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 : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (96835)	7/14/2011 9:15:57 AM
From: cirrus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

There are a few minor differences, to name a few: 1) No US ground combat troops were sent into Libya - vs 150,000 into Iraq 2) There was considerable international support, including the Arab League, for military action against Libya - vs the patchwork coalition Bush dragged by it's heals into Iraq 3) There was an active, popular uprising in Libya vs no internal agitation for regime change in Iraq Yes, Neil is correct in the sense that an attack is an attack regardless of how it's done... a full scale invasion or a single cruise missile... it's still an act of war. Yes, and it's still assault if someone punches you in the nose or carves you up with a chain saw. And what about O bombing Libya where Neil says, is the same as Bush attacking Iraq?