Did I miss the Congressional Joint Resolution authorizing these attacks? Is this Obama's Illegal War?
Fox News is totally for this war. But Republican legislators are keeping quiet so they can have it both ways later. Only 3 simultaneous wars. Can this nation not do better? If Obama really looked, he could find War #4, #5, and #6. I think we should just start numbering current wars instead of naming them. The only thing to name would be this planet, Hell.
Can't call this one "Bay of Pigs," considering Islam's injunction against eating pork. We should be culturally sensitive in naming our illegal wars, I think.
The US is not declaring war on Libya, we are enforcing a UN security council resolution. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm
Bush had a UN resolution for Iraq, yet he also got congressional approval prior to bombing Iraq. Obama is a warmonger. I think Qaddafi should go, so I admire Obama's balls in not only making a quick decision, but also doing it while on a family vacation in Rio. The man has style.
No debate preceded this action because the opposition party kept silent. Shouldn't we go nuclear against the socialist Khadaffi? This will open new investment opportunities for our billionaires, trickling down to the rest of us, raising the American standard of living. Will the body count be secret in this war, as in War #1 and War #2? Maybe we should return to bragging about the body count, as in all previous wars. What are the pluses and minuses? We don't want to look too conceited and alienate the world. If Obama can finish War #1 by the next election, he'll be re-elected for sure, for keeping us in only 2 wars.
Brazil showed its gratitude by being only 1 of 5 nations which abstained in the 15-nation vote. Joining the tiny percentage, the 1/3 of the nations abstaining from the unified UN solidarity, showed Brazil's un-American tendencies which should be investigated. War #1 against the socialist Sadaam is almost over, freeing up a spot on our war roster. War #2 against the socialist Afghan Sharia law is at a peak. Obama is a socialist, but fortunately, Europe has stayed alert to start War #3 against yet another dictator who won't share power within his country with international investors. When will the dictators ever learn? Where are the Republicans? Resting on their fat un-American laurels?
? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_War "On September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."[1]" A) We actually do have a legitimate UN Security Council Resolution. B) We have support from the Arab League. C) We are not going it alone with a rag-tag coalition, nor do we have any troops on the ground. France was actually one of the first countries to intervene in Libya. D) The Libyan people("rebels") were asking for support & intervention. Yes, so comparatively Libya is about 100x more legit than the Iraq war.
Another war for profit and power in a country that hates us and we're on the side of the aggressors. I looked up the definition of the word "legit", and that's not it.
I am not sure how we're classified as "aggressors". Gaddafi is the one suppressing an active resistance, one that originally was peaceful until he turned violent on them. They were asking the world/UN for intervention...
The pacifist Libyan generals paid off by British and French intelligence to secede have been forced to become militaristic to defend their newly-owned half of Libya against the government of Libya holding its country together. We must show Khadaffi how to not kill people by bombing Tripoli, as we are doing at this hour. For we are better than he. God is on our side. Now let's get back to the killing. War #1 was old and needed an expansion pack, so War #3 will really sell. Happy times are here again!
Where was the Iraqi resistance, rebellion & request for help before we invaded Iraq? Where was the spirit of revolution sweeping the Middle East? Neither of those things were there.
Watching the ant-war libs spin this one is hilarious. The US just bombed a third Middle Eastern country while still fighting two wars, and this one is most definitely about oil. We simply don't have the money or the resources to effectively manage a third separate military engagement. What happened to no blood for oil? What happened to not meddling in other countries? At the very least, the Commander-in-Chief should give more than a 60-second statement on this escalation of violence. Instead, he has 1000+ people, including his entire family, on spring break in Rio. You really can't make this stuff up.
We are aiding insurgents who are trying to overthrow a government that has been in power for decades, and they have not been peaceful at all and have taken over several cities by force. Just like Iraq, our real motives are money and power from oil and another military stronghold in the region to keep the dominos falling.
Give Kucinich and the gang credit for not being hypocritical party-shills (like Klinky, for example). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/t/kucinich-impeach-obama-ov_49501380750213120.html http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html
Iraq was not just about oil. There was plenty of money to be made elsewhere(*cough* Halliburton). Also I was not entirely against the war in Iraq, hypothetically it would have been nice to help the Iraqi people by removing Saddam & uniting it's different ethnic groups & factions into one big loving family. Our ability to successfully do that & the resources it would take are what I had doubts about. Big difference between invading & taking over a country which you will slowly have to rebuild, basically on your own, versus enforcing a UN no-fly zone. I would say it's not good to meddle in other countries business when there is not a consensus from your allies or the UN that there is a need to.
