Mark Steyn nails it again, as always.
"So, having agreed to be the Libyan Liberation Movement Air Force, we’re also happy to serve as the Qaddafi Last-Stand Air Force. Say what you like about Barack Obama, but it’s rare to find a leader so impeccably multilateralist he’s willing to participate in both sides of a war. It doesn’t exactly do much for holding it under budget, but it does ensure that for once we’ve got a sporting chance of coming out on the winning side. If a coalition plane bombing Qaddafi’s forces runs into a coalition plane bombing the rebel forces, are they allowed to open fire on each other? Or would that exceed the U.N. resolution?"
Yeah, nothing like clarity in foreign policy.
We have no fucking business in Libya. Stop Unless it is to obliterate the whole place. Stop. Same for Afghanistan. Stop.
ReplyDeleteThese sophisticated minds that conjure up wars where civilians don't die and unicorn farts create *democracy* are going to get us all killed.
There is NO SUCH THING as a war where *civilians* don't die. None, Zero, Nada. Oupso.
My father used to tell me that if you aren't willing to kill someone, then it is not worth fighting.
ReplyDeleteThis idea that war is like cosmetic surgery is ridiculous. I am saddened when innocents are killed. However, we are trying to improve their lot in life. If they are not willing to make sacrifices for the effort then it must not be that important to them. If it is not that important to them, then why should we bother and risk the lives of our military?
I certainly do not advocate the killing of innocent civilians for the sake of killing innocent civilians, but right now we are just telling the enemy that we won't touch them if they hide amongst civilians.
And are those innocent civilians as innocent as they pretend to be?
I agree with you and Matt, Aridog. We need to get the hell out of there.
ReplyDeleteI don't listen to what the hypocrite-in-chief says anymore but I'm not surprised he is covering all bases. After all, it's reelection time. Gotta concentrate on what's REALLY important, ya know??
I am saddened when innocents are killed.
ReplyDeleteMe too ... it means we won't find their weapons.
I certainly do not advocate the killing of innocent civilians for the sake of killing innocent civilians
Me either ... no, the real reason should be "resource" denial.
Anyone who has fought since 1960 in any dust up knows that a civilian is either a lucky stiff who got their weapon hidden fast enough, or a fookin' breeder for the militia.
Actually, under today's Rule of Engagement a weapon carrying fool is still an *innocent* civilian unless he points it at you and shoots at you.
RadioMattM's right, in another thread, where he says the very idea of war as cosmetic surgery is absurd and obscene.
I need to emphasize ....
ReplyDelete...under today's Rule of Engagement a weapon carrying fool is still an *innocent* civilian unless he points it at you and shoots at you.
Can you even IMAGINE trying to make that distinction and proving your case (that he/she fired first ... good f'ing luck with suicide bombers, eh) if you are accused of shooting said armed *innocent* civilian in a combat zone?
Remember, under current US law (sponsored by dilettante Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama), you can be accused years later, even when you too are a civilian again, on nothing more than hearsay.
Talking of killing civilians - have you guys seen that His (dis)Honor Judge Richard Goldstone has retracted his infamous UN report damning Israel for its alleged "war crimes" during Operation Cast Lead?
ReplyDeleteIt's causing quite a stir all over the world. It's headline news over here obviously. Y'all are welcome over at my place to read my take on it.