Um, Are We About To Be In A Third War?

Newch91 wrote:

No US troops on Libyan soil.

Newch91 wrote:

No US troops on Libyan soil.

LikeAnOcean wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Newch91 wrote:

No US troops on Libyan soil.

The last 2 times no fly zones were enacted they resulted into ground troops and lengthy interventions.

Thats because the first stage in an invasion is establishing a no fly zone. It has to be done before ground troops can enter. Think about it.

We are doing the right thing this time. I was very much against attacking Iraq.


We won't need ground troops because the general population is going to take things under control, and they've been trying.

tremors wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Just what the world needs is another war. 112 cruise missiles fired...so senseless.

How is it senseless to respond to requests from inside Libya and across the Arab world to prevent Gadaffi massacring his second city, which he was right on the verge of doing today? Actually, this isn't really an American led war at all, it's a British and French one, with a completely different set of elements to either Iraq or Afghanistan.

Gadaffi is trying to crush a popular uprising, which would have absolutely no chance of staying alive without external air power.

The language of oil-hungry crusaders is the propaganda currently coming from Gadaffi's bunch - so if people want to be singing from the same hymn sheet as Libyan propaganda then carry on. But this is actually a rare example of the United Nations supporting a popular revolution, in order to prevent senseless bloodshed if you ask me. It's a defensive intervention rather than an offensive one.

lukin2006 wrote:

tremors wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Just what the world needs is another war. 112 cruise missiles fired...so senseless.

How is it senseless to respond to requests from inside Libya and across the Arab world to prevent Gadaffi massacring his second city, which he was right on the verge of doing today? Actually, this isn't really an American led war at all, it's a British and French one, with a completely different set of elements to either Iraq or Afghanistan.

Gadaffi is trying to crush a popular uprising, which would have absolutely no chance of staying alive without external air power.

The language of oil-hungry crusaders is the propaganda currently coming from Gadaffi's bunch - so if people want to be singing from the same hymn sheet as Libyan propaganda then carry on. But this is actually a rare example of the United Nations supporting a popular revolution, in order to prevent senseless bloodshed if you ask me. It's a defensive intervention rather than an offensive one.

Here's an idea, let the Arab countries deal with him then. The US is the major player here, there trying to come across differently, but they are the major player and at the end of the day who's military might will be used most, the US!!!

LikeAnOcean wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

tremors wrote:

How is it senseless to respond to requests from inside Libya and across the Arab world to prevent Gadaffi massacring his second city, which he was right on the verge of doing today? Actually, this isn't really an American led war at all, it's a British and French one, with a completely different set of elements to either Iraq or Afghanistan.

Gadaffi is trying to crush a popular uprising, which would have absolutely no chance of staying alive without external air power.

The language of oil-hungry crusaders is the propaganda currently coming from Gadaffi's bunch - so if people want to be singing from the same hymn sheet as Libyan propaganda then carry on. But this is actually a rare example of the United Nations supporting a popular revolution, in order to prevent senseless bloodshed if you ask me. It's a defensive intervention rather than an offensive one.

Here's an idea, let the Arab countries deal with him then. The US is the major player here, there trying to come across differently, but they are the major player and at the end of the day who's military might will be used most, the US!!!

That's your assumption. You are assuming we are going to be the key player.. We can all stand corrected in coming months.

lukin2006 wrote:

LikeAnOcean wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Here's an idea, let the Arab countries deal with him then. The US is the major player here, there trying to come across differently, but they are the major player and at the end of the day who's military might will be used most, the US!!!

That's your assumption. You are assuming we are going to be the key player.. We can all stand corrected in coming months.

Shit the US has already fired 112 cruise missiles in day 1, they are already the most important player.

lukin2006 wrote:

tremors wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Here's an idea, let the Arab countries deal with him then. The US is the major player here, there trying to come across differently, but they are the major player and at the end of the day who's military might will be used most, the US!!!

I bet you 10 dollars that as soon as the US have used their Cruise missiles ('Unique Capabilities' that your government are referring to) to establish the no fly zone, the bulk of the Military engagement will be done by Britain, France and the Arab League, with the USA just providing the hi tech support. Control of the operation will pass to Britain and France in a matter of days. It's British and French planes that are right now buzzing over Libya, and they will be committed the most. Obama really doesn't need to be involved in a war, and seems to have little appetite for it - whereas Cameron and Sarkozy (British and French Prime Ministers) are the ones who have been pressing for this for some weeks.

...and if those cruise missiles miss their targets and kill innocent people, then the US will take the brunt of the blame and the people of lebanon will turn against them as well.