The European Parliament has called for a moratorium on the use of the weapons containing depelted uranium. We need not take this call seriously, as the very same European Parliament has armies which deploy such weapons. Again we have a radical "humane" posture for public consumption and a different reality.

They have also called for a moratorium on CO2 which is an essential gas of life to this planet.  Stupid people call for stupid things.  That does not mean we have to be stupid lemmings and follow the idiots over the cliff.

To be perfectly honest I don't think we should be in there at all. If these rebels want to fight Libya's leader and they are out-numbered and out-gunned then they are the idiots. Not my problem. I'm tired of wasting out money and resources and sending our brave soldiers to die for a bunch of ingrates and to be criticized by those who do nothing to better this world. I say if people are suffering and want out help then send a legitimate letter asking for our help so that when the rest of the world wants to criticize our involvement we at least have a legit reason for being involved.

Bahu Virupaksha: Good article!

                It is amazing that a no fly zone only applies to the defenders who are trying to defend their homeland … allowing the aggressors free bombing privileges, go figure. I do not understand why it is difficult to understand that OIL is the key … just as it was in Iraq. Amazing how capitalism works in the third world.

Doc is correct about the depleted uranium and the only reason it would be opposed is because it is excellent for penetrating hardened targets ... too efficient, go figure.

                Since when does the truth become flippant? No matter what altruistic excuses you believe, the truth of the matter is that with our supper accurate weaponry (to within a few yards) … we have slaughtered over half a million Iraqi citizens … a pretty steep price to pay for the 9/11 atrocities committed by the Saudis and others.  Who do you think inhabit the Middle East … hundreds of million jihadists? Has it ever occurred to you that the vast majority just want a civil existence?

CharlesCS is prone to think highly of himself as evidenced by this comment. What part of poor innocent Muslim is difficult to understand?  There is more than one way to look at atrocities, but of course only America is innocent and so self-righteous as to dictate to the world at large … this is how it is going to be, period.

Citations please?  You do understand you just accused the US of killing 2% of the Iraqi population - a contention not made by any reputable person or organization on this planet.  The truth is a harsh mistress, and you have failed her.

There is no truth in his statement as I made no judgement call whether it was justified or not.  I merely stated factually that saying I killed one person as the totality of the calamity is a lie.  The person I killed had already killed others.  Those deaths were ignored.  Also ignored was the possibility of more deaths given past proven behavior.  Speculative, yes.  but on a much sounder footing than your bizarre claim.

Apparently you think they are just a bunch of doves cooing at the pretty colors when IEDs meet flesh.

I have not claimed the figure of 500,000 killed. Now in Iraq, the number killed after the US led invasion is close to 200,000 anf the reputed journal Lancet has pegged the figure even higher. We may never know the true figure just as we may not know the quantum of human beings killed by the Germans during World War II. Dark deeds have a habit of staying hidden.

In any even what did USA gain from its ill begotten invasion: just body bags, international condemnation, an economy in deep recession and a finacial meltdown.

In Libya, the USA claimed to ber protecting civilain ;ives when in reality it is only uising its superior air force to intevene and separate the oil rich parts of Pibya just as the West did in Soutnern Sudan.

Um....yes you did.  You congratulated her for "standing up for the truth" AFTER she said we slaughtered over half a million iraqi citizens.  Now half a million may not be 500,000 in India (what numbering system do you use?), but it does in America.

Lancet is not a reputable journal.  Even your claim that 500,000 is not half a million is more accurate and truthful than that rag.

Yes, perfectly understandable since we all know that Saddam killed no one before the invasion.  You are pathetic in your spin attempts.

And about 25 million Iraqis that are alive today and not in fear of Saddam.  Oops!  Sorry, did not mean to burst your delusion bubble with facts.  ASK THEM - then get back to us.

As much as I would like to agree with you, I have to go with the reality and truth - France has been the ring leader of this debacle from the get go.  The US did nothing except stumble around and kill civilians AND soldiers.  It was not a no fly zone.  It was a no Ghadhafy zone.

While that is a popular myth coming from Iran and the Arab world, having at least one citation from a source with no pony in the show would be helpful.  Just because you say it does not make it true no matter how much you want to believe it to be so.

Personally, I would not be surprised.  But again, it is not the US leading this fight.  It is the French and British and for the very lie that you push on why we got into Iraq (although to your credit, you did acknowledge):

That nothing was taken after all the lies.

No they are not.  You need to get out and read more.  Nature has been proven to be nothing but a PR rag, and lancet is about as accurate as a broken clock.

I take it you mean "numerous", and I know you can find some.  Now find the other hundred grand you allege.

Good - because that was not about death - but humiliation.  BIG difference.  Or is it ever time you are humiliated you die?  You are a whacked one.

Citations (again).  And please form accurate sources, not PR rags and broken clock journals!  But save yourself the time.  Your statement is patently false.  I have no doubt that some do hate us (Saddams cronies are still there as well as Al Qaeda), but your blanket statement is not only wrong, but stupid.

Why not?  Why?  You are wrong again.  Obama is a blundering fool in this one, and it is not "2 presidents", but a president and PM.  Had Bush made the decision to go in, we would be in, and there would only be guerrilla fighting left.  But of course all of the deaths then would be our fault, but there would be a lot fewer of them.  Had Bush decided on a no fly, there would be a no fly, but not a "no veiled" alliance with the rebels (who will spit on Sarkozy, Brown and Obama when it is done anyway).

instead, we have a pussy whipped president (by 3 of them no less) who did not know what to decide, when to decide it, and when it was decided, what to do.  So no one knows what the mission is, what the goal is, or what the exit strategy could possibly be.  France and GB intend staying as long as they are needed to pump the oil out.  The US cannot even claim that much vision.

Yes yours are.

No, that is what nations do when provoked.  2004 was not a new war, it was just a continuation of the 91 war that was never declared over.  If you remember (you probably do not), Iraq invaded Kuwait and that went against the grain as you call it.  That is history not your empty rhetoric.

not even close.  I am sure the USA is responsible for the 2004 Tsunami in Indonesia, the Earthquake in Japan this year, and the crucifixion of Christ in your mind.  But that is a sad mind indeed since reality has no place in your world.

Tell that to Brown and Sarkozy.

Show me where I ever said they were?  Again your delusional self is trying to attribute statements to me that I have not made in order to bolster your illusions of self importance.  But I will caution you about your use of Absolutes.  You wil always be wrong when you use them (even if your idea may have merit - which is irrelevant).

And yes. I am saying that Bush would have done things differently.  Love him or hate him, one thing Bush was not was indecisive.  The opposite is true of Obama.

Nitro ... is it really possible that you can be this naive? I cannot remember the last time our Government came a calling and asked me what I thought of foreign policy. And since we live in the freest most righteous nation this earth has ever produced(?), I do not think many Iraqis were quarried for their opinions either… nuff said my arse.

I received the same response when I carried out a wide ranging discussion on the iRaq war and if you go back to my posts you will see that I was right each and every instance. Once again I beleive that USA will regrest its decision to wage war in Libya. Only oil makes the Americans interested and by propping quislings USA is not helping its own interests. Anyway there are still reasonable and courageous people like you and that is certainly encouraging.

I love how you read my mind.  Tell me - what am I thinking now?  If the answer is not correct, then stop putting words into my mouth or attributing ideas to me.  Neither are correct.  My arguments are sustained, but I suffer fools badly.  To merely revert to "I said so" in a debate gets me to start trying to figure out the defect that caused the other to forgo intelligent discourse and resort to the "oh yea? sos yours" mentality that bahu has done.

So if you want to create a strawman of government and MSM beliefs, you are free to do so, but unless you are jeanne Dixon, do not associate them to me.

If you want to write a self portrait, fine.  But if you read the comments, while I do not have to "pick apart" the article point by point (since I do agree with some), I have chosen the points to pick apart.  Care to rebut them?  or make more outrageous claims about psychic powers or casualties?

Words mean things.  Your claims are akin are worthless without proper citations and are meant to only incite and shock when there is nothing left of your arguments.  If you want to discuss rationally, do not start throwing nonsensical numbers around as it does not leave a basis for a rational discussion.  When pointed out that your numbers are inflammatory, you then revert to chastisement?  And that is rational how?  Back up your numbers and stop lecturing of your own sins.

Changing the subject also does not behoove an intelligent discourse.  As I made no statements (other than rebuttals) concerning the who or what.

And so again you cast aspersion without facts, basis in facts, or merit.  And then simply change the subject to play the victim.  Sorry, I asked you long ago to back up this claim.  You never did.  Even when given an out by Leauki, you failed to grasp it, and instead reverted to victimhood.