[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

The case for war is very simple.

1 There is a civil war going on in Libya and one side is likely to prevail over the other, thus "slaughter" is going to be occurring.

2 As various liberal bleedinhearts have already said, there's humanitarian concerns here. We have a duty to protect people from being slaughtered.

3 In liberal thought (as they are pleased to refer to it), a duty is the same as a right. (Similarly, a feeling is a thought is a philosophy.)

4 Under the liberals' "right to protect" philosophy, we are entitled, indeed obliged, to intercede militarily (and that of course includes invasion) in order to keep the peace and prevent casualties in a civil war...anywhere, per the philosophy of moral equivalency and national pan-exceptionalism.

Thus the 0bama Doctrine, essentially may be stated:

For any nation undergoing civil war, we are entitled to attack and invade it to keep the peace.

[tsowellfan]

The Vietnam War was much more justified than this one.

[tsowellfan]

I would imagine that only the hardcore Obama democrats are supporting this.

In my city our local morning talk show republican vs democrat - even the democrat was against this.

Where do they stand in your city?

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

No really, if the US had another civil war, wouldn’t we want China to step in and keep it friendly?

[Lucky9teen]

For any nation undergoing civil war, we are entitled to attack and invade it to keep the peace, except Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, Syria...

There...fixed it.