Gadafi is a military target

[mrplunkey]

Congress controls NATO now???

Congress declares war.

Oh wait... Those US troops and equipment are under NATO! And gosh knows we don't have any say within NATO.



Between this and the silly stretch of logic that says guadafi is a military target because he commands the troops at some level, we've got a mechanism for taking out just about whoever we want.

At least bush had a violated cease fire to fall back on.

C'mon -- you sure didn't like Bush's wars. How do you feel about barry's?

 

[nimbus]

it's bad, but not as bad as iraqi freedom. super expensive, lots of casualties, and was premised on that whole crock of shit about WMD.

 

[EarthRider]

The thing about libs, they won't say anything right now. Or they will blame all this on Bush.

But as soon as a Cons. president gets back in to clean up Obama's mess, they will all blame it on that dude.

 

[nimbus]

why do libs need to say anything, nobody has even targeted gadafi yet. that whole article was just speculation that it could happen

 

[mrplunkey]

it's bad, but not as bad as iraqi freedom. super expensive, lots of casualties, and was premised on that whole crock of shit about WMD.

Sadam had violated a number of UN resolutions regarding weapons inspection and a cease fire agreement that his specific administration had signed to end the first gulf war.

Compared to Libya, the second gulf war was an iron clad deal. At least we weren't tearing off trying to assassinate a foreign head of state in the name of protecting civilians.

If we want to off Guadafi because he's an asshole who contributes to the destabilization of the region and supports terrorism (I.e. Flight 103), go for it. But this charade about declaring him a military target based on some resolution to protect civilians is a joke.

Let's try using that logic somewhere else: I'm sure there is a UN resolution out there protecting the rights of women. I'm sure Pakistan has problems in this area. But we give financial aid and military support to the Pakistani government. And the US commander-in-chief is Barry. So does that make him a legitimate military target per UN resolution?

 

[ledhead]

NATO official: Gadhafi a legitimate target - CNN.com

Holy spin batman!

So a UN resolution for protecting civilians has now been stretched into a formal mission to assassinate a foreign leader -- even without as much as a congressional resolution approving the first bomb.

I sure hope the "Bush is a war criminal" crowd are warming up for their assault on Barry. Now they've got a bona fide villain.

How dare you talk bad about our unsung president. You better hope Barry doesn't re-enact the Sedition Act, because your ass is going to the pen. Barry is just a little schizophrenic, he confuses himself with being a Totalitarian-Marxist, but he's really not....

 

[Mr. dB]

C'mon -- you sure didn't like Bush's wars. How do you feel about barry's?

Well, in Bush's wars, we had a unilateral act of aggression perpetrated by us onto them, spearheaded by Bush and his Neo-Con cronies in the DOD, with limited cooperation from other allied states. In Barry's war, we've got a coalition of states, spearheaded by Nicholas Sarkozy of France, UN resolutions initially promoted by neighboring Arab states, and NATO. This isn't Barry's war, it's Nicky's war, and Barry is cooperating, mostly I think because we've got a huge stockpile of arms that we can sell to the other coalition states. US troops are still limited to air strikes aren't they?

 

[mrplunkey]

Well, in Bush's wars, we had a unilateral act of aggression perpetrated by us onto them, spearheaded by Bush and his Neo-Con cronies in the DOD, with limited cooperation from other allied states. In Barry's war, we've got a coalition of states, spearheaded by Nicholas Sarkozy of France, UN resolutions initially promoted by neighboring Arab states, and NATO. This isn't Barry's war, it's Nicky's war, and Barry is cooperating, mostly I think because we've got a huge stockpile of arms that we can sell to the other coalition states. US troops are still limited to air strikes aren't they?

1) Iraq was a coalition as well.

2) how exactly did France lead, when we've admitted to providing the command and control for the initial bomb attacks? France lent their name, but we called the shots.

3) we've had operators on the ground there even before the initial bombing attacks. Those laser-guided bombs need someone to paint the target.

 

[Mr. dB]

2) how exactly did France lead...

Nicky said "let's do this"

 

[mrplunkey]

Nicky said "let's do this"

Like Tony did with the other one.