With the situation "deteriorating," the military says airstrikes have failed to loosen Gaddafi's...

This news story has 7 comments:

Register or Login to rate comments »

Thomas Smicklas Comments (747)
 
So much for war by committee.
24 Mar 2011, 04:28 PM Reply Like

coloneldebugger Comments (832)
 
so much for an air only war by committee. bring on the ground troops.

just another incompetent let's go blow 'em up and they'll love us plan.
24 Mar 2011, 04:30 PM Reply Like

nightfly Comments (1016)
 
right, w/o boots-on-the-ground, any "solution" is no solution at all.
24 Mar 2011, 04:36 PM Reply Like

Tack Comments (9243)
 
People die by the tens of thousands every day from disease, famine and beseiged by their own governments. It's just impossible for America to "fix it," notwithstanding all the compassionate do-gooderism from some, as justifications for action.

The simple answer is and always needs to be: are America's vital interests and/or security directly threatened by the internal actions of some nation? If the answer to this question is no, then, we have no bsuiness intervening, either in terms of international law or with respect to the interests, welfare capital and lives of American citizens.

In Libya's case,specifically, we have no business being there, in the air or on the ground.
24 Mar 2011, 04:38 PM Reply Like

Lilguy Comments (309)
 
I don't violently disagree with you, but "Qaddafi must go" is not a bad idea.
--He was responsible for the death of several American troops in a terrorist bombing in Berlin in 1986(?).
--His intel service sabotaged PanAm 103, killing more than 100 Americans and several hundred people all together, in one of the most costly acts of aerial terrorism in history (& the greatest to its time).
--He was building a substantial WMD capability, eliminating it (apparently) when the pressure from the US & allies became too great. I'm not sure he hasn't started again--and he does have stores of mustard gas per press reports.

Those terrorism and WMD programs, not to mention his current genocide on his own people, are pretty strong arguments that removing him from power one way or another would substantially serve America's vital national security interests.
24 Mar 2011, 04:44 PM Reply Like

Pandemonium Comments (44)
 
Incomprehensible - that's how I would describe Washington's incessant need to drag the US into costly, dangerous wars. Just when you could say Iraq was over and the US could save large amounts of money, here we go again. Surely they knew beforehand that the 'rebels' were just people who had had enough? Surely, therefore, they knew that in the end they'd have to bring people on the ground - on Arab soil, in the midst of high tensions. Who else will intervene, the African (dis)Union?

Should be nice to witness humanitarian disasters in Misrata etc. while the US boasts its avian military superiority. Who's got the biggest doesn't really matter in this game.
24 Mar 2011, 04:38 PM Reply Like

bob adamson Comments (4492)
 
Looks like the coalition is getting its coordination act together. See the following

www.guardian.co.uk/wor...

english.aljazeera.net/...

www.guardian.co.uk/wor...
24 Mar 2011, 04:52 PM Reply Like