8 years to the day that they started a war in Iraq.

If we wanted to help the rebels, then we could have given them support. We could have armed them, and done it a lot sooner. We didn't. Why?

Unlike Tunisa or Egypt, Libya is unlike any nation in Africa in that it has the largest oil reserves on that continent.

Operation Iraqi Liberation still spells O-I-L.

A few hours ago, US and British warships launched more than 100 cruise missiles at the Libyan air defense system while French jets flew over Benghazi and took out several Libyan tanks.  If one of Ghaddafi's generals doesn't pop a cap in his ass the entire Libyan armored force will be taken out like fish in a barrel in the coming days.  Can't come to soon but I hope it's not too late.  Nice to see a real coalition, including A-rabs, signing on.

If you can compare these two events you must be smokin' some powerful shit!  Let's see...the Iraq war was started based on lies and deceptions and abetted by a "Coalition of the Willing" that was a joke compared to the first Gulf War.  This action is simply in support of rebels who started out simply as potesters against a repressive regime that turned on them and began murdering them.  And it's abetted by a truly willing group of nations including Arabs.  American has promised none of our troops will enter Libya.  The only criticism has been why it took us so long.
You are making a comparison that's so full of holes it's not possible to plug them all.  Now don't make me open a can of Whup-Ass on your sorry butt, Willy!  Gosh, I can't wait until the real right-wingers join the fray!

The reason something wasn't done sooner resides in the White House. The man can not make a timely decision to save his life. The 3:00AM phone call question has been answered many times over.

The reality is the administration did not want to make this into another American attack against another muslim country. Unilateralism is not decision making, it is wrong headedness that is what got us where we are and like Colin Powell said, we are going to own Iraq for a while, like it or not.

It is truly an international operation that includes Arab nations who are willing to contribute aircraft and other support that is truly a masterpiece diplomatic win for the United States. Pushing a harsher resolution (Susan Rice), getting support from Arab Countries and getting 5 countries to abstain (Hillary Clinton) was masterful work by them and the administration. True example of how Super Power conducts business effectively and collaboratively.

Another reality is diplomacy takes time and that is not indecision instead, it is the correct course. We America, doesn't need to be World Police for problems created long long ago. British and French colonial empires created all problems we are involved with today (French- North Africa and East Asia, British - South Asia, Middle East) so, it is only fair for them to lead.

But if you are insistent on being critical of someone for going to bathroom, and is willing to suspend reality for the sake of criticism, there is not a whole lot room of reasoning.

I believe you have nailed it on every count.  Thanks for saving me the time, AF.  Gotta go stick another cruise missile up Moammar's ass!

Thanks for answering the question I had when I started this thread:  "Does the original GeneralHooker still post?"  Thank God there are two of us.  And thank you for your support!

First, I am not talking about the merits of this attack or any other in the last 10 years.  

That said, "Unilateralism is not decision making" sounds like the typical cute slogan that doesn't mean anything.  Of course one person (or one nation) and make a decision.  Since when does the number of people taking the action define if here has been a decision?

One nation instigated the attack on Poland.  Did the unilateral nature of that action mean that there was never a decision to attack?

Second, why is a decision any more right because more that one person (or nation) decided to do it?  If 30 people decide to kill someone, does that make it any more right because it wasn't "unilateral?"  If Chad, Uganda, Lybia, Iran, N. Korea, and Yemen decide to do something is it more right than if France decides alone?

Final note - Iraq was not "unilateral." I forget how many nations were involved.  True, the US was the biggest, but my memory has 40 officially involved with "boots on the ground."  Iraq was not "unilateral."

How's that hopey, changey thing working otu for you ???

-- Modified on 3/20/2011 5:46:53 AM

...'cause I swing both ways!  Yes, it's Obama.   And, yes, I do have a dark side.  Kinky, too.

You need to bone up on your history, Bunkie!  The Soviets also invaded Poland on Sept 17, 1939, a couple of weeks after the Nazis.  They'd agreed to do this when they signed the von Ribbentrop pact with Germanby earlier in the year.  
As for unilateralism in general, the statement you quoted from the other poster was fuzzy but I got what he meant, which was that unliateralism is often a poor policy and a substitute for diplomacy.  I agree with you that unilateralism can sometimes be justified.  But as a consistent policy, as during the Bush years, it's a mistake.
You're also literally correct to point out that we had allies during the 2003 Iraq war.  But they contributed little, except for the Brits, and bailed as soon as they could.  Contrast that with the first Gulf War where Bush senior masterfully put together a broad coalition that included several Arab countries.  
Yesterday in Libya the French and Brits did a lot of heavy lifting.  About time, I'd say.  Latest reports show a long column of burned-out tanks and trucks.  The survivors  are running or driving back toward Tripoli pretty damn quick.  Lots of crispy critters, too.