Among other things... 

I've checked more into the situation in Libya. Why havent the air strikes started? And why has the US not committed to the no fly zone yet? All Obama is doing is talking.

Obama is just talking because he is Obama, and therefore scared of using military force or anything that makes the U.S. look good.  Bush may have been a gunslinging cowboy, but at least he wouldn't have hesitated to drop the hammer on Ghadiffi's forces.

Exactly.

Apparently, too many people who voted for him in 2008, don't know what Obama is. Obama has no military sense what so ever, all he does is talk the talk, commit treasonous acts with our and our allies nuclear secrets (hasn't been confirmed, but wouldn't be surprised one bit if it is true, which is grounds for immediate impeachment), and try to make "peace" with everyone he can no matter how much they want us dead.

I think he just wants to make sure none of his guys get hurt- that's why he's keeping the US presence limited to logistical support for other countries. That's kind of short-sighted, but it results in a good outcome- namely, cutting down on the Colonel's force-using ability without giving the US military enough responsibility for it to screw up.

The Libyan military presents an almost-nil threat to American forces.  Our airplanes getting shot down by the barely-trained and horribly-equipped Libyan forces is a near-zero probability.

EDIT:  The question here is: does sending American personnel into a potentially lethal situation advance American interests?  The answer is yes.  America has a chance to look like the good guys for once when it comes to military intervention.  There is a U.N. mandate to enforce this no-fly zone, so it isn't unilateral on our part and participating makes us look like we care about international engagement rather than pure self-interest.  Sending planes to help the rebels at this point will make us in the U.S. look like liberators and supporters of freedom for once.

It also provides them the opportunity to louse it up. Until the military gets "fixed" (intentionally using that term with full awareness of its secondary meaning) I want them as far away from actual action as possible, especially in a tinderbox like Libya!

I agree. Qaddafi still has plenty of backers, as judged from the rallies they throw (the propaganda still inflates those numbers). If the rebels win, they could easily become insurgents along with the remnants of Qaddafi's forces. If we invade, it will hand Al Qaeda another source of "The infidels are coming to kill Muslims" bullshit. If a ground forces are really needed, let France do it. The Libyans already view France as a hero for pushing the no fly zone while Obama twiddled his thumds.

We just need to stick to air strikes and the no fly zone to protect the rebel held territory. At the beginning of the uprising, the rebels did not face the artillery barrages and air strikes they do, and they took over most of the country. Qaddafi's forces have proven that they rely on artillery, planes and other heavy weaponry to win. When they used arms equivalent to what the rebels have, they stood no chance.

It is highly unlikely Benghazi will fall. Qaddafi's forces have tried twice already to enter the city, but were pushed back. The rebels reportedly have 8000 troops as well as the French providing air cover, while Qaddafi has only 2000, though he has better weapons than the rebels.

All we need is one carrier group and support from the British and French, then Qaddafi is screwed.

Obama wants to make sure American troops don't get hurt? No, he wants to talk the talk, but not walk the walk, when more American troops have died for the good of all humanity than most nations put together. Words do nothing to stop monsters like Qaddafi, Neville Chamberlain learned that lesson the hard way in the months leading up to World War II, he was the stupid, short-sighted Prime Minister that did nothing to stop Hitler, but he sure thought he was the man of the ages until the war happened anyway.

The French are sending their carrier, as are the British. Benghazi has been cleared of Qaddafi loyalists. Misurata is still holding out. The tenacity of the opposition forces in that city is unbelievable.

Yet nobody still is asking... who are these rebels we are supporting? They yell "Democracy", but do they mean it? If they never had it how do they know they want it? Maybe they really mean "We want an Islamic state". Who leads them? Why haven't we heard from them? Momar is no angel, and deserves a terrible fate, but he is also no Hitler and never will be. How many in Libya want him gone? Do we just hear the noisy ones?

Make no mistake, the media is driving this story of "human tragedy". What about those poor protesters in Yemen and Bahrain? So they get their No-Fly Zone and UN resolution too? It seems the countries with the money are again relying on the countries that are broke to do the heavy lifting...again.

As for Obama procrastinating, I agree. He should have said no right away. If the Arabs want this so bad, let them do it.

Because the politicians did such a good job in Vietnam? Until you've served and understand what the real issues are (usually bureaucrats behind a desk in DC), I wouldn't recommend "fixes".

Vietnam was more of the same. The military failed there, and it is failing now. And it's precisely because I've kept away from any actual involvement with the military while still keeping myself informed about their actions that I feel qualified to talk about them in something approaching an objective manner. See: conflicts of interest.

You're not understanding that the U.S. military is more or less under civilian control. Saying that the military "failed" in Vietnam is technically accurate, but only if you ignore the fact that they were ordered to step into a horrible mess without a declared war to help galvanize support on the home front. Those orders came from civilians.

I agree with your analysis.  And I think we still are blowing it.  True or not, there are stories of the Brits targeting Gaddafi - I suspect over the Lockerbie bombing suspect release.  If he is deposed, he will sing like a canary.

It may not be Gaddafi that shoots them down.  The opposition has shot down one of his, and it is hard to tell whose plane it is when it is 15k feet up..

The military did not fail.  They won every battle - the politicians lost the war.

Actually his name is Gadhafi not what I have been saying.

No kidding, the politicians so lost Vietnam with bonehead decisions and blatant lying.

I agree. Politicians also placed severe restrictions on US forces which resulted in many losses (not attacking SAMs untill they are finished - or not attacking at all if they are in XYZ area).

Granted, the civilian government wasn't exactly sensible at the time. But unless Vietnamese civilian killings and crop destruction were specifically ordered in each case by US political leadership, then I can and will hold them to blame for their actions (in fact, even if that behavior was explicitly ordered, I think (but I'm not positive) that those orders might be considered unlawful, and military personnel could be prosecuted for following them there, as well). As it was, the military's prerogative should have been to carry out their orders in such a way that the absolute minimum civilian and collateral damage was inflicted. They didn't. Could a well-behaved military have pulled something approaching a positive outcome out of Vietnam? Probably not. But a badly-behaved military certainly did not help.

(Note that when I say "the military", I mean the organization and its actual willing backers. A lot of the soldiers (especially in VN) were just caught up in the mess for economic reasons or because, you know, there was a draft. I have nothing against them.)

Understood. However if he was worth the effort, I would have searched how to spell his name correctly.  He is a legend in his own mind - and no one elses.

Depends on if you count the president as military or politician.

Another example of political involvement, this time in Afghanistan: Troops not allowed to engage the enemy if they put down their weapon, even temporarily. Al Quaida/Taliban fighters would deliberately taunt US forces, take a few shots, set there weapons down, then reposition. Who asks there military to fight with one hand tied behind their back? Only the US.

Scoutdog - It is true that terrible things happen during war. I say good. It's not supposed to be nice and neat. It should be so terrible that it is always the option of last resort, but when it does happen it should be decisive. Because so many precautions are taken to protect civilians, and despots are willing to exploit these causalities to a sympathetic world with propaganda, we can count on more of these types of actions in the future. The enemies base of support is now off limits and many don't seem to mind opposing forces duking it out. Personally, I prefer a president that has experienced the horrors of war. At least they fully understand what they might have to ask our men and women to do.