But, ace, answering your yes-or-no questions is pointless because they aren't necessarily in relation to my initial point.
It would seem to me that you'd rather have let Gaddafi slaughter his own people than risk the risks that are currently being risked.
For the record, I'd rather have had some kind of intervention in Rwanda than was the case. I'd rather have had some kind of intervention to prevent a death toll climbing to 500,000 to 1,000,000 (or 800,000, depending on your sources), or 20% of the country's population.
What would you rather have done in Libya? Let Gaddafi burn it out? With upwards of 1.3 million Libyans if that's what it took? You'd rather those lives get burned out and have the "war" over with rather than prolong it? The war in Somalia is still raging on 20 years later. Maybe we should stop meddling in it and prolonging that, eh?
Quote:
|
I believe we have the capacity (including NATO), and enough world support to go in and end this conflict. We have chosen a route that appears to be very indirect and I am not sure it is the best or most efficient way. Again, I have questions, perhaps Obama is 100% correct and has a very thorough plan, I don't know. he has made a choice not to answer questions and to be vague. I do understand that there are reasons that a leader may take this course of action.
|
So another Afghanistan? Rather than another Bosnia...or Kosovo?