve 'special treatment' based on their race, and they get many judges to agree with them and order more 'special treatment'.

PS - Please spare me the 'racist' comments, because my wife is Black and she readily agrees with me, and we have mixed race children.

I am a long proponent of the USA doing the right thing. How dare we sit by and watch innocent people die. Should we get the inept UN involved in policing the world? Yes we should, that is the major function of the UN. But, like any political body, it has gotten political.

How soon we all forget history. Remember in 1990, when Bush Sr. got the coalition together for the invasion of Kuwait from Iraq? And the world was all about getting Saddam out of Kuwait, and that was that! The coalition, led by France, said we will not remove Saddam from power. thus begun a 10 year enforcement of a no fly zone, after Saddam started killing his own people.

If, the world would have taken Saddam out of power in 1991, we wouldn't be there now. Plain and simple. Now watch, France will balk at the 11th hour, and we will take up the slack.

For all of you who like to play the race card about the president, saying he is hated for being black, try this on for size, the only reasonhe was elected, was because he is black. It definatley wasn't because of his extensive experience in foreign policy, nor was it because of his extensve experience in government. Jimmy Carter is white, and he was just as inept as this president is. Ineptness is ineptness, regardless of color.

Tea - How the hell do you know who is innocent? By what the media has told you? Have you lived there? Do you have Kin there? I have learned that it is ALWAYS difficult to tell who is innocent or guilty. That's why juries have 12 people on them.

The reason we are in Iraq is because Saddam threatened George's daddy. The right thing looks like staying out of their business to me.

Someone needs to re-read UN Security Council Resolution #1441. It basically says that everybody agrees that Saddam is a bad guy, but does not even remotely authorize the use of force. The US spent over two months crafting this resolution and the only way it would pass was by taking out any references to use of force being authorized.

Resoultion #1973 is markedly different. It clearly states that it "Authorizes Member States... to take all necessary measures,... to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack..."

These are not just fuzzy statements. It goes on to clearly spell out the steps being authorised including the "No Fly" zone. "Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights imposed by paragraph 6..."

The two resolutions are as different as night and day. Nowhere does 1441 authorize anything. The word does not appear in the document. It dances around ever using that word but "recalls" previous resolutions dating back to 1990 regarding Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Even at that, you can not connect these to and authorization. Bushie defenders have said that 1441 "implies" and authorization. That's a ridiculous argument. These resolutions carefully use "operative words" like "recall", "despise", "condemn", etc. and most notably "authorize". "Authorize" does not appear in the eight pages of 1441 for the simple reason that it was not an authorization.

Remember the term "coalition of the willing"? Why not "UN coalition"? Or even "authorized coalition"? Good reason was that it wasn't authorized.

1NewDay "Someone needs to re-read UN Security Council Resolution #1441. It basically says that everybody agrees that Saddam is a bad guy, but does not even remotely authorize the use of force."

That is open to interpretation. Resolution 1441 did say;

"If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.^[2]"

^{When the Security Council did 'fail to act decisively' after continued Iraqi violations, Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum, and when he refused to comply, Bush used a "Coalition of the willing" (about 50 other UN member states) to invade Iraq and remove Saddam.}

^{Obviously, a further Security Council resolution would have been preferable, but Russia made it clear that they would veto any such resolution.}

Well, if this don't beat all!!!!!! Where is the evidence that Libya attacked our shores? Or our Naval Ships? Or our Land forces? Or our Embassy People? Or any American Civilian? Or hads any WMD?

All we have is other Countries word that Ghadaffy is killing his own People, just like Saddam did, but Saddam added the mass Poisoning of entire Kurd Villages(Toddlers,Babies,Women) just to demonstrate how evil he could be. So, when Bush got the OK to go, after the UN Top Nuke inspector declared there was proof positive Saddam had WMD, he was, and still is, the bad Guy.

However, Obama, without any form of provocation, and on the word of Foreign Nations and the UN, attacks Libya and it's people. There is ALWAYS collateral damage, so get used to it.

Whwere is the Left when their guy is Nuts enough to attack with U.S.Resources? Cheering him on. The Left will justify their eyes out for ObamaGod, but they can never say that Bush was right and has the Opposition on the run. Obama still favors Pakistan even though they harbor Convoy attackers and Al Queda, and whine if a drone makes a strike. Cut off Americaan Money for Pakistan until they allow the U.S. to enter those districts where Al Queda is, from within Pakistan, and drive them back across to Afganistran to our waiting troops. Don't announce the action, do as Reagan did in the Carribbian, and go quietly in the night, no press, no TV, no Cable, no News teams imbedded.

However, to do so would anger the Left, as it's "Bush's war" and not worthy of support or completion. Only Obama is allowed to attack unprovoked, period.

No Roy, wrong again. The resolution did not say what you quoted. Think about it, would a Security Council Resolution make a statement starting with, "If the Security Council fails to act decisively...."????? Sounds like rather odd language to put in a resolution.

Next time read the real thing, not someone's interpretation. All you did was quote John Negroponte's argument for legitimacy for going to war from Wikipedia. You falsely represented that as being in the Resolution. Note that I didn't attempt to hide my interpretation as being anything but an interpretation. But you can find the real deal below.

//daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement

i hope the UN gets its ass handed to them in a long bloody occupation. defund the UN, IMPEACH Obama.

A question was posed and I answer using the proof I have witnessed since Obama was Inaugurated, or regurgitated, whichever case may be:

the question:

watt75

Why does Hillary Clinton look more Presidential than President Obama? Maybe she was the man for the job after all?

My assesment, after following the Left's agenda since about 1960, and also by following Obamas actions/inactions while so far in office.

The answer is Hillary has always been more of a Man than ANY other Liberal out there, especially the spineless Muslim Obama.

1NewDay

In re-reading the information you provided, I have to admit that you are correct (I admit my mistakes) - It was the interpretation of the resolution by the U S Ambassador that was quoted, and it was that, along with the 1991 Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force that Bush relied upon in going to war. That use of force authorization was, however, passed by the U S Senate with broad bipartisan support - including Hillary Clinton, and it did also have broad international support as well, even though a threatened veto by one or more of the 5 permanent members of the Security Council made a U N resolution impossible.

Déjà vu… Iraq all over again…thanks Obama!!

All of you lefties are a bunch of commies, all of you right wing nuts are a bunch of fascists, and you independents are a bunch of indecisive cowards that need to learn to how to make a decision. I hate you all.

Love,

JQ

Roy,

Thank you for acknowledging your error. I didn't debate your statement about Congressional buy in. You'll note that in the new 1973 resolution, neither China nor Russia, who both had veto power, chose to exercise that. Instead they abstained, which is in effect is approving while covering their butts. (IMO)

Broad international support for the Iraq war is a little fuzzy, because there was no official count outside of the UN Security council. It was mainly Bush and Blair with some much smaller countries that felt it appropriate to support us, probably more than they opposed Iraq. Again, my opinion, but I think the facts bare that out.

I believe the two incidents are far removed from each other. France was probably what you might call the lead proponent of 1973. Who knows, that might have something to do with it's approval. Personally I think the situation differences were probably the key. You'll have to admit that other than the "boots on the ground" limitation, 1973 is a pretty broadly written authorization.

As I've stated before in previous recent posts, I think there is a tendency to look at all confrontations between the West and Middle Eastern/North African countries as much the same things. It almost gets reduced down to Americans vs. Muslims. Unfortunately I believe many Americans see it that way and I think much of the media portrays it as such. The reality is that each of these situations is it's own issue with many differences.

It's funny too that I see some odd sense of pride with many people wanting to "take credit" for the Libya thing now, even though we are not leading this and are just one of the players. Personally, I have no egotistical need to be in front on this. I think it's a refreshing change of pace to be support rather than lead, while everyone else mainly watches. It is odd though that the same people who complain that we are the world's police force, seem now to want to own that leadership role. Even the media seems to be over hyping the US role even when the details suggest otherwise. Sure would be nice to lose that cowboy mentality, that we've gotten so used to.

Some people seem to think too, that American war technology is vastly beyond anyone elses capabilities. Not so. We've got a lot more of it and some unique capabilities, but there's some really capable stuff in the hands of the British and French. I think we might very well be surprised at the Chinese capabilities too, if they were active players. It's interesting to note that the French sent in planes before suppressing Libya's air defenses. They weren't very worried and one might argue that they were very confident of their capability to defeat the defenses. The Rafales used in the first attacks are no slouches. They are highly capable modern fighter jets. The turkey shoot outside of Beghazi in what was reportedly a single attack of a small flight of French Rafales, suggests that they can hit what they're shooting at. My point is that we're not the only ones capable of pulling this off.

It would appear that at least initially, the coalition is essentially taking turns withintime windows and regions. This makes some sense as coordinating all this is no simple task. This helps cut down on accidental friendly fire issues.

I think I see another Nobel peace prize in the offing.

@ Rico

Bush used the War Powers Act of 1973 after Vietnam to declare his "own war" against Iraq. Congress never approved; they just had no choice but to go along because our country was already dedicated.

"Congress never approved;they just had no choice but to go along because our country was already dedicated."

hahaha...that's some stupid shyte

That "evil" is going to cost us billions that we all know we don't have. Where is Russia and China?

Russia and China are smart

Please post your name and addres, so the the families who have military killed there can come to your house and thank you personally.

Wilburn post yours as you don't mention the 2 other wars that were inherited and have had us involved in oil wars for 10 years,If your going to place blame then place it on all that are to blame not just the party line nonsense so many people on here love to spout off about.These attacks are being done unilaterally instead of the cowboy mentallity that happened in the first 2 and this time the house and congress were in agreement and the 2 loudess voices were republican.

The air strikes are by the will of God? LOL. I don't think so.

Don't believers realize that God can do it cheaper? (By His will, of course).

Maybe the prayer breakfasters in DC can send God the bill for this foreign policy atrocity.

quit being a @!$%#ing cry baby. if you don't want to die don't join the military, become a cop, firefighter, etc. pretty much don't be a hero if you can't take responsibility for the risk. people that are in the military should @!$%#ing know they could die at any time.

sorry pressed wrong button

Russia and China are cheap cowards who stand off in the corner watching psycho dictators murder their civilians.

I have no respect for countries that fail to do the right thing. Sometimes the right thing is the hardest to do.

CoochI grown increasing tired about the "two" wars that Obama inherited. Say what you like about Iraq the war in Afghanistan we entered was caused by those who chose to take down the two rather tall buildings in New York. Of the 2 wars that Obama inherited Iraq was in the process of winding down. Obama did not have to face the battle at its worst. In Afghanistan Obama has chosen to ramp up not down even though evidence suggests that those who attacked us have left. Now we are sending missiles in Libya and war planes. Is this a President that should have been given a Nobel Peace Prize?

10 yes votes in the UN is a major accomplishment here, and something Bush could not do. There are enough in the coalition to lead the no fly zone.

Remember, we kept Saddam pinned in the no fly zone for a very long time, stabilizing the region in Iraq.

For those saying ground forces with be needed, I say no. We got Gaddafy to back off by bombing him directly last time.

watt,

How about instead of complaining how much this is going to cost us, we try to bring down military spending by 1/3. We will still have the largest military in the world by a significant margin, but we'd be spending less.

Sounds pretty conserative to me. Maybe we can meet half-way if you are willing to listen.

For those complaining about money. The cost of a tomahawk is $575,000 a piece. Even if the US fired all of them (and they didn't England fired them as well). The total cost at 100 missiles is $57,500,000.

A small price to pay to defend human life.

Eric,

You coughing up the 57 mil we got children starving here at home and people out of work that 57 mil could go a long way here to save lives at HOME

I hate the fact that we're involved in another conflict but we'd be crazy not to lend our assistance in protecting the Libyan people. Why do crackpots like Gadhafi get to stay in power as long as they do? There's something wrong with international law when we feel obligated to act like we RESPECT a thug like Gadhafi.

watt75:...That "evil" is going to cost us billions that we all know we don't have. Where is Russia and China?...

I am glad they did not participate. This is a perfect opportunity to show our weapons to the world market. Why should the world buy untested cheap labor manufactured weapon from China. Why should the world buy Russian MIG's when you see them drop from the sky like flies.

Buy weapons from those who really have the nerve and trust in their own design to apply it!!

Made In USA, Made in UK, Made in France.

Do not buy German war machines as they did not show the will to use it. That means they do not trust their own weapons.

mark,

My apologies that 57 million dollars worth of tomahawk missiles would have cost you $ 0.57 for you and two kids (the average American family size being 3.14)

Russia and China are scared, because they well know this "Arab's spring" will come to their country for more liberties.

This is how the UN creates more problems than they solve. Instead of Obama waiting until a UN coalition could be organized, during which time Ka-daffy's forces have pushed the rebels back, the US should have pulled a "Charlie Wilson" and surrepticiously delivered a shipment of "sterilized" Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to the rebels. I'm pretty sure that would have worked to implement a "no-fly" zone, as it did for the Afghanni's vs. the Russians, even better than the coalition's current attempts, and a hell of a lot cheaper. Those cruise missiles are 1 million + each! And it could have occured while just the rebels were fighting around Tripoli. Now there's going to be hell to pay - now the enemy is the US-led coalition, and anytime you bring the UN into some conflict, it almost always ends up in a costly-to-US-taxpayers stalemate for decades. Another failure for the Clinton State Dept. and the Obama administration.

A small price to pay to defend human life

Aren't these the people that gave the freed Lockerbee bomber the welcome home of a national hero once he was freed from a Scottish prison? Now we're defending them?

These people aren't worth saving regardless of their situation.

That is not quite true Keith. First I am not an ahole. Second I have the bullet holes that says I will not only talk the talk but I will make the walk.

War is a MF and combat is hell. It is best avoided but from time to time there are some really bad people out there that well just need killing. It would be nice if instead we could just teach the world to sing but that is not going to happen anytime soon.

"The head of the Arab League criticized the strikes on Libya, saying they caused civilian deaths."..evidently it is ok for the rulers of Libya to kill its citizens but not for anyone trying to stop the slaughter that has been going on by the powers that head Libya today. True,,Russia and China are not involved int eh defense of the people of that country..but also be aware that they are friendly with Libya's power base...

watt75...another Clinton in office in washington would be as big a joke as the first one, Bill,,,would have to wonder who would be getting chased around the oval office this time round. And if we would ever get the real defination of "is" ?

And for the people spewing jibberish about people that join te military can die at anytime...

You take an oath when you join...I took that oath...

, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

It is unconstitutional to do what we are doing. Even under the guise of a coalition to BOMB a country under the announcement of a no-fly zone..that is as chicken poop as it get.

Obama lied the moment he said no troops would be assignt to this except in support roles. You telling me those US tomahawks shot themselves?

Learned nothing from Korea or Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan.

Best thing Pres. Obama has done since taking office.

Keith, Totally agree, This war is Warmongering, Now that Obama has authorized it, "THE CORPORATE MILITARY INDUSTRY" owns it..The corporate military industry wasn't satisfied with iraq and assganistan anymore.WHY, because were not expending anymore real firepower there anymore..NO more PROFITS there!

Now That the CORPORATE MILITARY INDUSTRY has us there we'll never leave as long as there is profit for all the "corporate military industries".WHAT A FRIGGIN JOKE.And don't tell me that were saving libya from genocide, if there was no oil there we WOULDN"T even know where libya is, never mind who GA DOOFY was....This makes me want to puke, The idiot politicians don't run this country anymore,THE CORPORATE MILITARY INDUSTRIES run this country!!!

David as I have 2 sons currently on the ground in the 2 wars you describe I have more at stake than the arm chair generals posting opinions here.Iraq was unnecessary and afghanistan was chosen because there was no way in hell we were going after the homeland of 19 of the attackers that dropped the twin towers,that being Saudi Arabia.I'm retired Speciai Forces 7th Group and you can bet your ass my information is considerably more accurate and reliable than the press releases you get to read

wilburn, please post your name and address so that my sons can come and thank you personally when they get back in the states for being such a strong supporter of wars for fun and profit. I.m sure they would be glad to thank you for their fallen and wounded friends also.

I hear that Dick Cheney is looking for a new hunting partner.

Cooch I am not going to even going to suggest that I am a general. I am neither qualified nor do I wish to be so. I am looking at it in terms of pure political ends. I in no way ever supported our entry into the Iraq war. While the removal of a tyrant may sound like a good thing it was not in our interests to do so. Too many people died for reasons I do not understand.

Afghanistan on the other hand I think that we had little choice. We were attacked and we needed to respond. What message would have been sent if we had not. There are reasons for us to have a military.

My earlier statement however still stands. There are those who like to point out that he inherited these wars. The problem is that he has been in office for two years and has done very little to change what was already going on. The withdrawal of ground forces had already begun. While I truly believe that he would have tried to find a way out the simple fact was that it was already happening.

Our reasons for being in Afghanistan have greatly diminished. Those who attacked us are long since gone and those who are fighting against us have no interest in attacking the United States. The leaders that we are trying to defend are as corrupt as those they replaced. When President Obama was elected his actions were not to pull out but rather increase our presence. This does not seem to be a President that is doing everything to get out.

Now we are attacking Libya. How can honestly say that we are there to protect the innocent civilians when all that will happen when we leave will be genocide. Do you honestly think that Gadhafy will say all is forgiven and simply leave everyone alone. If we simply pull out more civilians will be killed than if we had never entered.

Cooch your children choose to enter the military knowing what might come. Their reasons for entering were all their own as I am sure that you know. I hope and pray that they will remain safe as I hope and pray all of our troops are. To blame Bush for everything is misguided. Nothing in Obama's makeup seems to suggest that he would do something different.

Now German professes to know the will of God. What arrogance!

Just a question but where are all the "anti-war" people as Obama puts us on yet another third front? If this were any other President there would be marching on the streets.

Jeff I am a vietnam era vet and I post as much anti war as I have time for. What I want to know is why do so many Americans support war?

I think every one that does support war needs to sign up for that duty station.

Obama is going to get the same treatment from the right that the left gave Bush.

It's all about oil.

Both times it will be ridiculous.

The question is not your right to express your anti war feelings. You are clearly not the only one who is. The question is why has Obama been given a free pass while so much hatred has been expressed on Bush? You can't have it both ways.

Hey German ! The airstrikes are not the " will of God" you stupid idiot. They are the will of Man and the free world!

@German, who saids: "By the will of God, this airstrike has taken place. No doubt the Allied forces will prevail and the evil that Gadhafi, and his family, and followers represent will dissappear from the face of the earth."

Do you even know whose side we are taking in this new military engagement? Yes, Gadhafi is crazy, but did it occur to anyone to check the credentials of the other side?

Read this report: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/extremists-among-libya-rebels_n_837894.html

It states: "...on a per capita basis, no country sent more young fighters into Iraq to kill Americans than Libya -- and almost all of them came from eastern Libya, the center of the anti-Gaddafi rebellion that the United States and others now have vowed to protect, according to internal al Qaeda documents uncovered by U.S. intelligence."

When we brought down Sadaam, as crazy as he was, he kept the religious wingnuts and Al Qaeda suppressed. If we bring down Ghadafi, Libya will become their next haven.

It did not take the Arab League very long to start criticizing the strikes against Libya. Did they really expect that there would be no civilian casualties in this type of operation. Particularly when Gadhafi uses civilians as shields so that he can score points by dragging out dead civilian's bodies for the news media, there will be civilian casualties. It is completely unavoidable and to expect otherwise is either completely naive or disingenuous on the part of the Arab League. I think that the UN needs to tell the Arab League to keep their mouths shut or the UN forces will back away and let the Arab League deal with Gadhafi on their own.

MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...

Ok all you hypocrites, now lets see your lies and distortions on why Obama's war is OK and Bush's is not. What a joke this President is. Where is all the outrage about WAR. Oh ya thats right

The abstentions of China and Russia in the UN vote was huge -- neither vetoed, as was their right. I hope that we will keep our boots off the ground as it will utterly compromise the integrity of the Libyan revolution. We should have done this a week ago, but I won't complain too bitterly about second thoughts. A few of those during the last administration, had it been capable of same, sure would have made a difference now. Weapons of mass destruction was a total lie, and they knew or should be held to have known that.

Viva Libya!

Mad Dog is Mad.

Hello, Moammar Ghadhafi and Clan. Are you still breathing?

Yes, the only power Gadhafi will have to destruct the nations plummeting him with artillery fire after, will be when he is 6 feet under.

What about the Rebels. Who are they?. We will find out after the Air Strikes are over. How will they run a Democracy, who will run it? Are they Anti American?

It is good, the Airstrikes have been a "One, Two, Three Punch". In and then out. France has taken the lead, so the US isn't blamed for another US Intervention. We are lucky on re: this part.

If the Palace was destroyed in Tripoli; the Rebels, and Military can take refuge there, just like Saddam Hussein's Palace.

He didn't know how good he had it before the International World agreed to step in. That's what happens to megalomaniac Dictators.

PS: Russia is not on board. It is time to ignore this country, and not count of them for any kind of support. They are still running a Communist regime, supporting Gadhafi.

Well, if this don't beat all!!!!!! Where is the evidence that Libya attacked our shores? Or our Naval Ships? Or our Land forces? Or our Embassy People? Or any American Civilian? Or hads any WMD?

All we have is other Countries word that Ghadaffy is killing his own People, just like Saddam did, but Saddam added the mass Poisoning of entire Kurd Villages(Toddlers,Babies,Women) just to demonstrate how evil he could be. So, when Bush got the OK to go, after the UN Top Nuke inspector declared there was proof positive Saddam had WMD, he was, and still is, the bad Guy.

However, Obama, without any form of provocation, and on the word of Foreign Nations and the UN, attacks Libya and it's people. There is ALWAYS collateral damage, so get used to it.

Whwere is the Left when their guy is Nuts enough to attack with U.S.Resources? Cheering him on. The Left will justify their eyes out for ObamaGod, but they can never say that Bush was right and has the Opposition on the run. Obama still favors Pakistan even though they harbor Convoy attackers and Al Queda, and whine if a drone makes a strike. Cut off Americaan Money for Pakistan until they allow the U.S. to enter those districts where Al Queda is, from within Pakistan, and drive them back across to Afganistran to our waiting troops. Don't announce the action, do as Reagan did in the Carribbian, and go quietly in the night, no press, no TV, no Cable, no News teams imbedded.

However, to do so would anger the Left, as it's "Bush's war" and not worthy of support or completion. Only Obama is allowed to attack unprovoked, period.

David @ #3.38, Your reading of the feeling of folks are askew. There is seem to be hatred towards President Obama and it is not based on his politics.

Regarding President Bush, I doubt there is hatred rather dislike of many of his actions which include taking this country in to a war with Iraq under false pretenses, keeping the cost of these costly wars off the books, taking the country into a depression, including now having to finance Pakistan due to the spill over of the Afghanistan war into that country, allowing Pakistan to develop Nukes, increasing the dislike and distrust for the USA etc, etc etc.

Iraq did not have weapons of mass distruction. Afghanistan did not finance the terrorist that did 9/11.

This was known prior to the war, and those who brought this info to the masses were maligned by that administration even as far as to the outing of a CIA operative to shut her husband up and the rediculing of countries that questioned the 'evidence' that was being presented as proof of Sadam Hussain having WMDs

By the way the people of Iraq did not ask this country to help them get rid of their oppressive cruel dictator, his family and cohorts. The people of Iraq were not ready for change, because if they were they would have started their own push for freedom.

There were very few countries that agreed with going into war with Iraq. The Afghanistan war was/is also another waste of time and resources imo.

The monies spent on those two wars could have been used to beef up the security of this country instead of attempting to enact revenge for 9/11.

What has been gained from these wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is the world any safer from terrorism?

President Obama is not being given a free pass about anything imo. The press/media including ordinary folks are freer today to speakout/express their opinions now than back in the President Bush era.

Bush is no longer president, and no matter how one tries to rewrite history it cannot be done successfully. There are alway folks who remember the past and in this age of technology it is as simple as checking the videos....

The rebels said they will beat Gadhafi in two days. Well, let's be clear, they wouldn't be beating anybody without those expensive Tomahawk missiles. BTW, it was reported this afternoon that all but two bombs were dropped by the US.

Is this what Obama says is a small coalition participation?

The Arab League never sign on to this since they have yet to drop any bombs. When push comes to shove, civilian deaths will be blamed on the warmongering west. The Arab League now says they supported a no-fly-zone, but never dropping bombs on other Arabs.

This is why I am opposed to any more democracy help from the west. This is a cultural difference. The ME can stand back and watch Me leaders slaughter people and say nothing, but let one American drop a bomb in the wrong place and kill another Arab and we get tagged as the evil doers.

I don't think anybody disagrees that Gadhafi is evil. But then so are many leaders in this world. What do we do about them? So while it might feel better to suggest UN approval makes it a "just" war, it still technically did not in any way pose a threat to the US.

I frankly am shocked that Obama as authorized this.

"By the will of GOD?" You don't read the Bible I do, cause One of the Ten Commandments says: Thou Shall Not Kill. People start wars, not GOD.

Ray:

Check your resources re: Gadhafi and his Terrorist Acts since the late President Reagan was in Office and up until now..

Reagan is the one who termed his Mad Dog. Mad Dog, yes, because Reagan had the vision at that time to tell Americans and the World, in the 80's that G was the biggest threat to the Middle East. It so happens, Western Society as well.

We certainly were involved in Gadhafi--how about Lockerbie, and acting on Terrorism by himself to bring down the Plane with mostly American Citizens. That is an act of War..

There are also many more Terrorist attacks that have his signature on it.

Now he wants to destroy the World. He can, if he is still alive.

To all the people bitching and moaning about the cost, I sure hope you were in favor of the tax hikes for millionaire/billionaires. These are people fighting and dying for their freedom from a brutal dictator, and you think 57 million is to high of a price to help them? You are probably a bunch of Christians to. This is why I don't even go to church anymore, I believe in God, but so many of the so called Christians make me sick. And just a side note here, those missiles would eventually been used on exercises.

....what does not liking the price of 2 more conflicts when we're almost broke have to do with being Christian? Take your anti-religion nuttery somewhere else. OP can take his pro-religion nuttery somewhere else as well.

I do love the hypocrisy of the liberals though. They seem to be all FOR war when it's the great Obamessiah calling for blood. Then it's a righteous cause of democracy! Pfft.

I also love how the Arab League is already bitching about how we're carrying out the military actions they refuse to. Because God knows no Arab nation will help another unless it's for the cause of destroying Israel or America. Get us out NOW. Let them fight their own wars. If they thought they couldn't win with what they had, they shouldn't have gotten froggy and started a revolution.

Yeah us firing a few Tomahawks at Libya, and Iraq/Afghanistan are pretty much the same thing. That is a insult to people like me who actually had to go and fight there. And who said I was a liberal????? But I love how you point out hypocrisy, when your statement is hypocritical.

So, now we have a third war. Great. Since it's Obama 'ousting an evil dictator' rather than Bush 'ousting an evil dictator' the left is just fine with war. Utter hypocrisy. Condemn Bush and applaud Obama for killing civilians. Killing civilians? Massive bombardments have a tendency to kill people, lots of people and they destroy homes and lives, even if done under the pretext of 'saving lives.'

I'm reminded of Janet Reno who, after the Branch Davidian fire that killed 80 people, mostly women and children, went on TV and stated that the original reason for going in was to save the children from reported child abuse.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize there was a HUGE difference between killing civilians with missiles and killing civilians with bullets. My mistake.

PS - I was in Iraq and Afghanistan as well. What does that have to do with anything?

Dead is dead, its the excuse and rationals for killing that get ridiculous. Going in to 'save' someone using missiles and bullets tends to defeat the purpose of 'saving' them. Interesting that the rebels wanting him gone are given far more air-time than the people who say they support him. There are two sides to a story, too often the media only plays one.

@Brantley,

After looking at your posts, I know you are a righty. You guys already cut the programs for the poor and hungry. Might as well saves a few thousand people somewhere else.

Yeah lets make sure we get the side of Gaddafi also. I sure we might see his side if only we had some background information on him....... Oh yeah wait, he has only been in power for 40 years you frigging moron. I am sure that some of our missile strikes will indeed lead to civilian casualties. But Gaddafi is a evil person who has, and will do much worse to the people of Libya.

PS Gharms my reply about Iraq, was that it was a insult for someone to compare what is going on in Libya to Iraq or Afghanistan. Just like it would be stupid to compare the Korean war to WW2.

BZe1

To state that their is no hatred, on both sides, is of course wrong. It often is very easy to see those who are posting because of hatred and those who are trying to express real dialog. What we need to acknowledge is that it exists and go forward from that.

The statement that the many of the Iraq people did not express desire for assistance would be a misread. While I did not support the invasion the proof that it existed was the welcoming we received when the Hussein regime was toppled. Saddam Hussein kept power by exertting force on his people. The problem that we had then, as we may well now, is the vacuum that was created when the government was destroyed. Faction after faction declare war on each other and we were caught in between. It is a no win situation when you are caught in the middle of a civil war.

In regards to the WMD I truly believe that there was a belief that they existed. While nuclear weapons was definitely a push, only because Israel had taken out his ability to do so, the idea that he had chemical weapons was not. After all he had used these very same weapons on his own people during the Iran/Iraq war. If that is not an example of a tyrant I don't know what is. It should be noted that the Bush administration was not the country that believed he had them.

The argument about entering Afghanistan at first was very different. We were attacked by those who were in Afghanistan. The government within Afghanistan at that time was keeping them safe from outside interference. The World Trade Towers and the Pentagon were smashed into by airplanes that were hijacked. If it had not been the actions of the passengers in the other plane the White House would too have crashed in to. War was declared and we needed to respond to it.

The problem that we have now is that those who were involved in the attacks have long since left Afghanistan. Now we are supporting a corrupt regime from an enemy that has no interest in attacking us. Obams's responce to this is to increase our troop level. This is where I firmly disagree with Obama. There was a time to enter this battle but now is the time to leave. We won the war we went to fight all we have a civil war that we a caught in between. Sound familiar.

We have seen over and over again the argument that all of this came from the Bush administration. The idea that all of it is his fault and not Obama's is infuriating. President Obama has been in power for over 2 years and there are many who still blame Bush. This can and does make many angry.

What keeps me following these blogs is not those who write only to spew venom. If I wished to do that I would go to Fox. What keeps me here is the fact that in many places alot of thought goes into it. You have to look at how something is said to determine if all that is involved is hatred because of policy and politics and hatred for hatrd sake.

So far what Obama has done is not to bad. But he needs to keep his word that the US will step back and let France and England do the rest, including ground forces. There should be no US soldier on the ground there.

As to inheriting Iraq then why did he extend the withdrawal date to 2014. He also wants to be there. And as far as Afghanistan goes he needs that lithium for his energy program as he is already trying to set time frames for electric cars.

Now why would China be involved? First they are a communist Country and are probably with Qaddafi and what can Russia contribute from their military.

And people need to realize the US does not want Qadaffi to lose power it only wants to contain him as they did when they bombed and killed his son. If the US wanted Qudaffi out they would have done so after he took down an airplane over Lockerbie.

Afghanistan and Iraq are prime examples of the fact that US policy doesn't seem to understand that there are radical islamic fundamentalist wanting control of the oil and the destruction of Israel and the west. No mentions have been made of the mortars being fired into Israel while attention was on Libya. Hamas is in control of Lebanon, Hamas is one of the UN's coalition countrys voting for the attacks on Ghaddaffi. Then the Arab League saying, yep, go get him and standing back to let the western countries take the heat and the flack.

The US is being manipulated masterfully, again.

Oh, they'll deny that till the new regime takes over......then we won't hear anything about it from them afterwards......just like MSNBC buried the news story of Obama starting the Military Tribunals up again, after he insisted that was immoral and against the law.

Do you want to know where China and Russia are at in this war?

They are both sitting back because they are scared that if they enter the war that the U.S. might just take it to their asses for general purpose.

And they would be right. As much as Russia and China have caused problems in the past for aiding countries such as Vietnam, Iran etc with munition's and military aid they would be and should be scared to enter into the conflict.

Russia and China are the main perpatrator's to problems across the world that then cause America to have to pick up the pieces of the problems they have caused.

Yes, Boston7788, perhaps your comment at #3.8 is right (i.e. it may seem correct, at this time). The day will come when both (Russia and China; the government's and their loyal supporters (and there will be an immense number)) will think it is time to try to prove otherwise. But for all the anger that they come forward with and despite the immensity of the armies which they manage to raise, it will not do them any good. (You can remember these words and recall them at the time everyone gets to see it.)

david1159, your post seems well thought out. Somewhat misplaced at certain points (only in my opinion), but striking in it's sincerity. That is precisely the most valuable missing link in most comments in this forum and most other political forums. From high profile and grandstanding political leaders, cable "news" commentators, letters to our local and nation leaders or the editor of our local paper, we often express ourselves in angry passion instead of calm reason and sincere debate.

Anger, like fear, is a useful tool in extreme situations. Anger, like fear (when used in excess), is destructive to all of us and those around us. Anger, in excess, only excites and amplifies the same feelings in others that strongly agree or disagree with us. Just as fear, in excess, will always excite those that threaten us and those that cower in fear at our sides.

We Americans have become both a very angry and fearful people. There are many that will disagree with the above statement. I ask that they read a few dozen of these comments with open minds. I ask that they look around us with wide open eyes.

The economic disparity between the haves and have nots is much wider than ever before in American history. The lack of living wages, to support our families, rapidly destroys the once vibrant middle class that has always been the backbone of the American dream and prosperity. The fear of terrorist attacks as we continue our addiction to foreign oil , thus financing the very people that breed these terrorists. How did we get here and why did we allow it?

We most certainly allowed it. Our founding fathers provided a road map that gave us control of our own destiny as a free people. Generations before us paid with their very lives to preserve that control. Where did we go wrong?

We allowed lying, traitorous and greedy politicians to divide us with fear and anger as they filled their pockets at our expense. Some would blame the Democrats and Obama. Others would blame the Republicans and Bush. The blame rests squarely on our own shoulders. You can't blame a thief for stealing your car if you give him the keys.

It's time to put the destructive fear and anger behind us. It's time to dismiss the pundits and politicians that use such tactics to further divide us. It's time to send such snakes back under the rocks as we unite once again with reasonable and sincere debate as proud Americans with a common goal.

Rebellion against the most barbaric and evil seventh century tin pot dictator is a wake up call to all the tin pot dictators ruling Muslim nations in ME.

The most evil ruler and his supporters should have been removed long time back.

How long a few people will rule exploiting masses as slaves?

The actions of the US, France, British are morally and legally correct. Or else thousands of Libyans would have been butchered just like Stalin days in Russia.

We are liberators from evil forces. But no soldier on the ground.

I see the weak-minded lefties are still at it. What's the matter? You can't handle the truth or is it just that your normal response is to act like petulant 3 year-olds throwing a tantrum? Collapse all you want. Each time you do it, it just makes you all look weaker and weaker.

I don't like the phony pretenses under which the UN resolution was passed -- namely, that we would be enforcing a "no fly" zone. Within a day we were bombing dozens of military vehicles and blowing up buidlings in Tripoli. What does that have to do with flying?

Armchair me this? If we don't want the people of Libya killed by the tyrant....so what about all of those African nations where tyrants and rebels are killing and raping their people.

This again is about oil! Destablizing the Middle East means higher oil futures, higher oil futures cripple our economic recovery. Save your BS banter about the US military...the price of freedom and all the other crap. We need the Middle East to quiet down, so we use Libya as an example for other Arab leaders to QUICKLY find a solution.

Weak minded lefties, Mike? Can you type, hide in the closet and wave a flag at the same time? Bottom line- economics rule the day. Screw you and your right wing agenda, screw the middle too...with the great professional politicians. This is about us. We cannot cteate an economy without chasing cheap resources. We don't know how, and furthermore, reward bad Corporate behavior. And who suffers....your very own soldiers who are tired, still need that damn hazard pay, and have nothing to go home too. Right wing hawks....Corporate shills....that's why we attack Libya, and why we still ignore Africa, and our own social problems domestically. Good day to all of you, crawling back under those rocks.

Solve our economic flaws inherent to American capitalism, solve this in the process. Community driven economics are the same, whether you're in Tunisia, or Detroit. Economics where the worker is substantially rewarded and respected, in turn, keeps you safe and well off. Greed and selfishness, listening right wing America? greed and selfishness brings discontent and greater government regulation....as seen in the Arab world...soon to be seen in the big cities and political centers in America in a mere 20 years.

There is so much talk and hate over this war, and religion seems to fuel the argument even more at times, why is that?

Those who think this is Gods will are far off the divine wall of sanity.

The next time you get down and look up at the sky, and ask for something remember your talking to the wind.

There is no big one nor has there ever been any one, and if it did exist it would be a sadist for what it has allowed to continue happening on this bloody sickening planet by those who lay claim to it.

The only thing this book of god has ever brought to this world is destruction, hatred, war, bigotry, and the list is on and on.

If something good happens it is not divine, it is simply nothing more then what it is.

The ones who worship any religion that they can not truly know or whom they cannot see, are blinded by the lies of what is written within this man made book of fear, or was it control.

This book like all the different versions should never have been taken so literally and rather thrown into the very wars and dead corpses it has helped humans forge and validate throughout history.

I am a free man, but I would help save or take out anyone just like those who claim to believe in this so called book of words, because down deep we are no more then animals.

This world is no more then a bunch of animals living upon it that evolved through time, and now think there above it all because they can think.

I am as you, right down to the smallest life form known.

We are animals that think we are civilized enough to make our own decisions when in truth we all hide behind a lie.

I would expect that this comment will not be appreciated, or accepted by many for its content.

I am only saying that wars are always fought with some form of religious attachment to them, and I hate the outcome, simple.

I also don’t believe that this comment should be mocked, or banned from this vine.

I have a right to speak of my own beliefs just like you feel when you speak out against others with all your words of divine, dare I say it word book chapter bashing.

That is the main reason that makes this world such a complex place to live yes?

The many horrible wars we have waged in the name of this so called good word.

The amount of bad it has caused far out weighs the good in my personal opinion, but then again I am just an animal like you that thinks it knows everything yes?

I am not putting your faith down.

I am only expressing my belief.

One thing is for sure, we are all the same when it comes down to being no more then smart animals.

I am no worse a person then any other for it, but some of you and that divine word would have me cast out into the fires of whatever that book of yours says.

This is exactly my point; it is a dangerous book full of human written words that are based on an ideology that was written at a time to which was shrouded with ignorance, and superstition.

The ones who understood its real power were the ones that did not believe in it at all.

The reason I brought this topic up about this article is because there are many people suffering in many countries all for the sake of this so called book and its human written words.

I am a freeman with no god, and I am just as kind or hateful as anyone who says they are better then me because of there pledge to this so called divine word, book, or divine entity to which they worship.

In other words, if it makes you feel good, then keep using it, but I will not.

JMPO we all have one that is another one of our biggest follies.

David1159, I too think your comments are well-spoken and show some thought process behind them. I would like to address the issue of concern to you though, you said that Afghanistan was won and it was time to withdraw all the troops, not 'ramp up' and send in more. It was Obama's belief too, however, he has Generals and commanders that give him advice about the conduct of war and he listened and responded to their advice, which was to send in a surge of troops to turn the tide, as our troops were engaging more and more every day and we were starting to lose important battles and strategic points. The surge was enough to get those battles won and regain the strategic points that were lost. It was best for our troops that were on the ground that we send in the support that we did, it saved lives and boosted the moral of those that are exhausted from marathon tours.

Those two wars were entered into during the Bush years and although it sounds easy to 'just pull out and get our guys home', it is like steering a warship, you don't do anything too quickly or there are more problems than solved. It is important for those that have served in those countries that we make sure their efforts are/were not in vain. We must ensure that some level of stability remains, so that we are not thrust back into their countries.

Omar Gadhafi is a known evil tyrannt. He has been such for 40+ years and will continue to be one until he is removed or dead, however that is not up to America to decide. For the most part, more leaders in the Middle East are evil tyrannts then peaceful leaders. By GW Bush's policy, they should all be removed! Which is not far from reality, however it would be nearly impossible to remove them without a very long and bloody war. I would start with Saudi Arabia, though, as they are the actual one's behind 9/11 and 99% of all the other terrorist acts in the World.

The idea of providing military support to Libya goes against the grain of what I believe in. I have posted many comments throughout NewsVine against our involvement. I understand that we have the ability to provide support and there is a possibility that with a new leadership from the rebels, they will remember that we supported them and give us a chance to work with them. There is also a very real possibility that they will not give us credit for supporting them and still declare America their enemy. For the most part, they are seeing what our Tomahawks can do and I don't believe they will want to be on the receiving end of them! Henceforth, they may be willing to cooperate and work with us.

Dear Freemannogod, I am very sorry that you feel the way you do. I wonder if you ever feel 'empty', like something is missing but you don't know what.

I wonder if you ever wonder what the purpose of us being on planet Earth is all about? Did we just migrate out of a pond of fate and learn to slither and than walk? Did we morph from ape?

If you think about all the ideologies that have existed since the dawn of man, isn't it unique that the Bible (in all of it's writings and forms) have followed us and that we still read and refer to it?

Wars have been started and fought for land, women, gold, lust of power, religion, water and food. There have been wars since the Caveman and will continue to be wars, though I would hope that we could move beyond them for the sake of humanity.

We are more than animals that can walk on two legs and dominate the world, we have compassion and reason. Most animals exist only to exist. They eat, mate and fight for domain and the ability to reproduce and keep their species alive. If you encounter a lioness in the mountains, she will not have compassion or reason towards you, she will kill you and eat you and bring you back for her lion to eat. Whereas, you may or may not kill that lioness with your rifle, due to whether you feel the need to destroy her.

I don't agree with all religions of the world, however I do know deep in my spirit that God does exist and I know, without hesitation, that he is a living and caring God that wants what is best for all that believe in Him. Cruelty and inhumanity is not God's desire, but man's will to show domain over others. If you know that Earth is not our final destination, then you understand that it is not about being alive here, it what you do while you are alive here that seems to help us grow and achieve a higher understanding of what this life is all about.

You can an intelligent animal and just meandor around and mate, fight and breed. You have that ability and right, however if you ever wonder what else we are here for, you might look to God for those answers. You will get a real feeling of warmth and understanding.

Religion is mans way of dealing with God, not God's way of dealing with man. There are many more false teachings of God than there are true teachings. Church is a building with a collection of like-minded people, that if true teachings are offered, you will feel the very presence of God! That is awesome and inspiring and I have felt it!

But this Vine is about Libya and our involvement there, just thought I would feed into your comment, which is relevent in it's own way.

I believe GWB will be redeamed in the history books, in ww11 the Red Cross reported they think Jews are being misstreated in camps, it was 1944 before the terrable truth came out, Hillary is doing a great job bringing Gadaffi to his downfall, i don't know if Obama is slow to react because another day later would have been too late, or waited untill most countries where in agreement before pressing the button

the US should have pulled a "Charlie Wilson" and surrepticiously delivered a shipment of "sterilized" Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to the rebels. I'm pretty sure that would have worked to implement a "no-fly" zone, as it did for the Afghanni's vs. the Russians,

Those Afghanis we helped are more commonly referred to these days as the Taliban. Maybe someone DID learn something from history.

There are a few things that are becoming more clear.

1. Barry and George are a lot more alike than we all thought. Perhaps they work for the same people (not us). Maybe those that run the Democratic and Republican parties share an office.
2. Just because we support our troops does not mean we support war. This goes for Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents.
3. We have become the world's policeman. We are not the least bit suprised to wake up and find out that "we" have fired missiles at someone who has done nothing to us. This seems normal to us.
4. We get involved in conflicts with no plan or apparent concern for getting out. Perhaps this is because someone has no intention of getting out, but they neglected to tell us.
5. We don't find out the real reasons "we" did what we did for 30 or 40 years because it's "secret" or until the guilty are dead and honored. Meanwhile the history books have all been written and everyone's got the story wrong.
6. Charlie Wilson had it right.
7. Every time we "help" with someone else's revolution, we will somehow be the bad guy before it is over.
8. We do not learn much from our mistakes.

Sally,

Keith's comment was 100% on the money and he should not only not have been suspended, his comment should not have been collapsed. His use of the word a--hole, in this case was not even a personal attack. His observation should be shared with the public in hope that one day the public may understand how some in the military view their lazy asses. Keith was right and you are wrong.

And it's not the first time.

His use of the word a--hole, in this case was not even a personal attack.

You A**holes that support war are never the one who do any of the fighting or dying.

When you use a clarifier such as "you", it's definitely a personal attack on all people who support war. Go troll somewhere else.

Nah. I think I'll troll right here.

Impeach him on what grounds? That just is not going to happen. I tend to vote Republican but I am starting to think Hillary could win the nomination against Obama and by the look of the Republicans running in 2012 she just might have my vote. Can't believe I just said that but it is what it is.

Wilburn your comments have nothing to do with the events unfolding as much as they are about your dislike of our president.I'm a registered independent and voted for both parties in the last elections as I tend to look for the best man not the party

Sounds like Wilburn is yet another money grabbing businessman outsourcing his business to cheaper labor and costs!! But blaming it on Obama is a very nice Smoke Screen!

That's right Wilburn move your business out of the US and layoff those US workers now!

I'd much rather Impeach Florida's new Governor......................

Wilbur do us all a favor. Pull you lower lip over your head and swallow and choke your self.

Wilbur you are simply blind to your hatred. I do not like this President and I am not likly to vote for him in the future but lets get real. There has to be a reason for impeachment and I can't find any here. Remember if we choose to impeach a President simply because you don't like him what is there to stop someone trying to impeach a President that you do like.

Thomas,

You my friend are part of the problem. Yes there is racism in our country (both ways) but just like there was opposition to Bush there will be opposition to President Obama based on policies and beliefs. I did not vote for President Obama but I at least have respect and always refer to him as President Obama.

No, RN in Philly...Bush was very wrong. So is Obama. I am concerned that often times Obama looks for middle ground when he should apply a core belief. Leave Iraq now. The opportunity to really win in Afghanistan was squandered by Boy George. Now we are just propping up another druglord/warlord. Get out now. Let Pakistan nuke itself if it wants to. It is pointless to "take on a few bad guys" unless their own people have taken them on first. The Libyan involvement is right. At least for now. We can't fix the world. Once you decide that we need to take on the "bad guys", where do you stop? This is like the absurd "war on terrorism". It is unwinnable and will never end. Do we really want to devote the rest of our lives to fighting unnecessary fights that can't be won? Do we really want to commit our kids and grandkids to a never-ending bloodbath?

watt...I suspect that we are all part of the problem. I tire of what sounds like blatant racism against President Obama. We really have much bigger problems to address, don't you think? I don't have all the answers. I doubt that anyone on this earth does. But I am sure that hate and killing isn't the answer.

The arguments are interesting here. Many saying we can't afford to be there (a money argument). An argument that we shouldn't police the world (a policy argument). Lastly, defend human rights and life (a policy argument).

I think human life is more important to defend, and in the end helps us in this region of the world. As more and more Arab countries go towards democracy the better for us here.

RN in Philly,

That has never been a question. However, Bush involved us in two wars, and didn't have America pay a penny for them. In fact, he lowered taxes on the rich, making them pay less for his wars. Not the smartest thing to do in a time of war, cut taxes on the people who will give you the most money to pay them.

Nice post, Eric.

wilburn wrote: Call your elected reps start impeachmnet against Obama now.

Wilburn, how many times have you posted basically this exact same message? One hundred times? Two hundred times? Are you some angry, pimple covered brat still living in your parent's basement at the age of 35? Don't you have anything else to write? Jeez Louise, what a vacuous airbag you must be. At least OCCASIONALLY try tailoring your response to the article instead of just screaming "Obama sucks. Impeach Obama" over and over. It's pathetic.

I don't care what grounds, get that lying, inept, quasi socialistic, Muslim loving, warmongering megalomaniac out of our white house.

Wow, what a credit you are to this country, Wilburn! You don't care if what you're doing has legal grounds, you're mad as hell that the guy you didn't like won and you want to throw him out!! And you're willing to believe any lie about him because you just hate him so much that they must be true!! Pssst...did you hear the one about Obama being a Super-Muslim Martian who eats babies for breakfast? Impeach the baby eater!

Grow up, loser. You can't just impeach someone because you don't like them. You can't impeach someone based on gossip. They actually have to do something illegal; like, oh, I don't know...let's try lying to a nation about the weapon capabilities of another country in order to go to war with them without UN support. That's an impeachable offense, don't you think?

Lots of people want Obama impeached and they mostly have the same reasons. Wonder what it could be??

The white house did the right thing. Innocent people were being slaughtered so that one man could stay in power. How could any of you disagree with that?

As I said above; these innocent people you're talking about are the very same people that treated the Flight 103 over Lockerbee bomber as a hero when he was released from a Scottish prison and sent back to Libya on humanitarian grounds. He was returned to a national heros welcome by these people. These people could care less about us Americans and wish us all destroyed. Now we are defending these very same people? What's wrong with this picture?

obama just loves his muslims!

wilburn you ignorant twit, (I mean that in the loving christian domination way, so don't take it the wrong way) impeachment didn't work for bush and cheney, why do you think it will work for obama?

I heard that W was actually bin ladens brother, same mother.

P.S.-- I have no idea why the copy paste of the headline and my comment ended up in such a large font....

You had me until the link you posted contained the words "fox news." Sorry, but Faux Noise is not a new reporting organization, it is a news creating organization. Facts do not matter to Faux Noise, only their spin on their own brand of facts matter. Anyone who believes their television needs a electric shock therapy. It's a box with talking heads inside and those talking heads are paid DEARLY to keep you in a constant state of rage, fear and utter despair. They want you to implode and go all postal on anyone who doesn't believe what they've brainwashed you to believe. It is most unfortunate that you aren't the only one of the brainwashed.

Frank, George W. Bush is not the president anymore. Why can't you libs get over it. If obumbler screws up, you blame Bush. It's getting old.

You voted for a moron. He has no experience running anything. That is why he has 26 czars to think for him.

That is why he has 26 czars to think for him. Most of whose positions were created by Bush!!

I think she has a good ability to persuade countries and leaders to follow some necessary agenda. She also know knows where Russia is. I have a feeling that if Mrs. Clinton does a clean swift exit from Libya and accomplish the removal of Guyduffy she might get a job in White house next time around.

Obama did NOT commit ground troops in the action against Qaddafi. If the Libyan rebels receive arms from the U.N. coalition the U.S. Navy might involved in the transfer of equipment.

asknreceive1-1054310...

Here's the same AP story on a Non-Fox newspaper website....The Washington ComPost......you feel better now ??? What a bunch of babies....ewww it's on foxnews, otherwise it might be true....grow up.

"Excerpts of letters Moammar Gadhafi sent to President Barack Obama"
"Letter to Obama:

To our son, the honorable Barack Hussein Obama,

As I have said before, even if, God forbid, there were a war between Libya and America, you would remain my son and I would still love you. I do not want to change the image I have of you"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/excerpts_of_letters_gadhafi_sent_to_obama_sarkozy_other_world_leaders/2011/03/19/ABGaKFx_story.html?wprss=rss_world

Look at that...exact same words as from the FoxNews story. Hmmmmm.

There is something dramatically wrong with a country like the US, which would rather spend money and resources to bomb Libya, (Libya has oil) killing innocents, rather than take that same monies, resources and aid Japan (Japan does not have oil)!

The US Leaders have learned NOTHING, from the US invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan and the Arab world - nothing!

Why do they (the Arab world) hate us in the US? Because we in the US continually meddle in the Arab countries affairs, killing innocents!

How would the US like it if China sent military aid to those in the US who want to end Obama's reign?

The US should take care of their own nation, before trying to police the world!

The logic of bombing ones way to peace is wrong! Force has proven NEVER to be the way to win people over!

Force does not work in the US and will not work in the Arab world.

Allah is on the Arabs side!

Again, I urge Republicans to find an electable candidate to run against Obama in 2012. Give those of us who are moderate, Independent, or disenfranchised Democrats someone we can vote for. Please do not choose a divisive candidate (Palin, Barbour, Gingrich) that will only garner support from the far right. One litmus test, don't choose a candidate that wants to make Obama's citizenship an issue. Even Bill O'Reilly knows the birthers are pinheads. I won't vote for stupid. Heck, run Bill O'Reilly!

Hey Thomas Blue (AKA: closet racsist), there is nothing wrong with critisizing a sitting president, and doing so is not a sign of racism!

oreraider

Remember Hillary's Screech ???

"In 2003, Hillary Clinton screeched "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJxmpTMGhU0

Oh, and by the way Thomas Blue...lookin' like Hillary is the one answering those 3AM phonecalls....even though she lost the primary to Barry, The WhiteHouse call forwards them to Hillary

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1207674/hillary_clinton_3am_phone_call_ad/

There is no such creditable organization such as Washington.comPost. Washington Post.com however is out there.

TiredVoter-951582...It was a play on words....They say FauxNews or FauxNoise....I say Washington Compost.....like in a compost pile ??....get it ??
The link is to the newspapers website article.

Well, if this don't beat all!!!!!! Where is the evidence that Libya attacked our shores? Or our Naval Ships? Or our Land forces? Or our Embassy People? Or any American Civilian? Or hads any WMD?

All we have is other Countries word that Ghadaffy is killing his own People, just like Saddam did, but Saddam added the mass Poisoning of entire Kurd Villages(Toddlers,Babies,Women) just to demonstrate how evil he could be. So, when Bush got the OK to go, after the UN Top Nuke inspector declared there was proof positive Saddam had WMD, he was, and still is, the bad Guy.

However, Obama, without any form of provocation, and on the word of Foreign Nations and the UN, attacks Libya and it's people. There is ALWAYS collateral damage, so get used to it.

Whwere is the Left when their guy is Nuts enough to attack with U.S.Resources? Cheering him on. The Left will justify their eyes out for ObamaGod, but they can never say that Bush was right and has the Opposition on the run. Obama still favors Pakistan even though they harbor Convoy attackers and Al Queda, and whine if a drone makes a strike. Cut off Americaan Money for Pakistan until they allow the U.S. to enter those districts where Al Queda is, from within Pakistan, and drive them back across to Afganistran to our waiting troops. Don't announce the action, do as Reagan did in the Carribbian, and go quietly in the night, no press, no TV, no Cable, no News teams imbedded.

However, to do so would anger the Left, as it's "Bush's war" and not worthy of support or completion. Only Obama is allowed to attack unprovoked, period.

Ray-1033782...That was a great well thought out post.

At least Bush went to Congress and the American people and made his case. Videos abound of Democrats agreeing that Saddam had WMD's and was using them on his own people and in his war with Iran and was a brutal dictator. Bush was behind his desk in the Oval Office when he addressed the American People.

Obama on the other hand has "deemed" he went to Congress because he "talked" to the "Leadership" in Congress. At least he got out of his swim trunks in Rio and put on a suit before he came on camera to make his statement.

Last week Obama said Gadhafi had no legitimacy and had to go. Now it's we are protecting the people....What is Obama's end game....he hasn't told us yet.

ok, for all those not trusting Fox, Washington Post, et al. Here is the same info on the letter from MSNBC.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42172036/ns/world_news-africa/

I saw this last night on CNN. It is all over.

I can't believe I'm going to say this, seeing as I haven't voted democrat since I was 18 and voted for her husband, I agree with you.

In October of 2002, Hillary Clinton stood before the U.S. Senate and outlined her reasons why she supported and planned to vote for the resolution that would authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein and Iraq. She took a very principled position, as she is doing now, and said to her colleagues, “I cast this vote with conviction.” There by appearing strong and resolute when it came to military matters and the commitment of U.S. armed forces. By casting this vote, she firmed up her weak foreign policy credentials and set the stage for her eventual run for the presidency at a future time.

But things didn’t exactly turn out the way Hillary had hoped. Her vote was cast in the belief that this war would be similar to the Gulf War, a quick and decisive victory with relatively light casualties….but in this war…as in all wars, nothing ever goes as planned. While initially it appeared events were unfolding smoothly, things slowly began to devolve in Iraq, the insurgency grew, sectarian violence escalated and the U.S. became locked into a long term military commitment which eventually lost public support. What was Hillary to do….she wanted to run for President, but couldn’t do that and still defend her vote on the Iraq war resolution. Well…she did what any spineless, hypocrite politician would do….she flip-flopped, and became one of the strongest critiques of the war. Her vote that was casted with conviction had morphed into “had she known then what she knows now” and support that was only a “willing suspension of disbelief” with regards to the troops and the mission, all for the most scurrilous and despicable of reasons…political gain.

So, before you go praising this woman for her reasoned and principled position with regards to Libya, ask yourself….what will she do if things do go sour, as often times they do? Will she exhibit a backbone and resolve….or do what she has done in the past, obfuscate and redirect the blame?

ceo- While I agree with you in one breath, I have to say, I understand her feelings, in 2002 I too believed in what we were doing. Today not so much, I still think it was the right thing to do but now we're just tired, and it's time to go home. If that makes any sense? I wonder if maybe just maybe she doesn't feel the same way?

I think she's done an amazing job in the last few weeks, but again only time will tell like you so correctly pointed out.

CEO,

All good points but is there such thing as a politician who doesn't vote based soley on political gain? Sad but true.

You do realize that Hillary works for the President and takes her direction from him?

Well I guess maybe you don't.

Some of you people are really pathetic and without a clue.

Mikeo76 - And you're a moron....have you read any of the background news stories regarding this issue...or are you just an Obama sycophant. Obama had to be dragged into this little fray...and it had to be done by both the UN ambassador Rice and Hillary Clinton. Until they stepped up and urged a response, he was taking his usual position when it came to action....a catatonic state of mind, a deer in the headlights.

Mikeo76

Listen to her speak without a teleprompter, she knows her stuff. Listen to President Obama without a teleprompter...uhhh. Exactly what experience does he have? How do you know that it isn't Hillary getting the 3 am calls?

Ceo I agree with you up to a point. Obama did not seem to want to enter this battle but he still could have stopped us from entering and he did not.

CEO........there was a list, it had 946 "Potential WMD sites" on it......it was given to a General Marks, Marks was in Kuwait at the Invasion Strike of Iraq, his orders to "Find WMD's".

When Marks asked for an order of importance the response was, "Get to them as you go"

By and long there were no WMD's to be found, infact the UN Inspectors that were in Iraq from 2000 on repeatedly told the UN they could find no presence of WMD's.............

That is why, Russia, China, France and Germany were against the Invasion of Iraq! Now all of these same countries were for the Invasion of Afghanistan! Why? Becasuse the US had rights to Resolve for 9/11......

Bush implanted the false info to get what he and Cheney wanted and what PNAC had written Clinton in 1998 to prepare the US People for the Removal of Saddam Hussein!

All true and all findable facts!

If looking "presidential" is attack first, ask question later, then you are right.

It's very simple. U.S. wasn't going at it alone, so Obama had to wait for Clinton to get UN OK, THEN they attacked. Things worked as it supposed to.

What ever you say Rico.....enjoy your ride, there are times when delusions can make sense... but I'm due back on planet earth.

Rico 111,

In 1998 Clinton did to Iraq what the UN is now doing to Lybia...

The reason??? WMD

It was Clinton and others in 1998 that were calling for the removal of Saddam due to his WMD and support of world terrorism...

4 Feb 1998 - POTUS Clinton, "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction...."

16 Dec 1998 - Rep Nancy Pelosi, " Saddam Hussein has been engaged in development of weapons of mass destruction..."

23 Sep 2002 - Al Gore, "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons..."

The same from Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sen. Robert Byrd, Sen. John Kerry, Sen. Jay Rockerfeller, etc, etc, as late as 23 Feb 2003...

What War Crimes other than using the CIA for ASSASSINATIONS using armed drones??? Which Obama has also embraced and ESCALATED...

Lets put BOTH in front of the World Court and have them defend the use of these...

Why does it appear that President Obama sets the agenda, makes all final decisions and directs his subordinates as to what to say and when to say it?

Just wondering, do any of you President Obama haters think that there is anything he has done as President has been worth anything?

yeah...he extended the Bush tax cuts....and that's about it.

@RN in Philly...Many Iraqis now think that they were better off under Saddam. Do we knock off Al Malaki now? Bush didn't rely on bad intel. He GENERATED bad intel. Richard Clarke, whose character is unquestionable, stated that at the first NSA meeting after Dubyas inaugeration, Bush made it clear that he wanted to attack Saddam. Also, there is abundant evidence that Saddam was willing to do ANYTHING to prevent the invasion by the US at the 11th hour. But Bush wanted war. Nothing else would do. Fighting is what you do when you have to.

John you seem to have forgotten something. With Iraq Colin Powell went before the UN Security Council and got approval. Bush then went before Congress and got approval there. It seems to me that Obama has skipped a step.

As for Afghanistan I don't believe that it would have mattered if someone else had approved it or not. Did we go and seek approval after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor?

Watt, I suspect you think that because she is white.

"Watt, I suspect you think that because she is white."

May I ask what in Watts statement would make you say that?? That just doesn't make sense

oh please Eric, and if she'd been elected you'd be saying it's cause she's a woman instead of the old rhetoric because he's black right?

watt75 wrote: Why does Hillary Clinton look more Presidential than President Obama? Maybe she was the man for the job after all?

Let's see... maybe it's because she's white with blond hair? Maybe it's because Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck have been criticizing Obama more lately and you are incapable of disagreeing with them on any point whatsoever?

Obama is a measured man and that's exactly what has been missing in our politics for a few years. Impulsive gut feelings isn't the way decisions should be made whenever it entails utilizing the United States military in any situation, whether it be all out war or simple humanitarian tasks. Hillary may have been a good President, but she had her chance just like McCain and she lost. Obviously Obama did something right!

Hillary Clinton is a Warmonger just like the rest.

or maybe it had nothing to do with the color of his skin. And unlike many people from the left, not all conservatives hang on every word their "news" show hosts spew. maybe it's because the man you voted for simply had no experience at all. and it's unfortunate the rest of the country has to pay for that massive mistake. I'm a conservative but I agree Hillary would have been the best choice, even over the McCain ticket.

We don't need any more cowboys, that's certain.

Maybe I said it because she is a woman? Men have run the Country since the beginning of time...let's give the girls a shot!

Reverse cowgirls we have room for.

Mr. Obama looks more dignified and Presidential than any other citizen in the good old USA. After all, he is the will of the people and no doubt will be reelected! Hillary just follows along as a good Secretary of State should. I will vote for Obama again!

0bama had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do the right thing on Libya. France and the UK were going to go it alone and that would have made 0bama look 10 times weaker than he already looks. Then to top it off 0bama tips the US strategy off to Qaddafi by telling the world that we will not use ground troops. Qaddafi will hunker down like Saddam did in 98 and wait out the bombing and 1/2 million dollar cruise missiles and still be there for the next admin to deal with. 0bama is 3 - 4 weeks late and billions of dollars short of money we don't have to do this. If the Arab League wanted us to do this they should be paying for it.

@Rico...... "Bush implanted the false info to get what he and Cheney wanted",

"All true and all findable facts!"

Where would i find This so-called fact?

Well of course she was,

No matter the debate about whether it should have been Mccain and republicans or the democratic side...from the small list of choices from the democratic presidential candidates she was clearly more experienced.

I personally think she would have made a decent president,a lot of people want to hold her accountable for Bills poor choices and thats most probably the main reason she was not nominated,which i personally think is a poor reason to have dismissed her.

SHE had my vote.

So many posters seem to have forgotten that support for the invasion of Iraq was obtained by deceit -- there were no WMDs. They even lied to their own people and sent an honorable man to the UN to compounf their lie. It does not appear untrue that Gawddawful is using the technology of self-defense against his own people. Smear him with honey and bury him up to his neck in a field of fire ants.

Well, if this don't beat all!!!!!! Where is the evidence that Libya attacked our shores? Or our Naval Ships? Or our Land forces? Or our Embassy People? Or any American Civilian? Or hads any WMD?

All we have is other Countries word that Ghadaffy is killing his own People, just like Saddam did, but Saddam added the mass Poisoning of entire Kurd Villages(Toddlers,Babies,Women) just to demonstrate how evil he could be. So, when Bush got the OK to go, after the UN Top Nuke inspector declared there was proof positive Saddam had WMD, he was, and still is, the bad Guy.

However, Obama, without any form of provocation, and on the word of Foreign Nations and the UN, attacks Libya and it's people. There is ALWAYS collateral damage, so get used to it.

Whwere is the Left when their guy is Nuts enough to attack with U.S.Resources? Cheering him on. The Left will justify their eyes out for ObamaGod, but they can never say that Bush was right and has the Opposition on the run. Obama still favors Pakistan even though they harbor Convoy attackers and Al Queda, and whine if a drone makes a strike. Cut off Americaan Money for Pakistan until they allow the U.S. to enter those districts where Al Queda is, from within Pakistan, and drive them back across to Afganistran to our waiting troops. Don't announce the action, do as Reagan did in the Carribbian, and go quietly in the night, no press, no TV, no Cable, no News teams imbedded.

However, to do so would anger the Left, as it's "Bush's war" and not worthy of support or completion. Only Obama is allowed to attack unprovoked, period.

Wat75 (comment #4) - not very bright really. HRC had nothing to do with this, but I see that her posse is out, as usual, collapsing anything remotely critical of her. It was likely a TEAM of folks getting that UN resolution through and persuading those who could toss in a veto to simply abstain instead.

We all hope that now Gadhafi cannot use aircraft, artillery, or tanks the discourse will be more even. If he happens to take a bullet in the buttocks at short range from an elderly AK 47 it would be nice to see him shackled in court in The Hague answering for all of this.

If she ever does become president, they will have to find a bigger chair for her.

So many posters seem to have forgotten that support for the invasion of Iraq was obtained by deceit -- there were no WMDs.

And YOU must have forgot UN Resolution 687. Bush didn't need your vote. He could have lifted the cease fire that Iraq routinely violated as soon as a few months after it's institution, and resumed Operation Desert Storm. So WHY would this man generate this "false info" if he didn't even need your support to re-invade? No one seems to have an answer for that.....

Kill all brown people and lay off worthless teachers! (and ALL teachers are worthless!)

Gharms: Cause he needed an excuse to flatten the country out so his buddy Cheney and Haliburton could build it up (for a reasonable price)...

.......you need to learn to read apparently. He didn't need an excuse OR your permission to re-invade. He could have just re-invaded on the premise of the multitudes of violations of the Resolution. But you keep trying to argue your way around it and demonize them in the process. Just makes you look like even more of a zealot.

Gharms: I demonize him on the senseless death of many US troops for something that was not necessary at the time. I defended his posture when we went to Afghanistan, but splitting our fronts on a stupid premise? His father, with more consensus than him exercised caution at the time because he understood that breaking the fragile balance in the region would have caused a more disturbing scenario (GHWB kept the iranians at bay, for which I take my hats off). Junior on the other hand not only broke the balance in the region, but opened unnecessarily a second front in our combat. Apparently the experience and history indicating that splitting your fronts was unwise did not make a dent in his decision to invade Iraq. And I am not saying that we shouldn't have invaded, all I am saying that I would have rather eradicated the threat in Afghanistan first and then we should have turned out sights on Iraq. But we done either, and many of our soldiers paid the ultimate sacrifice unnecessarily. If there were those violations, and I do not dispute them, why he went blaring guns instead of his father, who went only when he had the consensus he needed it, and the collaboration of a coalition from different nations?

If for that I am a zealot, then I am guilty. It's better than being servile and think that he did alright playing with the lives of who gallantly serve this nation.

Anti-American Extremists Among Libyan Rebels U.S. Has Vowed To Protect

THE SMOKING GUN REVEALED:

The very same so-called rebels that America has been suckered by Al Qaeda into protecting, are the VERY SAME ONES that slaughtered American troops in Iraq. This article is well researched and documented:

WASHINGTON -- In 2007, when American combat casualties were spiking in the bloodbath of the Iraq War, an 18-year-old laborer traveled from his home in eastern Libya through Egypt and Syria to join an al Qaeda terrorist cell in Iraq. He gave his name to al Qaeda operatives as Ashraf Ahmad Abu-Bakr al-Hasri. Occupation, he wrote: “Martyr.’’

Abu-Bakr was one of hundreds of foreign fighters who flocked into the killing zones of Iraq to wage war against the “infidels." They came from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Oman, Algeria and other Islamic states. But on a per capita basis, no country sent more young fighters into Iraq to kill Americans than Libya -- and almost all of them came from eastern Libya, the center of the anti-Gaddafi rebellion that the United States and others now have vowed to protect, according to internal al Qaeda documents uncovered by U.S. intelligence.

http://xrl.in/7ihk

The Al Qaeda BASE in North Africa is the very same city of Benghazi they are using to coordinate attacks across the entire Middle East, now being shielded by the UN Mandate!

The excellent article which I referenced entirely explains WHY GATES was very hesitant about empowering the Al Qaeda aligned rebels in East Libya as that would undermine the fragile democracy in neighboring Egypt, threaten the security in Israel and doom Western leaning African nations in Central, West Africa as Al Qaeda begins pocketing the enormous Oil, Gas revenues from Libya. The US Military Intelligence uncovered heavy linkage between the so-called Libyan Rebels and the same scum that were killing American soldiers inside Iraq. Ironically President Obama's legacy could very well doom the Westward leaning nation of his childhood in Kenya as Al Qaeda in North Africa bolstered by the enormous Oil,Gas revenues in Libya extend thru Africa their strict version of militant Islam.

My fellow American's shouldn't have been suckered into thinking these Al Qaeda fighters wielding stolen tanks and heavy military weapons were simply unarmed Libyan civilians. Of course they weren't. And now the CIA and UK are arming these Al Qaeda fighters and protecting them. Such is entirely likely to blow-back on Egypt, Israel, all of Africa as well as America and the UK.

Take this into consideration as you wave the American flag and cheer on these Al Qaeda linked rebels in Libya.

About Clintons I have got strong doubts. They are more attorneys than leaders taking a consistent stand!

A senior U.S. defense official told NBC News that the strike on the Gadhafi compound was not from American forces. A U.S. official later confirmed to NBC News that British forces targeted the compound. Earlier Sunday, the U.K. Ministry of Defense announced that a British submarine launched Tomahawk missiles.

OK, unlike most of you, I'm really confused about what THE RIGHT THING to do was in this situation. However, IF we are indeed going to bomb the place let's not point fingers about which country's bomb hit where or appologize about every freaking missile, okay? (Please excuse the language-it's just that IF you are going to take an action, TAKE it! Otherwise don't. A halfway action is the worst thing possible and causes the most possible drawn-out suffering to everyone. Haven't we learned that already like a million times?!?) You can't make everyone happy. You can't make everyone like you no matter what you do as a country. If we spent less time trying to be liked and more time trying to do the right thing and/or what was best, I think we'd be a lot better off. Not that I know what those things are-I just know that worrying about being liked is NOT the right thing or the best thing. Not to mention that it makes us look weak.

I've read memoirs by former jihadists. They won't stop no matter what we do. The battle is already joined. We have been enemies for centuries and we aren't suddenly going to make ourselves friends by some action we do or don't do now unless it is to convert to strict Islam. It is a deception to believe otherwise. At least that is what the former jihadists had to say. Please notice that I said jihadists (or radical Islamists), not meaning all Muslims. Someone is likely to misunderstand if I don't point that out. (Of course Gaddhafi would not be a friend to those guys either, ultimately-they would consider him an infidel since he is not strict enough.) Further, regarding Lybia, where is the evidence that the rebels are Al Qaida (other than what Gaddhafi has said-and do you consider him a credible source)?

Gharms, it is important that GW Bush could have invaded Iraq without the vote/support of the public, it was that he wanted to do so with the guise that America supported his actions, even though many of us didn't. So, now, he can say that what he did, he did with the approval of the American public and he went in with a coalition force, not just US.

Justice for all, Great! Very well written and stated! Two fronts was and will always be the worst blunder a fighting force can get drawn into. The facts that there were no clear focus on objectives and the leading Generals were getting replaced, everytime they disagreed with Bush, doesn't give that unity in the battle field.

So, now, he can say that what he did, he did with the approval of the American public and he went in with a coalition force, not just US.

This sounds so familiar..........where have I heard this lately?

The facts that there were no clear focus on objectives and the leading Generals were getting replaced, everytime they disagreed with Bush, doesn't give that unity in the battle field.

Apparently you've not heard the Obama war strategy. It's just as listless as Bush's ever was......oh and perhaps you should look up McChrystal.....He got replaced for saying so. Because God knows a lifelong soldier has no idea what he's talking about. Obviously some guy in a suit thousands of miles away from the battlefield has a better idea of how wars are won.....but that is neither a Dem or Republican thing. That's a politician thing.

Black belt, The Libyan rebels asked for a no fly zone. They want arms and the training on how to use them effective. What they don't want are U.S. troops on the ground. They want to remove Khaddafy? from power themselves. What we don't need is Obama acting like Bush. I say give the rebels what they ask for instead of what they do not want.

Gharms, I agree, they all sound the same. I don't honestly know how many Generals have been 'relieved of their duties' and how many asked to retire, because they couldn't buy into what was being done or going on. I am always concerned when they do, though, because I would hope that any President would be open to a discussion about many aspects of the combat direction and not just want those that totally agree with their decision. Gen. McArthur said that to be an effective leader you had to be where the fighting is and live with the men that are doing the fighting, otherwise you are just looking at a map with no clear understanding.

My desires, not knowing what the ultimate goal or outcome is supposed to be, is get our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and get them back to friendly bases and home!! It amazes me that WWII, as global and complicated as it was with all the expanded territories and mulitple fronts of fighting, lasted 7 years in total and America fought for 4 years in it. We Won decided victories against the opposing forces, yet 10 years later in Afghanistan and I don't know that we have really won any decided victories. Sure, we captured some important real estate and fought many brave battles, but in the endgame, what have we done? We are not fighting against an army that wears a uniform and is identifiable in the combat field, because they all dress the same and many are working jobs by day and fighting our troops by night. So how do you win that kind of combat without just killing and destroying everything and everyone? That is the frustration of our troops in the field there.

They already have. We have war planes over Libya now as well.

France has plenty of planes. I guess there is no end to the criticism.

Money is valued over human life, its the way of the republican party.

France made possible the UN resolution against Libya that includes international help. They didn't start an illegal war like Iraq. For now this is just a no-fly zone.

France doesn't need the US to bomb a second class country like Libya. This is a great demonstration of force by Europe. And the first step to a democratic Mediterranean Union.

That's why I say France should have been allowed to go it alone if they chose to. If the Brits wanted to tag along, that was their prerogative, but to use US assets to drop bombs and fire missiles is just crazy at this point. This is the beginning of World War III.

I mean seriously, did the French actually need help from the United States to bomb Libya? Really? I know they screwed up in Vietnam, but I would think (hope) they have their @!$%# together by now.

The beginning? Try to catch up, son.

Yes son! The beginning. If you think it started with Afghanistan and Iraq, then you haven't the slightest clue about World War's I and II or the point from where the scales were tipped to bring those two great wars about. There will be several countries in South America that will side with Libya and throw China, Russia, Iran and North Korea into that mix and you have a full scale World War.

Well, if this don't beat all!!!!!! Where is the evidence that Libya attacked our shores? Or our Naval Ships? Or our Land forces? Or our Embassy People? Or any American Civilian? Or hads any WMD?

All we have is other Countries word that Ghadaffy is killing his own People, just like Saddam did, but Saddam added the mass Poisoning of entire Kurd Villages(Toddlers,Babies,Women) just to demonstrate how evil he could be. So, when Bush got the OK to go, after the UN Top Nuke inspector declared there was proof positive Saddam had WMD, he was, and still is, the bad Guy.

However, Obama, without any form of provocation, and on the word of Foreign Nations and the UN, attacks Libya and it's people. There is ALWAYS collateral damage, so get used to it.

Whwere is the Left when their guy is Nuts enough to attack with U.S.Resources? Cheering him on. The Left will justify their eyes out for ObamaGod, but they can never say that Bush was right and has the Opposition on the run. Obama still favors Pakistan even though they harbor Convoy attackers and Al Queda, and whine if a drone makes a strike. Cut off Americaan Money for Pakistan until they allow the U.S. to enter those districts where Al Queda is, from within Pakistan, and drive them back across to Afganistran to our waiting troops. Don't announce the action, do as Reagan did in the Carribbian, and go quietly in the night, no press, no TV, no Cable, no News teams imbedded.

However, to do so would anger the Left, as it's "Bush's war" and not worthy of support or completion. Only Obama is allowed to attack unprovoked, period.

I contend Moammar desperatly needs to mount one of his best camels and head south out of there. Is the country just below Libya still called "Chad"? Whether it is or not he needs to get the hell on out before some of the "Virgins" get hurt or killed. The highest count of them I've heard is 72. Hell! These missles and bombs comming in could kill all of um. That would surely be a disaster, not only for "Islam" but for many such as myself, who longs to meet at least one, of these here now virgin women. The existence of that many virgins, especially in that part of the world, has fascinated me since I first learned about them. Yeah!, its probably all a lie. If they are young and pretty they've probably all been with 20 or 30 men each, or they are all ugly as a ewes vagina as she births a lamb. Even so I am concerned about them and personally hope our President takes great care not to put them in any danger. I know many posting here will poke fun of me and say I do not know what I am talking about. To that, I say; so what? All of you, are on here talking about things you like or things you don't, and trying to twist those into this action we are taking against Gadhafi. Most of you are just like me, simply don't know your ass from your elbow about the subject matter, but you are interested. Welll, all of you can continue your interests as you see and feel fit. I wish to know the welfare of these here now virgins. Remember, one grown woman who is yet a virgin is a rarity these days. 72? Boggles my mind!

Immediately after Gadhafi's family began nationalizing the Oil, Gas wells in Libya and started paying France and the UK (BP) less on their Oil dividends this sudden call and push by France and the UK to oust Gadhafi came about.

Neither France nor the UK gives a single iota damn about the Libyan people nor some so-called Libyan civilians. The Al Qaeda aligned heavily armed Libyan rebels in East Libya is the Al Qaeda base in North Africa who have suckered America into providing them with weapons, protecting and uncounted wealth now if they control Libya's Oil Wells.

Precisely 8 years ago, former President Bush gave Iraq to Iran on a silver platter and now Iran has near complete control over all areas in Iraq's government.

8 years later to the day, President Obama give Libya to Al Qaeda on a silver platter and in the years ahead Al Qaeda will have complete control over a great many nations in the African continent including Obama's beloved 'Kenya'. It seems the Universe does have a sense of IRONY.

No, not Chad. That country has suffered enough. They are one of the poorest countries in the world. Those of us with a sense of decency are concerned about these things.

A. Smith : Have you seen the protests in Libya ?

Both Khadafi and insurgents protesters are savages, most are only sheeps who would lie and fight for their own good. You'll tell me, that's the Arab's way though. I even saw an insurgent protest today with a dog dressed as Khadafi supposedly, and the men started to beat the poor dog. So really, let the bombs sort them out. I'm not usually that mean but Libyans have absolutely no place in my heart.

I couldn't care less what other tyranny they build there. Yeah, France wants to defend democracy there, and if the rebels start messing with Europe, they'll gladly carpet bomb them.

BTW, i'm in France right now, and i know how north africans scums act.

Ben, sorry to destroy your daydreaming, but dude, the virgins are listed in the koran as the reward in heaven. That means that they don't exist here on Earth, they are already dead! Just to note, nowhere does it state that the virgins are female! Just saying!!!

Momus: South America siding with Libya in a conflict? What are you talking about? Right now South America is engaging in getting out of the crisis created in the 90s and their own bank crisis and default in 2001/2002. The only country that could have the means to take sides and actually deploy troops is Brazil, and they are not interested, they are more interested in attracting capital to be invested in their nation (Something that we really should look at to get our jobs back from abroad). Who's gonna be then? Chile? Chile always aligned with the US and the Brits, no matter what they say. Uruguay? Paraguay? Argentina? Or you mean to tell me the three stooges (Chavez, Evo & Correa)? They're inconsequential. Chavez is not an idiot, he will rant against the US all he wants to get followers while on the other hand negotiates juicy oil contracts with us. What Evo would do? (He has to ask Chavez for guidance first). And Correa is worried about its own oil contracts than to assemble a force to fight. What you have left? Colombia? They have enough in their hands with the FARC and the narcs (and Chavez) to be taking sides. Of course they will go to the UN and make speeches, and call for public support in their own countries, but as to assemble a force and help Khaddafi? Nah...

On the other hand, Russia and China had the chance and the veto power to stop this actions, yet they tag along, they abstained from casting a vote and saved face. Both arms suppliers could not blatantly support Khadaffi by stopping the UN resolution, or at least dilating its promulgation long enough for him to recapture the country. They basically looked the other way and wait for the results. If the plan works and Khadaffi is thrown out of power, then they are with the winners because they abstained themselves from voting, and if the plan doesn't work, they can go ahead and say I told you so, either way they planning on coming out of this situation spotless.

Good post Justice for all. The only issue, and it's not that I don't agree with the idea behind it, but neither China nor Russia can come out of this situation spotless. If it goes well, Gadhafi is out-of-power and a more civil leadership ensues, they can't get any credit for that happening, as they didn't believe in it and didn't vote. If it all goes bad and the rebels are crushed and slaughtered and Gadhafi stays in power, they can't say "I told you so", as they didn't vote nor use their veto powers. Either way, they have positioned themselves against the UN and that may come back to haunt them in the near future, as I see it.

It seems that only when the blood is dripping off of the hands of the likes of Kennedy/Vietnam, Clinton/Somalia+Bosnia, and this current White House occupant (you know the one, that guy that was going to end Bush's wars that he was so highly critical of, close Guantanamo, bring all of the troops home, yadda, yadda, etc.) that war is a an act of purity. I doubt that these "Air defences" are set up in the woods somewhere, and are most likely located in a neighborhood surrounded by children's hospitals, and orphanages. So I am wondering how long it will take before the left leaning, obama loving mass media begin to show pictures of the mangled bodies of children? Then of course we will have to listen to all of that BS about how different the Iraq situation was from this current mess. By the way, last I heard a Tomahawk cost around a million bucks each. All of that unplanned expense just might mean the doofus in charge may have to begin to take cheaper vacations. I think they have Motel 6's in Hawaii.

@Wilburn,

Quite possibly if you ever bothered to spend 5 seconds on Wikipedia you would not sound like somebody with the, "Foot Firmly Inserted In Mouth Sydrome".

You need sound, clear, legal reasons to Impeach anybody at the Federal Level, not just because you don't like them.

Wilburn, you are the same guy that cares so much for the country you are looking at industry off shore? If this is true, you are a part of the problem. Goodbye and good luck.

Wilbur had a horse; Wilburn is an ass. He is no judge. He is a prevaricator through ignorance.

Distantdrum,

it's almost as if all these events are staged, go figure.

@ wilburn,

You sir are a complete idiot..............please stop re-posting the same dribble over and over again

Well, if this don't beat all!!!!!! Where is the evidence that Libya attacked our shores? Or our Naval Ships? Or our Land forces? Or our Embassy People? Or any American Civilian? Or hads any WMD?

All we have is other Countries word that Ghadaffy is killing his own People, just like Saddam did, but Saddam added the mass Poisoning of entire Kurd Villages(Toddlers,Babies,Women) just to demonstrate how evil he could be. So, when Bush got the OK to go, after the UN Top Nuke inspector declared there was proof positive Saddam had WMD, he was, and still is, the bad Guy.

However, Obama, without any form of provocation, and on the word of Foreign Nations and the UN, attacks Libya and it's people. There is ALWAYS collateral damage, so get used to it.

Whwere is the Left when their guy is Nuts enough to attack with U.S.Resources? Cheering him on. The Left will justify their eyes out for ObamaGod, but they can never say that Bush was right and has the Opposition on the run. Obama still favors Pakistan even though they harbor Convoy attackers and Al Queda, and whine if a drone makes a strike. Cut off Americaan Money for Pakistan until they allow the U.S. to enter those districts where Al Queda is, from within Pakistan, and drive them back across to Afganistran to our waiting troops. Don't announce the action, do as Reagan did in the Carribbian, and go quietly in the night, no press, no TV, no Cable, no News teams imbedded.

However, to do so would anger the Left, as it's "Bush's war" and not worthy of support or completion. Only Obama is allowed to attack unprovoked, period.

Ray is right on the mark. Curtesy to Hilary C. for representing USA

this weekend, Obama is hiding in Brazil this week, no where to be seen.

Poor leadership for this country, civil war in Libya is none of our business.

Excuse for getting involved is weak and makes the situation worst.

No winners for Libya.

President Obama stepped up to the plate and did the right thing.

God bless him.

The right thing? Thats not what you lefties said about Iraq. So whats the difference?

I dislike Wilburn's post too. That is no reason to take pot shots at him. Let him vent if he needs too. What I don't like seeing moderates and liberals who are just as ready to fling insults as Tea party conservatives. I take the high road in my posts, and when I respond to people who disagree with me I am civil about it.

Well, if this don't beat all!!!!!! Where is the evidence that Libya attacked our shores? Or our Naval Ships? Or our Land forces? Or our Embassy People? Or any American Civilian? Or hads any WMD?

All we have is other Countries word that Ghadaffy is killing his own People, just like Saddam did, but Saddam added the mass Poisoning of entire Kurd Villages(Toddlers,Babies,Women) just to demonstrate how evil he could be. So, when Bush got the OK to go, after the UN Top Nuke inspector declared there was proof positive Saddam had WMD, he was, and still is, the bad Guy.

However, Obama, without any form of provocation, and on the word of Foreign Nations and the UN, attacks Libya and it's people. There is ALWAYS collateral damage, so get used to it.

Whwere is the Left when their guy is Nuts enough to attack with U.S.Resources? Cheering him on. The Left will justify their eyes out for ObamaGod, but they can never say that Bush was right and has the Opposition on the run. Obama still favors Pakistan even though they harbor Convoy attackers and Al Queda, and whine if a drone makes a strike. Cut off Americaan Money for Pakistan until they allow the U.S. to enter those districts where Al Queda is, from within Pakistan, and drive them back across to Afganistran to our waiting troops. Don't announce the action, do as Reagan did in the Carribbian, and go quietly in the night, no press, no TV, no Cable, no News teams imbedded.

However, to do so would anger the Left, as it's "Bush's war" and not worthy of support or completion. Only Obama is allowed to attack unprovoked, period.

Ray your post is completely unfounded and stupid, please quit reposting it! Please do some research on Wikipedia, Google, Yahoo, World history, etc and get an education prior to posting long rants that are full of untruths and misconceptions.

sad but so very true.

You're probably right but do you suppose the fact that N. Korea has threatened to use nuclear weapons whereas Libya has none is a deciding factor as well?Also, while N. Koreans are treated poorly they are not being attacked by their own government, military.

Libya is ripe for this action. The West should have acted sooner rather than wait for the rebels to be cornered and on their last stand. As soon as western Europe and the Arab league said good to go - we should have been all over it. Hopefully the rebels will win, Libya can do elections and we can scratch one more tin pot dictator off the list. The real plus would be if this encouraged the Iranians to revolt.

Yes, there are people all over the Arab and Muslim world who were just waiting for proof that if they put their lives on the line for freedom, we will be there to support them in a meaningful way.

Libya only has 2% of the worlds oil resources and we already benefiting from it.

Its a shame that situations like North Korea and Myanmar go unchallenged though. North Korea would would be a massive fight though. Huge.

Koreans are hard core on everything. That would be a bloody ground war although US airpower would prevail. I think the North Koreans would get the worst of it. N. Korea would be a target rich enviroment - for us.

Cathy: Valid point. Difference is they go after smaller opponents lacking nukes, make a great show of sturm und drang, and then grab the oil. Darfur and Ruwanda are only mass genocides, not sexy enough plus no oil. So, great TV. lots of bombs and explosions, many innocents dead, but the innocents are there as something to talk about, they make good talking points but aren't really the issue. This reeks of hypocrisy.

The situations in Libya and North Korea are entirely different.

There was a popular uprising in Libya that the UN is protecting from an imminent slaughter. There is no such thing going on in North Korea. The action against Libya was not an unprovoked attack on a despot, but such action against North Korea would be exactly that.

I would suggest if you don't think you can take out the despot and his armies with your own resources that you sit down and shut up. We cannot keep funding these skirmishes and wars. Look at how long we've been in Iraq, and Saddam has been gone for YEARS now.

21st Century, is it now our claim that we can, and should, attack other nations when US interests are not identified as some sort of justification? I have no problem with using military force to remove Khaddafi, kill him if possible, but I see three basic flaws in this operation that will come to haunt us for years to come.

First, our stated mission has well been exceeded at this point. If the case is over protecting civilians then why attack Khaddafi's forces that are attacking, as Adm. Wortley says, the rebels? Our mission statement is either a lie or a facade.

Second, the concept of intervention to prevent civilian deaths, not genocide but the killing of civilians engaged in an uprising against a despot seems to me to put the US and UN into a corner. How many civilians must be killed before our moral sensibilities are engaged? Are we prepared to go after Myanmar, for instance? Iran? Yemen? Or how about people of a darker color, like in Somalia? Coincident to this problem is the "what then" question. What happens after we step in--do we pout ourselves in the position of taking sides on who should win, or are we merely going to try to protect civilians?

Thirdly, like him or not for Afghanistan and Iraq, but President Bush made clear what he would do, and why he would do it, to both nations. That kind of clarity caused his detractors on the left to label him a cowboy. It's that kind of clarity that caused Khaddafi in early 2003 to come clean about his WMD programs/weapons. But now we have clearly spoken and acted duplicitously regarding Libya. Will this duplicity create more, or less, diplomatic punch in the years ahead? The answer to that question will probably directly affect our military activity in years to come as well--clear diplomacy backed up by clear threats of force make the use of force much less likely to be needed.

I think President Obama has failed in several regards relative to this situation. I would prefer that his claim to want Khaddafi to go was clearly matched with the military operation underway. But I doubt we'd have had Arab League support, or a UN resolution authorizing force, had Mr. Obama been more honest. Which would have been fine by me. Khaddafi is a despot that deserves what comes his way. We, however, missed a chance to advance American interests for the long term.

re Darfur and oil:

Upon the 1999 completion of an oil pipeline that extends from the southern oil fields through Khartoum to the Red Sea, Sudan began exporting crude oil -- and immediately recorded its first trade surplus. The same year, the government halted delivery of aid to people living near the oil fields.

Some experts refer to Algeria, Pakistan, China and Russia as the "Darfur Four": Each of these four countries has major oil investments in Sudan and has opposed the U.N. Security Council's plans for arms and oil embargoes.

from pbs.org

So, Darfur actually does have oil.

If one wants to sit around until all conditions are perfect, then nothing will ever get done. Sometimes you just have to see beyond the obvious and trust your instincts. To do nothing is not an option when the forces of hate and fear are knocking at your door!

Where does it end though? There's quite a few countries that could use a good cleaning because of the horrors they inflict on their own people.

So the people of Iraq were not worthy of our help? WTF? Bush is criticized for war but when President Obama decides to get involved it is okay? Please explain your logic....

NORTHWIND-------- You awant to go to LIBYA, spend your time, your life and your money defending the people in N Africa , feel free..

Leav our kids and outr money alone.

I would cheerfully watch every member of the Libyan nation go to glory, if it saves the life of one member of then American military.

Now if you are willing to watch our,military die to save the Libyans at least have the guts to post your name and address, so that those families that lose children to the Libyan fire can come to your house and thank you personally.

You won't do that though, will you you are one more keyboard rambo willing to send some one else to die to enforce what you see as right.

Here are some facts for you, dippo, dead is dead, dead is forever and the dead not get up and drink coffee, when the director yells cut.

Our kids did not enlist to defend N Africans, they enlisted to defend the USA, and anyone willing to kill our kids to save N Africans, is a low life scum bag.

The Iraqis weren't in rebellion like the Libyans. Bush invaded without support. Obama waited for the UN. I have heard of no rebellion in N. Korea.

Not that like being the bearer of bad news but the UN Security Council did authorize the intervention. Please read your history.

You don't hear about rebellions in North Korea because any that starts would quickly be put down through the killing of all those involved as well as those around it. It should also be noted that the idea of a free press is foreign press is foreign to them. How may I ask do you know that know that there are not any protests in North Korea?

If the North Koreans started attacking and killing their own people, they would get more U.N. "attention". There is also the long history of active terrorist support by the Libyan gang. Nightclub bombings, Lockerbie bombing, sanctuary to terrorists, etc have not endeared them to many. Is oil a factor ? Sure it is, if you think things are always fair and equal in this world, you have another think coming. Gaddafi has no saving graces. There is nothing on the good guy side of the scale. He made himself into an easy target, now lets eradicate him without any boots on the ground !

From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores.........................

Wilburn, Calm down Dont have a stroke over this. Im a 10 year Americann veteran with 3 combat tours. I was assigned to a Mobile weapons group with spent most of its time in the Middle East (Saudi, Bahrain Kuwait) I currently have a brother flying F18D's in the area and I agree with him. This is a real life training mission with very little consequence. These are the kinds of missions that allow us to train to a position of excellence so when there is na real pressing issue we are ready. I trained and trained in "controlled" situations but real live fire training against a (admit it) way lesser opponent allows a unit to build close personal reliance necessary when fighting a "real" Opponent. While Im not a proponent of just attacking other countries this guys a wacko. I have personal history with this guy I was in Morocco working a Satcom/wepscom station during the first attempt at whacking this moron. You think cooking with gas is cool try camel poop!