Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Katelew who wrote (419696)	4/3/2011 10:11:54 AM
From: DMaA	9 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793911

I don't see the evidence that Gaddafi was poised to slaughter civilians. Of course he's going to kill armed rebels. I don't see any evidence to prefer the rebels over Gaddafi.

To: Katelew who wrote (419696)	4/3/2011 10:16:22 AM
From: skinowski	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793911

Saudi Arabia dropping bombs was never going to happen Why not? They did enter Bahrain, just a couple of weeks ago. articles.latimes.com

To: Katelew who wrote (419696)	4/3/2011 1:32:19 PM
From: KLP	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793911

If Obama wanted to go into places where humanitarian need was evident, he certainly could have picked garden spots like North Korea, North Vietnam, Cuba, many of the "stans", and nearly all of Africa, including the Ivory Coast. No, he picks Libya, BUT only puts our toe in, no boots on ground (except CIA), no telling Congress before, no strategy, no plan of entry nor withdrawal, then sends our Tomahawks supply in (leaving us with a large void in supply), then orders our planes to leave the area, and leave it to NATO (which the US largely funds).... Oh, he first says Gaddafi must go....then says he may go.....and now, it is, in effect, "Oh heck, let the good ole' guy stay....he's harmless"...... Who's on first? The choice was either the West intervening or letting Gaddafi stay in power and slaughter both the rebels and civilians.

To: Katelew who wrote (419696)	4/3/2011 9:46:28 PM
From: greenspirit	12 Recommendations Respond to of 793911

The same naivete' that lacked critical thinking skills and caused so many to vote for Obama, is being expressed today supporting statements like "we bombed Libya to prevent a massacre", or we're dropping bombs to support "Democratic nation building". Some on the wishy-washy liberal left corner may believe implanting a democratic government in a Muslim country like Libya can be done by simply making a speech, or wishing it while standing off shore and dropping a few bombs. Others, like myself, see little evidence a Democratic government will emerge in Libya, unless America undertakes a serious commitment of resources and lives for the undertaking. I doubt many in academia supporting Obama's "humanitarian" Libyan foreign policy would send their own son or daughter to die for the cause. And I certainly wouldn't want to send mine. Additionally, I speak to dozens of active duty military personnel every day, and they don't either. Not one I've spoken to has expressed support for the Libyan bombing, they're quietly hoping it just all goes away. Navigating dozens of Naval Vessels in close proximity to land, loading bombs, launching aircraft and re-loading is a dangerous undertaking in itself, and I doubt Obama would sacrifice his daughters for the cause if they were of age. Using the term "prevent massacre" over and over to defend a foreign policy decision which holds little strategic national interest might make some feel good, but intellectually it's a vacuous doctrine, exemplified by dozens of examples around the world far more heinous than Libya. If one American dies in Libya supporting this half-baked war, it would be a real tragedy. Gaddafi represents no real or imagined threat to America, or it's allies. He's an irritating freak in a sea of strange characters leading Muslim countries. His army has not attacked another country, he hasn't threatened his neighbor, nor has he used chemical weapons on a mass scale to murder the way Saddam did. To see the two foreign policy decisions as synonymous is ridiculous.