Libya, Yemen, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait...

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

right, I don't have an argument. Im just addressing what Newt said and pointing out some obvious things. In order to address those issues in other nations we'd have to do more than a no fly zone. No fly zones are easier and safer for us and cheaper than having to also land troops into those kinds of conditions.

It's an easier "argument" for Obama. I don't think Obama said we have Interests at stake. However France does. But the reason or the excuse was not about interests but to stop military actions on civilans.

It would be great if we could stop that kind of stuff in Sudan, however a mere no fly zone there won't work

Not sure I understand Obama's No Fly Zone policy. Since when did bombing targets become a "No Fly Zone?"

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Not sure I understand Obama's No Fly Zone policy. Since when did bombing targets become a "No Fly Zone?"

Libya has flying tanks...well after we bust a TNT cap on them they fly a few feet

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Not sure I understand Obama's No Fly Zone policy. Since when did bombing targets become a "No Fly Zone?"

BTW bombing Triple A and SAMs comes under a no fly zone. Bombing tanks does not. Clearly France and Britain's national interests are coming into play.

Remember Britain sent a contingent to the rebels. Obama? I have no idea what he is doing, I just know his excuse was to protect the civilians

[Praxeas]

The irony here is we helped the rebels in Afghanistan because it served our interests and now the rebels there hate us.

The truth is, while we thought we were just using them, the were just using us. Even Al Queda probably has no problem working with us as long as it meets their ends.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

We don't have interests there. Nobody said we did nor should that be the sole reason to go in. Did they? Did Obama say we are involved to protect our interests? I don't see why Newt brought that up

He brought it up because he's saying it wasn't well-thought out. Why are we there??? Why are we doing this?

Regardless of Newt's points, that's my primary point. No US Interest.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Not to mention that we have no control of who gets into power post-Qadhafi, and really have no idea who exactly the rebels are (which rumors speculate they have Al-Quada support). Americans are quick to get misty-eyed and see everything as sweet freedom and liberty, in light of our own revolution, but this is not the reality in the Middle East. So post-Qadhafi, do we then bomb them again until we get the right leader? Should we just pick the leaders for them? After all, we know what's best for them.

I have to agree with Sec. Gates that "anyone that thinks it a good idea to militarily involve themselves in Asia, North Africa or the Middle East need to have their heads checked."

We talk of intervention helping us alleviate threats to our security -- but the fact is, there is no demonstrable threat to our security by any of these nations at this time, the exception being MAYBE Iran.

Going back just a bit BEFORE the Tunisian revolt - Libya very much represented a threat to US citizens. Gaddafi had personally ordered the destruction of the Pan Am jet over Lockerbie and the only man responsible who the authorities managed to capture and try was basically handed back to Gaddafi as a trophy. This represents a huge incentive for Gaddafi to plot again.

You are correct about the muddled situation concerning just who will "take over" for Gaddafi's regime, but considering that the improvement we're looking for is anyone who doesn't deliberately blow up civilian passenger jets, I guess even some forms of Islamist extremism might be favorable.

However, the only way that we can have any "voice" in the matter is to be engaged now.

Involving one's military anywhere is not the "best" of ideas. It's the last resort. The only ones I've seen "getting misty eyed" over all of this were the government union thugs in Madison who were hoping to piggyback their actions in the plundering of the state treasury upon the more legitimate Arab protests.

[Praxeas]

The picture below is kind of funny to me. This is a downed US jet. The pilot and weapons guy were saved by S&R.

What I find funny is the way people have to stand on these things. It reminds me of seals sun bathing on a boat or something and chatting about whatever they would in a coffee shop

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The irony here is we helped the rebels in Afghanistan because it served our interests and now the rebels there hate us.

The truth is, while we thought we were just using them, the were just using us. Even Al Queda probably has no problem working with us as long as it meets their ends.

EXACTLY!

Same thing in North Korea (JN talks about this in the video).

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Socialite

He brought it up because he's saying it wasn't well-thought out. Why are we there??? Why are we doing this?

Regardless of Newt's points, that's my primary point. No US Interest.

I know, my point was I don't think Obama ever said we are there to serve our interests. I thought he said it was to stop the civilian deaths

My opinion is that it's not any better of an position to go in by claiming we are serving our interests since our interests are often seen as relating to oil which is often seen as Imperialism to the rest of the world and one reason why those Muslims hate us to begin with

They seem to be ok with us intervening in this case though

[Socialite]

Subjected myself to 10 minutes of Sean Hannity just now.

It's been months since I've turned his show on... now I know why. I already feel dumber.