Who actually believes we are no longer militarily involved in Libya?

Brutus: Who actually believes we are no longer militarily involved in Libya?
Just like we were leaving Iraq, right? I will bet dollars to donuts that the Libya situation ends in either a US occupation or a US embarrassment.

Answers and Views:

Answer by Country Club Conservative
We are, but lobbing a few missiles is barely involved.

Answer by Red Rooster
I do not believe anything out of Washington!

Answer by Mudmarine Jones
NATO can’t hit the right targets and hits all the wrong targets,so we’ll find ourselves doing the heavy lifting as usual.
2200 Marines are nearly there.

Answer by Bachmann Palin Overdrive
I highly doubt that Obama has the guts to insert our troops into Libya.

But he will encourage NATO to do it with other countries troops.

And, of course, he will claim those troops are there only for humanitarian reasons.

Answer by just me
Everybody knows what a no-fly zone is. When you have one you wil be there for some time.

We just don’t have ground troops which of course speaks for itself.

Why you are trying to make something out of a WORLD-WIDE decision that something be done about the THUG QADDAFI, is beyond me.

Oh wait,

THIS IS ONLY A DIG AT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY & OBAMA, wow, imagine that.

Answer by Henery Hawk
we foot the bill for nato

Answer by Donald
Only small children under the age of 3 believe that we are not Militarily involved in Libya

Answer by Albatros
This is a shame. The common objective of Libya, is none other than oil. I’m about to tell you that clean country that is playing, so far, is the U.S.. Why not make the same inroads into Sudan, Yemen, Eritrea, etc. Even in Spain, where more than two million people suffer hunger and our government is dictatorial and genocidal (11M)
Sorry to use a simultaneous translator.
I’ll leave some very interesting links.
https://blogdejuanpardo.blogspot.com/2011/04/canalla-del-camino.html

https://blogdejuanpardo.blogspot.com/2011/02/miedo-o-prudencia.html
Greetings international peace missions. (Spain)

Answer by Sophia Jossman
So what should he do sit back and watch people die because I’m pretty sure he would have gotten criticized for that too

Answer by Desert Princess
I agree with Sophia.

There’s really only one issue here: a Democratic president made the decision
to use military force, worked together with other nations, got in, kicked some
behind, accomplished a limited goal, and got out clean. He didn’t spend a whole
lot of money (in terms of military intervention, this was pocket change), left
room for future action on whatever scale he chooses, sent a pretty clear
message to the folks on the receiving end, and didn’t get any Americans killed
in the process.

Gaddafi helped kill American Marines in Lebanon and trained Muhammad Atta and
several 9/11 highjackers. I bet if your family died in the twin towers or your children were tortured and killed by him in Libya you wouldn’t be such a complainer. Obama is going to do what he is going to do. Sitting around crying about junk gets us nowhere.