Liberal Talk Show Host Ed Schultz Suspended Over Disparaging Remarks

No one said it wasn't a war. In fact it is a civil war. What it isn't is an invasion.

 

Call it whatever you want. You call it an attack, I call it an invasion, Obama calls it a humanitarian response. TomAYto, TomAHto.. same difference.

 

View attachment 187
The dead bodies of African teenagers member of Moammer Khaddafi forces lie among debris in al-Wayfiyah,

 

View attachment 188
Five-year-old Libyan boy Mohammed Achmed is treated by a doctor in the Jalaa hospital in Benghazi, eastern Libya, Saturday, March 19, 2011. Mohammed received bullet wounds to his chest early Saturday as fighting broke out in Benghazi. He was with his mother who also received bullet wounds.

 

Just curious, but whose definition of "civil war" includes 100+ other nations (or 28 if you just want to include NATO) participating?

 

Post all the pictures you want, but you have not shown it was a result of our "invasion" nor in most cases even that they are a result of war. BTW, bullet wounds when we have not even send in the troops (yet?) do nothing but bolster your opponents opinions.

 

I think someone did say it wasn't a war.but yeah, I wouldn't qualify it as an invasion at least not from what is known or at least yet.

 

I was making the point that the situation in Libya IS a war (the bullet wounds are from their opposing forces). Moen stated that it was a Civil War and I certainly agree. However, we involved ourselves in their Civil War when our Tomahawk missiles crossed their borders and our predator drones dropped bombs from the sky upon them.

 

Who said it was not a war?

 

I never said there wasn't a war in Libya. I said "we are not at war with Libya." Why don't you tell the members of this forum the date of the last military action performed by US forces in Libya? If we had not joined the UN coalition, your photos would have been tens of thousands of dead Libyans at the hand of a brutal dictator.

BTW, if you classify BO as a warmonger, I am interested in how you classify George W. Bush?

 

Anyway Ed will be back Tuesday, with even higher ratings.

 

Ed who?

 

If we are not at war with Libya, tell it to the Libyans who have died from U.S. bombs. Just because Libya hasn't been able to strike back at us, doesn't mean that we're not engaged in war against them.

What do you consider "U.S. forces"? If you're talking about missiles and bombs, then it happens every day.

You may as well say the same thing about Iraq. America should not be the world's policeman. We've had enough of Vietnam, Iraq, Libya and God only knows who is next.

Since I wasn't a member of the CIA, the FBI, the NSA or the White House staff at the time Bush received the intel on Iraq, I honestly can't say what he knew about WMDs. But, if he actually knew there weren't WMDs in Iraq, but invaded them anyway, he would be a warmonger too.

 

Not to mention refuelers, drones, etc. And I would not bet against US 'advisers', CIA, etc being on the ground in Libya either. We are actively part of the forces that are waging war with Libya so we are at war with Libya.

 

Fools listening to a fool. Do me a favor, Tom: Don't be fooled.

 

And of course, you have proof of that. If not, you are just as full of crap as the other idiot posting this blatant propaganda.

 

Speaking of UN coalitions, do you think there should be a UN coalition (with the U.S. dropping bombs and launching missiles - in other words aiding the rebels) against Syria? Please read:

Armed residents put up resistance to Syrian army - Yahoo! News

 

Stujoe, I hope you don't mind if I respond:

This is from March 23, 2011.

The cost of the American and European assault on Libya already easily tops hundreds of millions of dollars, and has the potential to rise significantly if the operation drags on for weeks or months.
Coalition efforts to undermine Muammar al-Qaddafi’s air defenses and save the rebels from defeat have lasted for four nights already. If the U.S. role continues to be limited, with the Pentagon using its existing budget to cover the expense, the price tag on involvement will only rise moderately.


As of Tuesday, a U.S. defense official told Fox News the U.S. has fired 161 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Libyan territory, with 24 missiles being fired overnight Monday into Tuesday. Each missile is priced at $1 million to $1.5 million apiece and dispatched B-2 stealth bombers -- round-trip from Missouri -- to drop 2,000-pound bombs on Libyan sites.
That’s a total flying time of 25 hours, with the operating cost for one hour priced at least $10,000. Yet those numbers only provide part of the costs. The B-2 bombers require expensive fuel -- and rely on air tankers to refuel in flight -- and probably needed parts replaced upon their return to Whiteman Air Force Base. The pilots most certainly will get combat pay.



An array of U.S. warplanes; 11 ships steaming in the Mediterranean, including three submarines, two destroyers and two amphibious ships; and one F-15 fighter jet that crashed, costing $75 million or more -- it all adds up to numbers that unnerve budget-conscious lawmakers. "Every six hours we have another billion-dollar deficit," said Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., a member of the House Armed Services Committee. "This could cost us a billion dollars there, which means simply another billion-dollar debt that our kids, our grandkids and our great-grandkids are going to have to pay back."
The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, in an analysis this month, estimated that the Libyan no-fly zone could cost $100 million to $300 million per week.


In a classified briefing for congressional staff Tuesday, officials from the State Department, Pentagon and Treasury were pressed on the cost. They declined to address the issue. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, called for Congress to de-fund military operations in Libya, which he estimated costs between $30 million and $100 million a week. "While the administration assures us that that the U.S. will hand off its lead role to coalition partners within days, we have not been notified of long-term plans or goals following initial air strikes in the country," Kucinich wrote in a letter to colleagues. "The timeline the president gave to Congress was summarized with one word: 'limited.'"

Read more: U.S. Role in Libya Already Costs Hundreds of Millions - FoxNews.com

From the NY Times (March 30, 2011):

WASHINGTON — The Central Intelligence Agency has inserted clandestine operatives into Libya to gather intelligence for military airstrikes and to contact and vet the beleaguered rebels battling Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces, according to American officials. While President Obama has insisted that no American military ground troops participate in the Libyan campaign, small groups of C.I.A. operatives have been working in Libya for several weeks as part of a shadow force of Westerners that the Obama administration hopes can help bleed Colonel Qaddafi’s military, the officials said. ​

 

The CIA are in Libya. It's no secret.

 

I don't doubt that there are CIA operatives in Libya. My response was based on the last sentence. You and Stuclown are claiming that the US is currently waging war against the Khaddafi regime. The article you posted was in the first week of the conflict when we were involved. Please tell us how many US missiles and how many air missions were carried out in the months of April and May.

This is more spin. More disingenuous banter on your part. We went in for a few days and handed it off to NATO. And since you like to cut and paste stuff, stuff this quote from April 12, 2011.

"I don't see any planning to re-assert U.S. strike aircraft and forces as we saw early in the campaign," the Pentagon spokesman said. "NATO has those capabilities to conduct strikes."

Despite NATO rift, US holds to limited Libya role - Yahoo! News