Thread: Libya
View Single Post
Old 04-02-2011, 02:18 PM   #31
adorable
Member

How Do You Identify?:
Sarcastically
Preferred Pronoun?:
She
Relationship Status:
Unavailable
 
adorable's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Home of the Yankee's
Posts: 752
Thanks: 1,708
Thanked 2,644 Times in 590 Posts
Rep Power: 12725119
adorable Has the BEST Reputationadorable Has the BEST Reputationadorable Has the BEST Reputationadorable Has the BEST Reputationadorable Has the BEST Reputationadorable Has the BEST Reputationadorable Has the BEST Reputationadorable Has the BEST Reputationadorable Has the BEST Reputationadorable Has the BEST Reputationadorable Has the BEST Reputation
Default

Normally I am for things like this. I am one of the few people that was for us going to Iraq when we did specifically because I believed that Saddam was killing his own people. The problem I have right now is that we are just all over the place. The last thing we need is to get bogged down in another war. It annoys me that we still have our people dying in two others - wars that seem to be just dragging on. We have the military might to end it definitively, but we don't. It's like a cat playing with a mouse. Dragging it around, dropping it, picking it back up, playing some more......Just end it already!

I believe we should intervene in any country where there is government sponsored killing. I see it as an obligation following WWII. That isn't what we do of course. There has to be a real monetary interest on our part or strategic location that we want. If we were really all humanitarian about it - I'd be more behind it. But when we can ignore what's going on in the Sudan and other places where so many people have been slaughtered by their governments - it's a little hard to follow the administration's logic that all of a sudden we need to throw ourselves into the middle of this particular civil war.
adorable is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to adorable For This Useful Post: