huh? you do realise that the US is part of the UN, right? A pretty big part at that. If other countries would take the lead, the US wouldn't have to, but they keep looking at the US to lead. So far, I feel, the US has done it the right way. They're not taking the lead but are apart of a true coalition. How would it look if the US was to back out completely?klc123 wrote:The UN does it properly, it doesn't invade multiple countries in search of "Weapons of mass destruction" and conveniently strip those countries of their oil resources .
All things considering however, I would much rather prefer to see all UN forces in there fighting for the peace, but have the US withdraw their army. There is enough opposition out there already, we can do without our own "friendlies" killing our troops at the same time.
you're a much more optimistic than me thenRome_Leader wrote:Strangely enough, I had a scary thought the other day.
Perhaps America's 'War on Iraq/Terrorism' is working.
Think about it. Amongst all the BS Dubyah used to say, one thing he said when this whole thing was kicking off after 9/11 was: "We hope this will spur other Middle Eastern nations to fight for democracy and their freedom."
I think it's starting to happen. More spurned on by Egypt than anything else, but no doubt related at least somewhat to American action in the Middle East. It makes you wonder... Have they done some semblance of good?
“I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action,” Mr. Obama said.
“To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq,” . . . “regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.”
and many others. This is the reason I like Obama. He seems more intouch with the international community and understands that America needs to build the relationships back up with our allies that might have broken down in the early part of the last decade. When he says that America doesn't want to go at it alone, I believe him. America can't afford to go at it like that again, because we saw what happened last time. We're part of something much bigger than just the USA, something which Bush didn't seem to understand.“In such cases, we should not be afraid to act — but the burden of action should not be America’s alone,” “Because contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs; and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all.”
I haven't read anything like that (it's probably true though). I think that's probably due to the size of our military, which is a subject that could be debated in itself. I'd love it if our military was cut down and we couldn't send so many troops.ScottyBoy wrote:I think you'll find the US are taking the lead in the sense that they have committed more forces than every other country combined. They are playing it down through publitcity and handing over control to NATO.
Of course this is different to previous deployments but in the end the US are still commiting a lot of resources which is what the people probably dont want because of the past.
agreed on the troops thing, Fuzz is out there now dude and hes hating every second of it.soccer11 wrote: I'd love it if our military was cut down and we couldn't send so many troops.
I agree with everything you said except that part. Afghanistan was due to 9/11 and I never said anything negative about that. Iraq, on the other hand, is a different issue. Yes, we took out Saddam, which was good. Any time you take out a cruel dictator is a good thing, but I don't think our intentions were good going into Iraq. Going into Iraq was somewhat of a shock to many people.Rome_Leader wrote:The thing is, barring things like national debt, the USA has the manpower and the resources to essentially fight a war forever. But that doesn't mean they should. Getting involved should make sense to the country and serve some purpose. The Iraq War was somewhat understandable, given the direct 9/11 attacks and threats, but somewhere along the way, goals changed and sight of real importance and the bigger scheme of things was lost.
That being said, world peace is a nobel initiative, as long as you don't fire the first salvo. Obama is totally right in getting in early and applying just enough to help the rebels along without taking point in another war. Sure, America is committing the most to the efforts in Libya, but only because they have the most. I'm glad, for the most part, it seems to be remaining a Libyan struggle and not an American crusade.
man that sucks. I didn't know he got deployed. Hopefully all goes well for him.agreed on the troops thing, Fuzz is out there now dude and hes hating every second of it.
I was also very surprised by that. I remember I was watching CBS and the announcer came on and said something along the lines of, "The French air force began the air strikes around 9pm local time." Very shocking. At least they can't complain about it now.ratherton wrote:The most amazing thing about the whole Libya situation is that the French were the first to get stuck in with the no-fly zone. I've never heard anything like it.
It must be the first time their military has been in action since they sank the Rainbow Warrior (google it).