You're right. They should move to an immediate article 32. Are you for that?
U.S. Boots on the Ground in Libya, Pentagon Confirms | Fox News
Why is that particular term so important to you? The fact is that Libya was bombed, Qaddafi killed and, later, Americans were murdered and the place is now a mess. That is true of much of the ME under Obama's watch. It may be time to start asking the question as to whose side he really is on.
I am and will continue to.... It's everyones reality except yours, hence my prior comment. :shrug:Ockham said:What's sillier is you sitting here denying it. You're entitled to live in your own reality; it's still a free country.
In other words, given YOUR definition, we've invaded almost every single nation on the planet, since we've got CIA agents in just about every single nation on the planet.
And YOU are telling ME about "reality"?
OMIGOSH!!!! We INVADED Libya!!!! Never mind that it was a whopping FOUR military personnel - from your reference:
Two of the military personnel are explosive-ordnance experts who will be used to disable any explosives traps left in the embassy. The other two are "general security,"
Yes, these FOUR soldiers went about slaughtering all opposition against them! They took every hill, every building, rooted out every sewer on their quest to CONQUER Libya! All while they were looking for explosive traps left in our embassy...and the other two being "general security"...now it's a GREAT mystery why we would EVER want armed security in Libya (where there's this city called "Benghazi" - you may have heard of it).
And if you'll recall, it's YOU who is insisting that we "invaded"...and all I'm doing is trying to help you to understand how ludicrous your claim is. And if you're concerned about the "mess" the ME is, perhaps you should ask the guy who broke it, rather than the guy who FOLLOWED the agreement between the Iraqi government and the Bush administration about whether we would keep troops in Iraq.
That may well be judicial tradition but we are not in a court room appearing before a magistrate. We are therefore free to discuss whether we believe this guy is guilty or or not of desertion. I have no doubt that he is.I have no problem with that - as soon as he's declared psychologically able to stand trial (and it doesn't take much to be so declared), yes, he should. Desertion is a very serious crime. BUT until that day he is declared guilty, he is innocent. That is American judicial tradition...in both the civilian AND the military world.
WONDERFUL!!!! So since didn't invade Right Away, that made it okay for us to invade NINE YEARS LATER?
OMIGOSH!!!! They fired on coalition aircraft flying over their nation!!!! That OBVIOUSLY means that Saddam had nuclear weapons ready to launch!!!! INVADE!!!!!!! Spend TRILLIONS of dollars and thousands of lives, because Iraq FIRED on coalition aircraft flying over their nation!!!!!
Gee, how stupidly unpatriotic I must be for not being willing - nay, EAGER - to spend trillions of American taxpayer dollars and thousands of American lives to keep Iraq from firing at coalition aircraft. I mean, that's REALLY unforgivable, unlike, say, when our destroyer blew up that Iranian airliner, or when the Soviets blew up KAL 007, or when the Soviets (allegedly - there's evidence for and against) torpedoed and sank the USS Scorpion with all hands.
That counterweight to Iran is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, mostly using material we supplied him in order to "counterweight" Iran. There comes a time when enough is enough. BTW, since your grasp on the history of the region is now suspect, are you aware of Desert Fox and the liberate Iraq act?
Ah. So because I strongly disagree with you ("Invade them! They fired on coalition aircraft!"), my "grasp...is now suspect".
So why didn't we invade Rwanda to stop the genocide there? Why didn't we invade Cambodia to stop the genocide there? Why didn't we invade China to stop the genocide there?
And how is YOUR grasp of history, sir, if you really think that America has any history at all of invading nations to stop genocides? Hell, if you'll ask the Native Americans - and the Filipinos, for that matter ("Kill every Filipino male over the age of ten!"), WE are not exactly innocent when it comes to committing genocide.
WAR, sir, should only be something undertaken against what are potentially existential threats...and even then, it should be avoided if the "cure" is worse than the threat (see: Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine). Otherwise, war is very, very expensive, in terms of blood and money. Counting all the interest we are paying and will pay in the coming years, we are quite literally spending TRILLIONS of American taxpayer dollars on the invasion of Iraq.
Based on the intel she was given by the Bush administration - which, of course, turned out to be false.
And once more you convict without hearing both sides of the story. So many times I dealt with people on board who Just Knew that this or that person was guilty of whatever, and wouldn't give the least consideration to the thought that maybe, just maybe there's another side of the story.
Look, just like any other piece of human waste, if Bergdahl deserted, then screw him. BUT do you personally know whether he was receiving death threats from his fellow soldiers? Do you personally know whether his chain of command had been informed and ignored the report?
Of course that's almost certainly NOT what happened...but WE DON'T KNOW. YOU don't know. And we won't know until we get HIS side of the story.
THAT, senior, is why there's the AMERICAN tradition of "innocent until proven guilty". But I guess that only applies to people YOU personally approve of, and not to people YOU don't like.
And we did NOT go to get her until we KNEW exactly where she was...and even then, we didn't know where she was until an unidentified source from the hospital told us where she was at. Did we know exactly where Bergdahl was? Did we know which hovel or which cave or which shed behind the farmhouse he was in?
Ah. So according to you, Obama KNEW where Bergdahl was, and had the deal all set to go...and told his people, "Let's wait on this and not make it happen until we need to distract from another scandal."
Riiiiiiiight.
I have no problem with that - as soon as he's declared psychologically able to stand trial (and it doesn't take much to be so declared), yes, he should. Desertion is a very serious crime.
BUT until that day he is declared guilty, he is innocent. That is American judicial tradition...in both the civilian AND the military world.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?