"Gene" wrote in message ...

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 17:40:30 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

Bush had congressional authorization for Iraq whereas Obama only has
it from the UN. Of course Obama sides with the UN that put Sudan and
Libya on the Human Rights council.

Oh, if Bush only had this much common sense....

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...-strategy.html

Following the "coalition of the willing" (not "leading" them while
they kicked and screamed... and quit.....)
No American troops on the ground...
Enforcement of the no-fly zone only by other nations...





--

Forté Agent 6.00 Build 1186

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by
the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do.
So, throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor.
Catch the trade winds in your sails.
Explore. Dream. Discover." - Unknown

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm



Reply:

Gene, you get stupider and more partisan as time goes on. We have no ground
troops there, but we did not have any for 10 years of a no fly zone in Iraq.
We had UN approval for Iraq. Not much difference here than Iraq. We should
not have been in Bosnia, that was a European zone and European problem. We
should not have attacked Iraq. Maybe a Delta Force hit team, but we are
aggressors in Libya. They have not attacked us since Lockerby, and that was
a long time ago. Why are we not supporting Bahrain and Yeman? Why not
putting down genocide in the Sudan? We are broke, why spend a few billion
killing people in libya, when we do not even know if it is a majority
populist uprising? What are you going to say when a few thousand right or
left wing militants use arms against the government and China starts lobbing
in cruise missiles in support? same scenario.