Posted on 03/24/2011 8:07:45 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
On Fox Wednesday night, Sarah Palin said U.S. intervention in Libya will be a failure if Muammar Gaddafi remains in power.
"America will have failed if we turn over command-and-control of this mission, and the mission of ousting Gaddafi is not fulfilled.
It will be failure."
video at link
(Excerpt) Read more at gop12.thehill.com ...
Maybe that explains some of the open support here for the terrorist murderer Kadhafi.
Why don't you relax, grab a beer, and watch some basketball tonight? Go Bucky and Golden Eagles!
Simple, powerful speech condemning Gaddahfi is enough.
Reagan said "Tear down this wall" and then what happened. You don't need guns or an army to overturn a despot. All you have to do is inspire confidence in the people and they'll get their own freedom.
Why don’t you relax and use ODH. Might get you farther.
I know I don’t support a person that has been on board with Obama on the Libya issue. How bout’ you?
Maybe he gets shot in the head?
Good point. Look how well that worked for Ceaușescu, Baby Doc Duvalier (and about a dozen other Haitian despots), Pol Pot, Kim Jong-il, Castro, Amin, Mugabe, Hussein. Should I go on, or should we pretend you never made that post?
Sadam Hussein survived for almost 13-years after the UN implemented a no-fly zone. What removed Hussein from power? Not a speech, not a time-share in the Poconos but American military force as delivered by boots on the ground. Gadaffi isn't going anywhere precisely because there's nowhere for him to him to go. He's safe in Libya, and chances are he'll stay there for a very long time unless we escalate.
Maybe he gets hit by a comet, or kidnapped by space aliens, or wins the Publisher's Clearinghouse Giveaway - all about as likely as "getting shot in the head".
What about you?
Are you advocating that Palin take no position or multiple positions like rinos and progressives always do?
Palin is not sitting at the table with the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. She’s simply illustrating the fact that we have no political leadership.
Stop trying too hard to find something that doesn’t exist.
Sounds like you think he’s a bigger threat than Saddam was. Did you support action in Iraq?
I’m glad Sarah is being consistent - not like Newt who got caught in a huge flip-flop triangulating his position to be opposite Obama’s. This just highlights the difference between Sarah and the other candidates - she actually has a backbone.
You’re not seeing the bigger picture. Palin’s position is exactly opposite Obama’s.
Palin advocates conservatism—strong, decisive leadership.
Obama, accurately representing his ideology, demonstrates weak, chaotic and deceptive political games.
Yes I supported the action in Iraq.
I cut Sarah Palin, Newt and all the other civilian candidates slack for their immediate assumption that what they were being told by the Obama administration and the media was factual. Many thought they were really harmless Libyan protesters at the beginning. That's what we were told.
What scares me is that all the other candidates decided to look more into the situation and asked themselves "just who are these 'so-called' rebels?" And they did not like the answer. Now that they know that our government does not even know who these rebels are, they re-evaluated the situation.
Sarah Palin, on the other hand has yet to reach that point of taking time to look more into the situation, she has yet to ask "who are those rebels I'm standing behind?"
That's what scares a lot of people.
Uh, those despots survived because they had no opposition or rebels fighting back, champ.
Aside from Israel, the entire Middle East and North Africa can go to Hell as far as I'm concerned.
All Palin is saying that if you're going to commit troops either fight to win or don't go at all.
LOL - You’re pretty much a miserable S.O.B., aren’t you?
Obama has not said he would commit troops. He has said the opposite.
The issue keeps getting skirted.
What exactly are we going to win?
You're doubling down. Terrific. Let me guess, public school?
Everyone of those men, excluding Kim Jong-Il, faced armed resistance to their tyranny at least once, many faced armed resistance several times or even continually.
Amin, Mugabe, Pol Pot & Duvalier (and several other Haitian dictators including Aristide) all put down insurrections that could only be described as civil wars.
Hussein's record, of course, speaks for itself as the only guy who (as far as we know) actually used WMD on "his people".
So yes, they did have "opposition or rebels fighting back".
Your welcome.
In several postings throughout this very thread, people (including me) have pointed out the instances where Palin calls for (in her special Palin way) regime change.
She doesn't say how that change should come about, or what America's role should be (beyond the fact that she won't rule out the deployment of American ground forces) or how much it would cost or who would replace the regime, but that it should happen as it relates to this particular crisis.
I'm reminded of the dog froths at the mouth as he chases down the street hoping to catch the elusive car. He loves the chase, but hasn't thought for a moment about what he would do should he actually get his teeth around the bumper.
In this analogy, who do you think is the dog, and who do you think is the car?
If we acted sooner with the NFZ, the Libyans themselves might have removed him. They may yet do it.
Or maybe a smart missile could have done it, if we had the will to do it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.