Jaun might very well be able to name up to four different periods of time in United States history in which it would have been morally necessary for another country to attack our government. He at least believes there were three such periods.
To me it is illegal if a country breaks a law. If congressional support were given then I could focus my opposition on the non-legal reasons it's a nightmare for good people from both countries.
You wrote, "if it succeeds" it will have been worth it...Does this imply that if it does not succeed in eliminating Qaddafi's regime that it will not have been worth it? If so, you must be willing to go well beyond airstrikes to make this worth it...Am I reading you correctly?
Jaun might very well be able to name up to four different periods of time in United States history in which it would have been morally necessary for another country to attack our government. He at least believes there were three such periods.
To me it is illegal if a country breaks a law. If congressional support were given then I could focus my opposition on the non-legal reasons it's a nightmare for good people from both countries.
You wrote, "if it succeeds" it will have been worth it...Does this imply that if it does not succeed in eliminating Qaddafi's regime that it will not have been worth it? If so, you must be willing to go well beyond airstrikes to make this worth it...Am I reading you correctly?