The no-fly suggestion makes sense, with a couple of issues. Wouldn't it be necessary to take out (or greatly weaken) Libya's air defense system to begin this? And even then, what happens when one of the fighters has to take down a Libyan fighter? Once that happens, all bets are off.

I could only get behind this if it were a true NATO operation, with all members giving assistance. If anyone thinks we should take this on ourselves they should, to paraphrase DOD Secretary Gates, have their heads examined.

majorspark;698173 wrote:That said the west has clearly now chosen to side with the rebels. Any fear that the rebellion will fail will likely prompt military intervention of some sorts.

Looks like I called this one. Military action is now imminent.

If Obama does not seek congress's approval to commit US armed forces to a protracted military engagement he will glaringly be in direct violation of article 1 section 8 clause 11 of the US constitution which he swore to uphold. How insulting would it be to our governing document if we bypass our own congress's approval and seek the UN's approval in its stead.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he believes President Barack Obama has authority to commit U.S. forces to participate in the no-fly zone without congressional approval, but he expressed hope that Congress would bless the move.

Sen. Dick Lugar, R-Ind., the senior Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had a different view.

"If the Obama administration decides to impose a no-fly zone or take other significant military action in Libya, I believe it should first seek a congressional debate on a declaration of war."

http://www.wvec.com/news/US-allies-set-for-quick-military-action-in-Libya-118229399.html

Senator Graham is an idiot. Senator Lugar has it right.

Much as I stated on another thread, Obama has chosen to wait for the rest of the world to get involved before making any kind of commitment of our military. I think this is the prudent thing to do. I can see our becoming involved as part of a coalition from the U.N., but not acting as the world's policeman. I see that Qaddafi has now declared a cease-fire, once the U.N. decision has come down.

stlouiedipalma;716786 wrote:Much as I stated on another thread, Obama has chosen to wait for the rest of the world to get involved before making any kind of commitment of our military. I think this is the prudent thing to do. I can see our becoming involved as part of a coalition from the U.N., but not acting as the world's policeman. I see that Qaddafi has now declared a cease-fire, once the U.N. decision has come down.

I agree, especially with the underlined statement.

stlouiedipalma;716786 wrote:Much as I stated on another thread, Obama has chosen to wait for the rest of the world to get involved before making any kind of commitment of our military. I think this is the prudent thing to do. I can see our becoming involved as part of a coalition from the U.N., but not acting as the world's policeman. I see that Qaddafi has now declared a cease-fire, once the U.N. decision has come down.

to bad the seize fire is a farce
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3478243/Jet-shot-down-over-Libya.html

And now the US has begun firing cruise missiles into Libya. Creating more terrorists and America haters, perfect. And Obama is having a grand ole time in Brazil while this is going on.

I really wish we'd stay out of other countries' internal affairs and stop playing the world police.

iclfan2;717610 wrote:And now the US has begun firing cruise missiles into Libya. Creating more terrorists and America haters, perfect. And Obama is having a grand ole time in Brazil while this is going on.

what the fuck does obama being in Brazil have to do with stopping a murderer from killing his own people?

derek bomar;717628 wrote:what the fuck does obama being in Brazil have to do with stopping a murderer from killing his own people?

If this was Bush it would have a ton to do with it!!

Fab1b;717634 wrote:If this was Bush it would have a ton to do with it!!

Exactly. If you douche bags wouldn't have made such a big deal about it during the Bush era it wouldn't. But ya'll cried and cried whenever he went anywhere. Time for some of your own medicine. REGARDLESS, keep the hell out of the middle east's problems. There has been fighting there for thousands of years, it ain't ending anytime soon.

iclfan2;717637 wrote:Exactly. If you douche bags wouldn't have made such a big deal about it during the Bush era it wouldn't. But ya'll cried and cried whenever he went anywhere. Time for some of your own medicine. REGARDLESS, keep the hell out of the middle east's problems. There has been fighting there for thousands of years, it ain't ending anytime soon.

lol...so because some dbags did something you didn't agree with during the last administration, you should do it now? Yea that makes sense.

Fab1b;717634 wrote:If this was Bush it would have a ton to do with it!!

...again, retarded logic.

American and British warships fired 110 Tomahawk missiles today. Fuck yea!

I'm fine with air strikes that do not involve U.S. troops, or heavy involvement of U.S. planes. Sounds like the U.S. is just providing cruise missiles, with France, Britain and other providing aircraft.
The administration waited until there was sufficient international support to do anything, which was the right then to do.
The thing is the rebels may be on their last leg and it is unsure of their ability to fight back and retake portions of the country. It will be interesting to see how the rebels rebound. But, we have to be careful of mission creep.

I think overall, this is more like Bosnia in 1995 then anything else.

derek bomar;717644 wrote:...again, retarded logic.

Again the libs and dems screamed this from the roof tops so the shoe is on the other foot now so its retarded logic?? That in itself is retarded logic my friend!

Fab1b;717651 wrote:Again the libs and dems screamed this from the roof tops so the shoe is on the other foot now so its retarded logic?? That in itself is retarded logic my friend!

No, the fact that you're fine doing what you think is wrong just bc the "other side" did it is retarded.

derek bomar;717655 wrote:No, the fact that you're fine doing what you think is wrong just bc the "other side" did it is retarded.

No its only retarded because your side isn't the one doing it now, see how that works?

Fab1b;717663 wrote:No its only retarded because your side isn't the one doing it now, see how that works?

+1

Fab1b;717651 wrote:Again the libs and dems screamed this from the roof tops so the shoe is on the other foot now so its retarded logic?? That in itself is retarded logic my friend!

+1

iclfan2;717637 wrote:Exactly. If you douche bags wouldn't have made such a big deal about it during the Bush era it wouldn't. But ya'll cried and cried whenever he went anywhere. Time for some of your own medicine. REGARDLESS, keep the hell out of the middle east's problems. There has been fighting there for thousands of years, it ain't ending anytime soon.

derek bomar;717644 wrote:...again, retarded logic.

Fab1b;717651 wrote:Again the libs and dems screamed this from the roof tops so the shoe is on the other foot now so its retarded logic?? That in itself is retarded logic my friend!

I think you're ALL right. Let's have a beer summit!

Fab1b;717663 wrote:No its only retarded because your side isn't the one doing it now, see how that works?

Well, so long as you're comfortable being the same as the giant douchebags who ridiculed Bush for pointless BS, then have it.

It was effing retarded when people complained about Bush "going places," and it is just as idiotic when people complain about Obama doing it. IT IS THEIR JOB!!!

At least you recognize that you're no different than the giant liberal douches of the Bush era.

ptown_trojans_1;717647 wrote:I'm fine with air strikes that do not involve U.S. troops, or heavy involvement of U.S. planes. Sounds like the U.S. is just providing cruise missiles, with France, Britain and other providing aircraft.
The administration waited until there was sufficient international support to do anything, which was the right then to do.
The thing is the rebels may be on their last leg and it is unsure of their ability to fight back and retake portions of the country. It will be interesting to see how the rebels rebound. But, we have to be careful of mission creep.

I think overall, this is more like Bosnia in 1995 then anything else.

Maybe, Ptown. Who won the Bosnian conflict, anyway?

What I can't get my head around is why did the "International Community" wait until the rebels were beat back down, slaughtered, and had their will destroyed BEFORE they did anything to help them? These people gave all they had to get rid of Ghadafi while the "International Community" sat back and said it was not in their interests to get involved. Now, that Ghadafi "won", the "International Community" has decided to take out Libya's air defense systems and create no fly zones. Hmmm...had this happened a couple weeks ago, the tide of the war would have certainly changed.

I just don't understand the bombings....now. It was basically over and done with and then the bombings started. Is this a chicken shit way of admitting the "International Community" was wrong to begin with and this is their way of assuaging the guilt? What happens next? If the "Internationals" wanted Ghadafi out, then why not bomb earlier? If they want him in, then why bomb at all....he won? On top of all that....Obama claimed it was none of our business for nearly 2 months and now he lobs 110 Cruise missiles into Libya. Which is it, Barry? Huh?

cbus4life;717715 wrote:Well, so long as you're comfortable being the same as the giant douchebags who ridiculed Bush for pointless BS, then have it.

It was effing retarded when people complained about Bush "going places," and it is just as idiotic when people complain about Obama doing it. IT IS THEIR JOB!!!

At least you recognize that you're no different than the giant liberal douches of the Bush era.

+infinity

Fab1b;717663 wrote:No its only retarded because your side isn't the one doing it now, see how that works?

I have a side? I voted R last election and I am an independent.

I did have to laugh out loud when NBC had a story about this and Andrea Mitchell (who is a major doofus) made the point of saying that Obama went to the UN and got approval for his action unlike Bush.

Lying comes so easily to these "journalists" that they don't break a smile even while they're filling up the screen with bullshit.

Of course Bush had a resolution that totally authorized force against Iraq...and a long history of UN resolutions condemning Iraq for its actions and threatening it with force if it didn't cease its actions (which it did not).

Just because Bush didn't go back to the UN a SECOND time for a resolution the US already had, liberals like to revise history and say the action in Iraq was never authorized. A simple check of UN resolutions proves it wrong...not to mention the authorization he got from Congress.

Did Congress authorize the US to participate in military action against Libya?

I can't recall.