If our govt was bombing us/killing us - would you be upset if another country came to our aid?

[The Straight Story]

Or would you rather we were left to handle it on our own?

At least here I can own a gun to defend myself if it ever comes to that (although some only trust bush/cheney/obama/govt employees with guns - me, I trust my fellow citizen as I have not yet bought into the fear that we are all terrorists until the govt says we are not).

If McLame were in office and went all tyrant like with the military on us I sure as hell would would not mind France/etc jumping in to defend.

[lonestarnot]

1. Don't kid yourself. If it happened here there would be no one to come to our defense. Not ever.

[Modern_Matthew]

2. Not anyone with good intent. War never has good intent. nt

[Bluerthanblue]

18. I'm inclined to agree- but how do you rationalize WWII? How do you

stop Hitler otherwise?

[Duer 157099]

24. I'm a little fuzzy on my history, but

I think when Hitler invaded other countries, that's when the world started paying attention.

[Bluerthanblue]

25. and did what?

Went to WAR.

So, as much as I despise it, sometimes- it seems- war is the only answer we seem to be able to come up with to stop something terrible.

We (the US) didn't get involved until LONG after Hitler had invaded other countries. Something many people find inexcusable. My father went off to Germany. He came home alive, unlike other members of his family.

I don't believe war is the answer to violence. But we don't seem to be able to find anything else that we're willing to invest ourselves in to avoid it.

[LaurenG]

10. This is why its important that we never give up our 2nd amendment rights

or at least not at this point in humanity's evolution.
Second Amendment
Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

[rfranklin]

3. We may get a chance to see sooner than you think...

but I doubt that anyone will have the temerity to challenge the USA. It's like a frontal assault on a loony barricaded in his home with 99 weapons and 10,000 rounds of ammo.

[Fire Walk With Me]

4. So long as they don't intend to stay a while and "assist".

[Luminous Animal]

5. When did our Congress debate and vote on a declaration for war?

[Joe the Revelator]

7. You need to learn what classifies a declaration of war.

[JackRiddler]

21. Definitions may differ. The Constitution says it's a vote of the Congress. What is your claim, Joe?

[LAGC]

6. Supporting the rebels on the ground is one thing.

Massive air strikes that cause serious collateral damage is whole other matter.

Why don't we just arm the fuck out of the rebels with portable anti-tank and anti-air launchers instead of bombing everywhere and causing massive civilian deaths?

Just last night there were pro-Gadhafi civilians camping out at potential targets to be "human shields" -- I guess they are just cannon-fodder for the bombs, eh?

[exboyfil]

The problem with that approach is eventually

those arms get used on us. Reagan was criticized for that approach in Afghanistan. I still think he was right - the Russians had no business being in Afghanistan, and it did advance a strategic interest for us.

I agree with you we should arm them to the teeth - bombing folks just makes enemies.

[gateley]

13. Kind of OT, but I've been curious as to who the Pro-Qaddafi supporters

are. Are there people who actually feel he is a good leader, or are they the ones who are on his payroll? Or any other category? Just curious.

[ecstatic]

8. What if the Tea Party started an armed "revolution?"

Would we want France stepping in to help them?

[CJCRANE]

11. But they have political representation. There is only the Gaddafi party in Libya. nt

[Amonester]

19. Don't worry. They wouldn't step in to help them.

The rest of the world already knows too well how stupid, ignorant, and brain-washed these nuts R.

Plus, they constantly deride France whenever they can.

[exboyfil]

9. Actually it did happen

The French came to our aid in the Revolutionary War (obviously acting on their own interests). The participants especially Lafayette were lionized in our country for that aid which was indispensible for victory.

In reality the patriots actually started the war so the analogy is not exact.

If I was being attacked by someone, I would appreciate the help but if their bombs killed my daughters then they would have an enemy for life. I would prefer to be given the means to defend myself.

A bigger question is it in our interests to attack another country without provocation.

[Bluerthanblue]

17. you beat me to it- without the French, there would have been no US

I'm not an advocate of violence to stop violence.

This is a difficult issue. But those who use this situation to simply vent their dislike of Pres. Obama really hurt everyone imo.

There has been no end to that here today.

[in_cog_ni_to]

12. The problem is: No one would ever help US.

Everyone FEARS our MIC.

[old mark]

14. France helped us to win the Revolutionary War...I'd hope someone would come to our aid

if there was a real shooting war with the right wingers here.

mark

[MikeE]

15. I kept hoping the Europeans would come and liberate us during the bush years

Oh well

[daleo]

16. Nobody interfered with the U.S. civil war (with troops)

Though I am sure that the south would have welcomed the overt support of the Royal Navy or British troops (or French, Russian, what have you).

[Bluerthanblue]

20. not exactly true-

Native American Tribes and Nations fought on both sides of the conflict.

[daleo]

23. Well they were native to North America

So they were not exactly an invading force interfering in the civil war the way the west is in Libya.

However Libya also has complicated tribal politics, as I understand it.

[exboyfil]

27. Yes (the French and British) stayed out

Whether it was in their best interests - who knows. I do know we would never have been an effective counterweight to the Germans in WWI and WWII if they had assisted the South (of course that was 50 years later). I think Henry Turtledove has some good points in his series in which the South won the Civil War - we would have fragmented into multiple countries after a Southern victory (or stalemate which would have been the same).

Slavery was a deal breaker for assistance. That is one reason why the South explored emancipation (never got off the ground). Either Lee or Early's push into Washington, if either had been successful, might have changed the landscape.

[Taitertots]

22. If it is anything like how we gave "aid" to Iraq and Afghanistan than I would certainly be upset

When the French murder civilians to protect their military, are you going to be as welcoming?
When the French murder more people than McLame, would you still be happy to have them invading your country?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. France almost did "jump in" during our civil war...on the side of the south.

And, those jolly guys in gray were "rebels" too.