If President Obama wanted to invade Libya right now, I would oppose it.

[rug]

[davidinalameda]

1. were you opposed to NATO and their intervention in Kosovo?

[rug]

7. Yes.

Even though these are diametrically different situations.

[davidinalameda]

14. why were you opposed to Kosovo

[rug]

16. Because there is no such thing as a humanitarian war.

[davidinalameda]

18. I guess that those who would have died in the ethnic cleansing would say different

bet you would have been against WW2 as well

thank goodness your attitude isn't the prevailing one

[rug]

19. I guess that those who died in the war would say different

assuming they were alive.

Don't worry, you'll always have warmongers to consult with.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftstreet]

3. Is he even combat trained?

:o

[David__77]

4. I agree. And: US out of Afghanistan and Iraq!

...

[Ken Burch]

5. Me too. That would be the ONE thing that would make people there SUPPORT Qadaffi.

We need to clearly call for him to leave, but not intervene militarily. Especially since one of the cities U.S. troops might end up in would be...Tripoli...

[tekisui]

6. Jeesus, I would hope so. I would be in favor of a no fly zone, but

strongly against an invasion. No boots on the ground.

[Taverner]

8. Me too

However, recognizing Eastern Lybia as the state of Lybia is something I would promote.

Why war when you can negotiate?

[GoCubsGo]

9. Huh?

When did he suggest invading Libya?

:shrug:

[gateley]

10. I think this is in response to another thread. ;-) nt

[RufusTFirefly]

11. We've obviously got way too much to gain from invading Libya

That makes any efforts we make -- however noble -- unduly suspicious (and probably with good reason).

Any actions taken -- and I strongly favor non-military action -- should be international actions, not the U.S. acting unilaterally, or, even more cynically, serving as the invisible puppet-master for some "international consensus."

Our country has a history that dates back at least as far as the Spanish-American War of invading countries to "help" when in fact our true goal is control.

Hard as it is for some people to fathom, it actually is quite possible to oppose U.S. intervention and still support some sort of action to help the Libyan people.

[Ozymanithrax]

12. We do not have a reason to invade, and the President has not attempted to convince us...

A U.N. resolution asking all member nations to yield military assistance to the Libyan people, as was done with United Nations Security Council Resolution 82 of 27 June 1950 that precipitated our entrance into the Korean War, would give the U.S. a reason to go to war, but I doubt something like that will happen. Like in the Civil war in Rwanda, I suspect we will use economic sanctions and otherwise let the government's mercenary goons murder as many of its citizens as they want. What, after all, is 100, or 1000, or a million dead Libyans.

For the record, I too oppose a war with Libya. But I don't see it as even a remote possibility that one would happen.

[ladjf]

13. Absolutely! Everything we get involved in seems to turn bad

shortly there after. Let the people of Libya work this out.

[Truth2Tell]

15. Word. nt

[malaise]

17. I agree with you 100% n/t