I'm really not sure what to say. While I appreciate the much clearer humanitarian bent of both the Libya and Ivory Coast, ah, "squirmishes", not to mention the actual involvement this time of UN peacekeepers beforehand, I still don't know why we should be getting involved proactively in this stuff without even an approximation of national consensus or presented case.
Especially now. I feel like we're involved in enough wars right now for Obama to run as a "wartime president".
Though, apparently, we should have been buddy-bombing shit with the French a long time ago....
EDIT: The original article appears to have been edited, and no longer states that US planes are involved in the bombing.
#2
Dave
You keep saying "we". I don't see where the US is doing anything there. (I know - yet.)
#3
sixpackshaker
I'll bet dollars to pesos that "we" will be involved in logistics.
#4
ThatNickGuy
Is there enough oil in Libya to give US a reason to get involved?
It is a bit more than Oil involved. Europe can not take another humanitarian disaster on its back doorstep. It is important enough for our Allies to commit to action. We have committed many of our Allies to our causes. It is right for us to return the favor. Since we have the equipment to support (logistically) the action over Libya our involvement is needed.
Since Bush the Elder we have arranged our military to handle two Desert Storm Actions at one time. Iraq and Afghanistan are nowhere as involved as some people make it out to be. We can easily support the stated claims of the UN Resolution.
#8
PatrThom
Actually, this one's probably all about chocolate.
