Regions / Libya
The Obama administration is selling the U.S. public a pig in a poke with its military intervention in Libya.
The choice in Libya is clear: to support the popular uprising and not the unpopular tyrant.
Modern battlefields tend to be toxic nightmares, and depleted uranium is one of the main culprits.
There are rumblings that U.S. and NATO airstrikes on Libya might leave both mired in that country.
If giving up nuclear weapons doesn't immunize a leader from regime change, what does?
"In essence, the U.S. runs the show that is taking over running the show." -- AP
Should progressives drop their reflexive opposition to use of force overseas that's not in the service of national defense?
Many on the left favor the Libya intervention.
Ed Schultz criticized the GOP because it "steamrolled America into two wars" but defends President Obama for attacking Libya.
Can an airstrike ever be humanitarian?