I think Obama will come out of this looking like Bush. He thinks it is done but the hard part just started and many could die in a fight for power.
Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
I think Obama will come out of this looking like Bush. He thinks it is done but the hard part just started and many could die in a fight for power.
Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
Like Bush? Are you comparing Lybia to Iraq?
Like Bush? Are you comparing Lybia to Iraq?
Like Bush? Are you comparing Lybia to Iraq?
Yes I am. The reason I say that is the many similarities, 1 both were run by evil dictators, 2 they both killed and tortured their own people, 3 both countries are associated with terrorism, 4 both have different factions of Muslims, and 5 we never should've gotten involved in either. I think we need to stay in Iraq until it is secure since we already have to many that made the sacrifice there, it seems like it is personal responsibility to me now that we broke it. I am concerned we are going to have to do the same in Libya since we were the main reason the government was toppled.
Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
This was done for the benefit of mainly France and Italy, and Europe in general to a lesser degree.
Halleluiah!!!!!!! we agree on something. Although, that was the major reason for us to be involved. Oh, and to rid the world of an evil corrupt dictator.
I don't think we will have troops in Libya, because we didn't send them to Egypt. BUT with that said, we already floated a loan to Libya as of yesterday which makes no d*mn sense at all, they are richer than some of our states and I think outside of the interruption of oil to Europe, this internal civil war was nothing more than a money grab.
Maybe we need to charge Italy, France and the UN for that matter for our work and dump NATO. It may be time we get out of the rent a troop business and worry about real issues here at home.
How do you see it? Are you concerned we just took to big of a risk in starting a civil war?
Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
I heard Lindsey Graham on the news two nights ago talking about the '"need" to send "advisors" and "support troops" to help "train" the forces of the "New Libyan Government"
I was more or less looking at the fact that Iraq cost us over 4400 American live at a cost of nearly a trillion dollars.
Civil War? The Lybian people were already engaged in a civil war and the region was becoming more and more destablilized, that's why we got involved in the first place. Like layout mentioned, France, Italy and Europe requested our help. Remember when most, if not all, of the GOP members were lambasting our President for "leading from behind"?
We had NO business taking part in that operation. It is going to cost us dearly. As will Uganda.
Gee, did we NOT rid the world of an "Evil Corrupt Dictator" in Iraq as well? THAT evil dictator liked to use "mustard and nerve" gasses on unarmed civilians. Gunned them down by the hundreds of thousands as well. Not to mention his "rape squads" etc.
You are contradicting yourself here layout. You say the above about Lybia and Uganda, then you say this about Iraq
If you believe we should've gone into Iraq for the reasons you posted above, then you surely wouldn't disagree with Lybia or Uganda.
Some major differences in the two. These are very simplistic
1. Most importantly, we did not have the backing of the U.N. to go into Iraq. Do not get me wrong, I'm not saying that we needed it, but it is a major difference between the two.
2. France, Italy, Europe and the U.N. sanctioned our involvement in Lybia.
3. We didn't put any boots on the ground in Lybia. 9 years occupying Iraq.
4. Lybia = 1 billion dollars, Iraq = over 4400 American lives and 1 trillion dollars.