what are you talking about?

you make zero sense
oh wait
you bring prejudice into everything you read

nevermind

each according to his means yadda yadda

Wow, for a second I thought you were talking about yourself.

President Obama was very clear minutes ago in his remarks from Chili, the US is part of the international force to enforce the UN resolution to protect the citizens of Libya, the US position is that Gadhafi must go! Very forceful remarks!

and why is the US meddling in this affair?

Meddling?? Maybe because preventing genocide is a belief that we share with most of the world.

Then the rest of the world is inconsistent in this "belief".

I am sad to say that I was completely wrong about Obama.

Except when it's muslim genocide against Israel.

Very few nations support that, those who do have a major problem...Israel is far from a defenseless nation and they have quite a few friends.

So you were against meddling in Bosnia?

Every time Israel defends themselves the world goes into an uproar. Where exactly was this "genocide" in Libya? The minute the media started referring to the "rebels" as "civilians" it was obvious what was coming next. If there were an uprising in this country would it be squashed by the Govt? Would the rest of the World be telling Obama to show restraint? Would France be bombing the American military to prevent the deaths of "civilians"?

There has been Genocide occurring in Sudan for 20 years. No one seems to care about that.

If there wasn't a drop of oil in that country then we wouldn't be there. There is "genocide" going on in other parts of the world. Parts that don't have oil.

What are we doing for those people? Not a god-damned thing.

:tro:

This Administration would rather KILL than DRILL.

are you saying this is just like Bosnia

I never heard this referred to as Genocide
I thought he was killing his own people not some other race

Who are these people? The Muslim Brotherhood?

He was killing rebels. Innocent people die in every war.

Genocide is generally applied to the systematic destruction/killing of a certain group of people, Gadhafi has repeated said he will show no mercy to those who oppose his rule. There is evidence that his goon squads have fired into groups of civilians and this would surely be a slaughter were they to gain control of areas of Libya under control of rebels. Also, to be clear, this started as a peaceful movement on the part of Libyan citizens seeking basic human rights, it was Gadhafi who initiated the violence, those referred to as "rebels" are mostly innocent civilians forced to defend themselves, most are not trained in even the use of firearms etc. They are not "rebels" as we often think of them.

I am saying that NATO forces successfully maintained a no fly zone with very few losses that resulted in a fairly positive end.

The idea that there must be genocide to qualify for international support is interesting.

What does qualify for international support? I don't think the US needs to be in the business of nation building and there is really no justification for US intervention.

Many of us care deeply about the horrors in places like the Sudan and throughout Africa, the US has spoken out against these crimes but without support from the rest of the world, any attempts by us to stop them is seen as aggression. It is confusing when on the one hand people are critical of the President for taking part in this UN resolution and at the same time are critical of the US failure to act in other places...it seems only fair to ask, do you want us to get involved everywhere, nowhere or what??