Will US combat operations in Libya have the support of the public?

03/17/2011 | TMMT

[CatoRenasci]

Think of Obama in a toga, pretending he’s Scipio Africanus....

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks The Magical Mischief Tour.

No, it won’t.

It’s difficult to see how anyone can support this.

But wait, it gets better — let one US pilot get shot down and be put on trial for war crimes or some shit...

Remember, this is the same Gaddafi who imprisoned those Euro-nurses, accusing them of spreading AIDS in Libya.

[cva66snipe]

Under our current military strength I don't support it. Nor do I support POTUS any longer having the power to deploy troops into combat without first approval from congress EXCEPT when our own soil including foreign bases housing U.S. Troops or water where U.S.N. ships are attacked. An immediate military response to an attack should always be allowed even down to it being a command decision.

We're spread too thin with too few troops. We're over extended, over deployed, and grossly undermanned even to maintain a god national defense posture much less be involved in combat. That was the fought of Clinton, GW Bush, and Obama, and the Democratic and Republican sitting congress from about 1994-present.

Unless this is stopped and some serious corrections made we aren't going to have a military left to fight with. I'm not an isolationist but I see the reality of we can not maintain this pace much longer.

Adding to that we're not even sure about those opposing the Tyrant. They might even be backed by Bin Laden. Someone is sure stirring the stick in the M.E. My question about it is someone setting a snare for us to bog us down further in extended military deployments?

[cva66snipe]

Under our current military strength I don't support it. Nor do I support POTUS any longer having the power to deploy troops into combat without first approval from congress EXCEPT when our own soil including foreign bases housing U.S. Troops or water where U.S.N. ships are attacked. An immediate military response to an attack should always be allowed even down to it being a command decision.

We're spread too thin with too few troops. We're over extended, over deployed, and grossly undermanned even to maintain a good national defense posture much less be involved in combat in several venues as we are now. That was the fault of Clinton, GW Bush, and Obama, and the Democratic and Republican sitting congress from about 1994-present. None of them have addressed the End Troop Strength issue seriously since the 1996 level we currently maintain.

Unless this is stopped and some serious corrections made we aren't going to have a military left to fight with. I'm not an isolationist but I see the reality of we can not maintain this pace much longer.

Adding to that we're not even sure about those opposing the Tyrant. They might even be backed by Bin Laden. Someone is sure stirring the stick in the M.E. My question about it is someone setting a snare for us to bog us down further in extended military deployments?

[bert]

The supposition is pretty much balderdash. There is no possibility......at all.

To even ask the question indicates misunderstanding

[oh8eleven]

they will supply the USA with $50 a barrel oil for the next 50 years
No need.
Look at the price of oil after Bush lifted the ban on offshore oil drilling ...