No, just being consistent. When we enforced a no-fly zone over Iraq for years it wasn't considered a war. There's no reason why libya should be considered one now.
Nobody even claimed or acted like enforcing a no-fly zone in Iraq for years and years was the US being at war. Sorry if being consistent is a problem for some people. Afghanistan has always been a war. Every use of the military including military strikes doesn't mean we are at war. Honestly, where were the people who believe the US is at war in Lybia at the moment when we were flying no-fly zones over Iraq for multiple administrations? How can anyone who uses air support and strikes as meaning we are at war claim that George W. Bush lied to get us into war. By that standard we'd been at war for some time, and it wasn't George W. Bush that took us there.
Except for, oh I dunno, the Commander in Chief at the time, Bush the Elder, who got congressional approval* for the gulf war and the subsequent no-fly zones**. Later reaffirmed by Clinton in 1998 via a congressional statement. *Presumably to avoid the war powers resolution, albeit done via the utterly made-up 'incubator' stories. **Later deemed illegal by the UN. True. But bombing folks does, particularly when you are (oh I mean, "kinda sorta") communicating with rebels on the ground. Arguments to the contrary are simply semantic weaseling, not worthy of rejoinder. Sorry if having a grasp of common sense and the ability to think clearly is a problem for some people.
no im not. cheaters lie when cornered. weiner went out of his way to give interviews so he could continue to lie and blame others - that is sociopathic behavior, imo. i think bill clinton is a sociopath as well - i do not respect him. i can say with certitude that it has nothing to do w/ his political leanings. im not a republican or a democrat - and i have already stated in this thread that weiner was one of the few people in washington i actually respected before this scandal broke. thats what makes his antics even more disappointing for me personally.
You have to be kidding. Bush lied us into wasting 2 trillion and committing and killing a couple of hundred thousand innocent people. Weiner lied about sending a picture of his wiener over the internet. Only a moron or a die hard Republican would see the wiener lie as worse.
Another example would be Clinton's action in the whole Bosnian conflict is another example. There were some grumblings then, but it wasn't the same as it is now. I think people have war fatigue after two prolonged wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and want to make sure we aren't spread thinner. But Lybia isn't the same as those two and is closer to the no-fly zones, or the US-NATO action in Bosnia. At that time I think people who went around proclaiming we were at war would have been the ones that would have been thought of as acting crazy, now people are acting like I'm crazy. Like I said I'm just being consistent. I'm fine if you find a definition by which we are at war in Lybia. But it isn't anywhere close to what's going on in Afghanistan or even Iraq.
haha what??? see keyword "politics aside" and notice how bush and weiner are not capitalized. But hey if you really prefer weiners over bush that is your right and I'm cool with it.
There is a whole lot more going on in Libya than Iraq right now. Also just some headlines from today I just hate the hypocrisy from both sides. Lame how the subtext says "Will Republicans capitalize?" They would have done the same thing if they were in power with the Democrats opposing. Most americans oppose all these wars and both parties just capitalize on it and play their stupid political blame games.
I'm not saying it doesn't cost money. And I would prefer that the President seek congressional approval. I believe Obama is making a mistake if he doesn't. It's just that we've taken similar military actions before and it was never called a war. The only reason I believe it's called a war now is because people are tired of us fighting in wars, and want to make sure this doesn't end up being another 8 - 10 year involvement in a foreign nation. As far as more going on in Libya than Iraq now it depends on if you mean an American perspective or just in general.
No, I just didn't change my definition of war from what it was when Clinton was involved in Bosnia, or when the other administrations were involved in Iraq before the actual war in Iraq. I agree Obama should get approval from congress for his Libyan action. I just have a problem where what gets called "The US at War" varies depending on much other military involvement the US is already involved in. Actions like the Libyan action(or even more like Bosnia) weren't called a war before, and now all of a sudden it is.
Why does anyone still care about this? The news cycle is more or less over for it - maybe time to move on to something important.
Well I am no expert on pedophile laws, but if it comes out he did some sexting with an underage girl (which it is looking like it might be the case), would he not have some legal battles ahead of him?
Well if he'd just resign we'd stop talking about it. A wealthy person like him sexting poor, young women shouldn't be in power.
The war in Iraq and Afghanistan are not wars for peace. They are wars to protect Americans' right to life/existence. If you want peace in the middle east you have to change the belief system in that area and you can't change beliefs with force. You eradicate a belief by maligning that belief as much as you can.
Let's use some common sense here and call it what it is. Or do you prefer calling it "kinetic military action" WTF? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51893.html
