Really?

[Dave Stewart]

Always amazes me that those that have little to no chance of ever going into combat or have never been there are the first to wave the flag and scream...send in the military.

Not only that, the political leaders that fall into this same bracket are generally the first to order them in.

[RoadToad]

I'm curious if any of you who are against what we're doing in Libya were for us going into Iraq? Our motivations are much the same - like it or not, it comes down to regime change. He's killing his own people (like Saddam) and although he hasn't had any real success except maybe with chemical weapons, he has always sought WMD's.

[GeoFisher]

I'm curious if any of you who are against what we're doing in Libya were for us going into Iraq? Our motivations are much the same - like it or not, it comes down to regime change. He's killing his own people (like Saddam) and although he hasn't had any real success except maybe with chemical weapons, he has always sought WMD's.

Obama needed to get Congressional Approval........the UN does not Mandate when our TROOPS are used.

Even though the no fly zones in IRAQ were sanctioned by the UN, and lead to the War, Bush ASKED and got bipartisan approval for the actions in Afghanistan and IRAQ. Obama not only did not get approval, he didn't ASK.

"The President does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation". Barack Obama, December 2007.

[artcarney_agr]

So if we say no to helping Britain, France, Canada, and Italy in this...what would that do to our relationship with them?

If your buddies are getting together to go help someone out, and you turn your back on them, you don't get invited to the fun stuff anymore. Most will take a mental note and make sure to tell you no the next time you need help...

[DJD]

So if we say no to helping Britain, France, Canada, and Italy in this...what would that do to our relationship with them?

If your buddies are getting together to go help someone out, and you turn your back on them, you don't get invited to the fun stuff anymore. Most will take a mental note and make sure to tell you no the next time you need help...

I see your point in theory but in reality it doesn't always flush. We always seem to find a way to get invited to anything that requires money, military might or just our baby sitting nature. Then once we get involved we usually become the one who gives the most in the long run....and leads the dang thing to the end.

France will turn on us as will other countries as they see fit....heard that it's already started. The majority of other nations are spineless cowards and when they get in trouble they call big bad uncle sam.

[RoadToad]

Obama needed to get Congressional Approval........the UN does not Mandate when our TROOPS are used.

Even though the no fly zones in IRAQ were sanctioned by the UN, and lead to the War, Bush ASKED and got bipartisan approval for the actions in Afghanistan and IRAQ. Obama not only did not get approval, he didn't ASK.

"The President does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation". Barack Obama, December 2007.

You're making an excellent point, but that's completely separate from the question I was asking. So let me just ask you point blank. If he HAD asked for approval, do you think it should have been given? My basic question is, if we intervened in Iraq, why shouldn't we intervene in Libya? What's the difference?

[GeoFisher]

You're making an excellent point, but that's completely separate from the question I was asking. So let me just ask you point blank. If he HAD asked for approval, do you think it should have been given? My basic question is, if we intervened in Iraq, why shouldn't we intervene in Libya? What's the difference?

YES......it should have been given. Maybe it would have maybe not.

I really see no difference with Libya or Iraq........except for the political climate we have today...............but I will say this..........for someone COMPLETELY against pulling the trigger on this crap, Obama sure rolled over to the world and did it.

Personally I would have had MORE respect for him had he told the WORLD to F off. THAT would have been sticking to your guns and not giving a **** about what others thought.

Instead he tried to do the right thing.

Later,

Geo

[kygorski]

Screw the UN, where were they in darfur??what are they doing about yemen?And where is that arab league support?

[RoadToad]

I think we did the right thing by helping the rebels here. I really think Ghadafi was going to go in and annihilate as many of them as he could find, and maybe he still will. And yeah, Obama's going to catch hell for how he handled it, but I think he was wrong when he said that in '07, and it's coming back to bite him now that he's President, and he's on the other side of the War Powers Resolution. In his letter to Congress notifying them of the mission, he said he was doing so "consistent with" the War Powers Resolution, rather than "pursuant to" it." This is important, because it shows he's taking the same position that all Presidents have taken since it was passed, namely that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is unconstitutional. Well, if that's the case, then what he said as a candidate in 2007 is WRONG. So he's painted himself into a corner here.

[DJD]

I'm curious if any of you who are against what we're doing in Libya were for us going into Iraq? Our motivations are much the same - like it or not, it comes down to regime change. He's killing his own people (like Saddam) and although he hasn't had any real success except maybe with chemical weapons, he has always sought WMD's.

I was for the Iraq war based upon everything we were told. Now here we are years later and Iraq is still going along with Afghanistan. I'm not for this latest war.

Our country is in debt up to it's ears with no end in sight. We have done little to help ourselves get off the dependency of foreign oil so we are still puppets on a string.

The Military is getting spread pretty thin and we are just feeding this war machine that we really cannot support financially. I'm for minding our business as much as possible. I think we smacked this goofy fool around before and he was just as crazy back then.

I don't think we will be out of there very quickly and if we don't watch it we will be deploying troops on the ground. Yeah the POTUS said we would not but since when has he done what he said?

Where does it end? What country is next? Are we gonna just be the world police forever? Bad things happen and we can't fix everything.

[Hlleonard]

There are lots of opinions about what the United States role in the world political theater ought to be...I don't understand why we seem to be committed to humanitarian efforts in some areas and not in others when the need seems to be equal...We seem to want to stick our noses into anything in the oil regions of the world that can be called " humanitarian" and seem to be able to ignore for the biggest part the rest of the world ...There has been only two instances where we acted for good reason and one was when Iraq invaded Kuwait, it isn't wise to let a cancer like Saddam Hussein grow but launching a war to take him out is like a whack-a-mole game,knock one down and another just like him pops up...George Bush senior was wise enough to quit after Saddam was pushed back inside his borders...George Bush junior's actions after 911 had to be done, you cant let somebody shoot you in the back and not punish them for it....We have no business still being in Afghanistan and we had no business launching a war against Saddam Hussein nor have we any business sticking our noses in Libya.