Do we even know if the people we're supporting are better than the current regime?

Obama made the assertion in a Dec. 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe when reporter Charlie Savage asked him under what circumstances the president would have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress.

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.

I think I just need to stop paying attention to the news. I can't stomach another 5 years of this garbage.

So, if the current leader of a nation (legitimacy debates aside) can't use their military to put down what amounts to an armed insurrection, how are they supposed to do it?

It wasn't an armed insurrection when it started. They were protesting and their so called leader ordered his troops to fire on them. Once they had been fired upon it was on from there.

Does anyone actually believe that the purpose international involvement is for the people of Lybia?

Looks like a leadership vacuum...

“The exit strategy will be executed this week,” President Obama said, “in the sense that we will be pulling back from our much more active efforts to shape the environment. We will still be in a support role. We will be supplying jamming, intelligence and other assets unique to us."

Look at all of the cowards who defend a corrupt leaders ability to commit genocide on their own people.

Look at all of the cowards who defend a corrupt leaders ability to commit genocide on their own people.

As for the quote of how he said the president didn't have the power to do this, he was wrong back then, not now.

You spelled he's just an arrogant hypocritical hack wrong.

Being on the losing side of a civil war is not genocide.

By the logic Karthun is using, the United States committed genocide against their own people during the civil war.

I demand reparations.

I must have missed your outrage over the lack of involvement in areas such as Darfur.

Let's not get wishy washy with the definition of genocide, either.

I've got first-hand knowledge of what constitutes a genocide and this most certainly is NOT it.

I guess Karthun supports the Iraq war.

I thought you were the guy cheering Obama's election, happy to see the new era of "smart power" he would usher in.

So do I and while Srebrenica's has population of 40k, Az Zawiyah was cleansed and it HAD a population of 280k, no one knows how many people are left and there are few men over the age of 15 left in the city.

Benghazi has a population of over 1 million. Libya is far worse then Bosnia and Kosovo.

Soft Power and that is exactly what happened.

This is such an ignorant that it barely deserves even this response. Here's the difference, chief. We KNOW what happened in Srebrenica (and for the record, that's a SINGLE, albeit the largest, example in Bosnia, it was far more widespread than there.) mostly because the media couldn't avoid it. Much of my duty cycle there involved going from mass grave site to mass grave site throughout the country helping identify the bodies. They loaded people in buses, made them dig large holes, and shot them. They were exceedingly efficient at it. I'd more than welcome hearing what YOUR firsthand knowledge of a genocide is, as you're very quick to assign the description here without many facts. Understand that it's been documented that many of these folks have fled the cities, or in the case of many men, have joined the rebels.

I'm sorry but the jury is still out here. By stating that this is a genocide, this early, you're cheapening the impact of the meaning this word is meant to represent. However, this doesn't mean I condone these actions in any way. But to think it compares to Bosnia or Darfur with the facts we have now? You're a fucking clown.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

What the fuck do you think happened in Az Zawiyah? Should the international community sit by and wait until the mass graves are found or should we do something and prevent the mass graves from even being dug in the first place? You seem to be leaning towards the latter. You seem to believe that having the international community wait and let genocide occur is better then intervening and stopping the genocide from happening in the first place. How ashamed I am to have ever served in the same military as you. How ashamed I am to be a citizen of the same country as you.

Yay for generic idioms.

Prevention is indeed worth more than the cure if we're actually preventing something. Hypotheticals that are about as well-grounded as "Well, Pakistan and India might go to war in the next 20 years, and during that time genocide may take place with this particular regime that will probably be responsible for it if we stand by and do nothing!"? Not so much.

General: U.S. may consider troops in Libya
Army Gen. Carter Ham says ground forces wouldn't be ideal, but may be a possible way to aid rebels; Says current operation largely stalemated.
(CBS/AP)

WASHINGTON - The United States may consider sending troops into Libya with a possible international ground force that could aid the rebels, according to the general who led the military mission until NATO took over.

Army Gen. Carter Ham also told lawmakers Thursday that added American participation would not be ideal, and ground troops could erode the international coalition and make it more difficult to get Arab support for operations in Libya.

Ham said the operation was largely stalemated now and was more likely to remain that way since America has transferred control to NATO.