I'm not all that concerned with what someone did decades before they became president. All that muckraking is just politics at its worst. As for Libya, if the cause is worth fighting for then it's worth putting boots on the ground. Waging war on the cheap is a waste of time, money and lives. As of this moment, it's a huge failure.
Except for Kosovo?
And the cause for putting boots on the ground is surely Congo?
oo
Quote: sootyj @ April 11 2011, 9:46 AM BSTExcept for Kosovo?
At one time there were something like 50,000 foreign troops in Kosovo. Boots on the ground are essential unless you're just trying to harass someone.
Oh come on there was one Allied ground casualty, it's thankfully the model that Obama is aplying to Libya
Kosovo required 50,000 ground troops to hold 4000 square miles of territory - that's not much bigger than the county I live in. A dozen years later there are still about 10000 foreign troops in country. If Obama applied the Kosovo method to Libya we'd need hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground for decades.
The solution you'd seem to be indicating would be to give up on forieng adventures altogether?
Might not be a bad thing.
South Africa, Phillipines all managed peaceful government changes without outside military intervention.
Perhaps the era of boots on the ground is over?
Quote: sootyj @ April 11 2011, 10:14 AM BSTPerhaps the era of boots on the ground is over?
Fat chance.
All I'm saying is that you can't change the situation on the ground without large numbers of troops on the ground for a decade or more. And you don't start shooting until you've decided that it's worth going all-out. The way we're doing things in Libya is ridiculous. We claim to be protecting civilians but we're really acting as the rebels' air force. We should either be trying to kill Khadaffi or we shouldn't be fighting at all. We'll all look pretty stupid if we spent all that money and the nutjob remains in power.
Perhaps the real muscle is economic? I mean sanctions effectively enforced have brought some very mighty regimes down.
The USSR was a military behemouth that fell apart when it went broke.
It would also help if the UK would selling flipping eurofighters to unstable mid east regimes.
Sanctions are relatively worthless. Libya and Iraq weathered them for decades and Cuba has been going for half a century.
Russia is rattling sabers again and the world is going to be in for a shock when China decides to assert itself militarily in its quest for raw materials and oil.
There will be no shortage of wars over the next few decades whether there is a Democrat or a Republican in the White House.
Ok, it's 4:30 and I should get some sleep.
Shut up you two. Talk about AV, not the legitimacy of America's war activities.
Quote: DaButt @ April 11 2011, 8:44 AM BSTPresident Obama has sent in lots of ground troops - in fact he increased the numbers in Afghanistan by many tens of thousands.
You simply can't win a war without boots on the ground and the current debacle in Libya is a clear case in point. What a clusterf**k.
The great Tom Lehrer from nearly half a century ago-
Someone has just come out for the No to AV campaign: Alan B'Stard.
A political broadcast featuring Mayall as The New Statesman character has just been shown by the No campaign.
So with the AV vote do I go
1 no it's a stupid way of diluting democracy
2 hmmm maybe but still no
3 you make a good case but no
4 yes
Quote: sootyj @ April 11 2011, 7:27 PM BSTSo with the AV vote do I go
1 no it's a stupid way of diluting democracy
2 hmmm maybe but still no
3 you make a good case but no
4 yes
That's four choices. You only have two.
Am I the only one to be worried it's actually anus or vagina and a stealth plot to disenfranchise bisexuals?