Libya

Originally Posted by SDW2001

I was rather surprised there was no thread specifically on Libya given the recent military action. Perhaps Obama gets his news here, hence his relative science?

So, some questions:

1. Do you support the military action? Why or why not?

2. What should be the ultimate goal of the action?

3. How long should the US be involved?

4. Did we act too late? Too soon?

5. Do you support the notion that Obama should return his Nobel over this?

6. How do you rate Obama's communication/explanation of the action?

7. Does the President need Congressional authority to launch an attack?

8. What do you think the political consequences of this action will be for Obama?

Originally Posted by FloorJack

Obama the imperialist has started an illegal war without the authorization of the US Congress. He's ripped up the constitution and handed over the car keys to Big Oil. He's a war criminal and should be put on trial at The Hague.

Originally Posted by FloorJack

I love the smell of double standards in the morning.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

I was rather surprised there was no thread specifically on Libya given the recent military action. Perhaps Obama gets his news here, hence his relative science?

So, some questions:

1. Do you support the military action? Why or why not?
2. What should be the ultimate goal of the action?
3. How long should the US be involved?
4. Did we act too late? Too soon?
5. Do you support the notion that Obama should return his Nobel over this?
6. How do you rate Obama's communication/explanation of the action?
7. Does the President need Congressional authority to launch an attack?
8. What do you think the political consequences of this action will be for Obama?

My answers:

1. I do. Libya is in a critical region of the world. Gross instability threatens our national security due to Libya's oil reserves. Gaddafi is also using his military against his own people. He has been oppressing his people for 40 years and supported terrorism in the past. This time he has gone to far. I think that getting the Arab league on board initially not to mention the rather strong UN resolution was the way to go.

2. I believe we should enforce the NFZ along with our partners and stop military attacks on the rebel strongholds. I do not believe we should target Gaddafi directly.

3. Not long at all, unless somehow things escalate requiring a broader action. I would like to see other Arab countries and European allies take over.

4. I believe we acted too late. In the least, we did not explain the delay very well. Obama came off as dithering.

5. He never should have received it to begin with, but no. Using the military against a brutal dictator slaughtering his own people with tanks, artillery and aircraft is the right thing to do.

6. I think he gets a straight-up F here. He never should have gone to Latin America. He should have addressed the nation and stood up to Gaddafi with words first. He should have prepared the nation. Upon starting the action, he should have given a short prime time speech outlining the purposes, goals, etc. He did none of that. He went to Brazil instead. Car-ni-val!!!!

7. No. And this guy's a moron. The President has full authority to use the US Military pursuant to the US Constitution as Commander-in-Chief and the War Powers Resolution/Act. Despite the latter's language about deploying the armed forces overseas in the absence a serious threat (which vague and subjective, obviously), nearly all Presidents since the 1973 act have done so.

8. Well right now, the Republicans are saying they support it now that's it's happened but action was taken too late. The Dems seem to be going apoplectic . Interesting indeed. If Obama loses liberal Dems, he's done. Conservatives and moderates have already abandoned him (or were never with him). Liberals are the last nail in the coffin, so to speak. If he loses liberals, he may was well not seek a second term. His approval will be in the 20s.

Your take?

Originally Posted by SDW2001

What about the moral reasons re: stopping Gadaffi from killing his own people with tanks and planes?

Originally Posted by SDW2001

What are the practical reasons?

Originally Posted by SDW2001

That's not an option at this point.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

I'm afraid you're wrong about that. This action is undertaken by the US Government. Whether we like it or not...they represent this.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

He is the POTUS. He has a responsibility. Not just to us, but the world. Fail.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Sadly? Really?

Originally Posted by SDW2001

I'm betting whomever is next will be far better.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Going to have to disagree with that. He's far different.

What really stands out as an embryonic Obama Doctrine are his negotiating tactics on the employment of US force, because they are the exact opposite of the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption and unilateralism. Obama basically said to the world that America will not commit its troops to a situation like Libya unless damn near everybody signs off on it first: the United Nations Security Council, NATO, the Arab League, the Africa Union, the Tuesdays with Morrie Bookclub — everybody.
I have to admit, when the administration first trotted out that demand, and everybody on the list pointed to the next body over and said in effect, "Well, I won't say yes until So-and-So says yes too!" I was pretty convinced this thing had no chance in hell of happening.
Until it did.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

1. No. Aside from the moral reasons not to go into countries and start bombing them, there's the practical issues that these things typically work out quite badly.
2. Stay out of it.
3. It shouldn't be.
4. There is no "we" here...there is Obama and the US military...it should not have done what's it doing now.
5. He should have returned it when it was awarded.
6. Don't know, don't care. He's pretty much of an idiot. I don't bother listening to him.
7. Sadly, no.
8. It might set back his re-election chances (I'm guessing he's lost many moderates since the day he got elected, and he's losing liberals who will simply not show up rather than directly vote against him)...but I'm betting whoever's next won't be any better.

It's a bit ironic how Obamapologists, during the election, kept claiming that electing electing "McSame" would have been a 3rd Bush term...and look at we we got: Barack W. Obama.

Originally Posted by BR

If I'm going to get behind a military action, it's certainly to protect people in immediate danger. If we weren't in Afghanistan and Iraq at the moment, I'd say we should be doing the same thing for the protesters being slaughtered in the streets of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen...and we should have done something about Darfur AGES ago.

I'm glad that Obama isn't in the forefront though when it comes to this. I'd rather it be a true international effort that isn't US led.

Originally Posted by segovius

9. Why does every single question from 1-8 relate only to THE UNITED STATES when it is a French driven initiative in a country on Europe's doorstep with European involvement set to continue long after the US duck out leading to Europe taking any fallout in the region politically or militarily?

Originally Posted by marvfox

The real truth is that the U.S. is not ready for a Black President. Truthfully people are cautious of him and his policies and are hiding behind a facade that they like him which in reality they don't. This man is very mysterious and watch out for him in the long run.

Originally Posted by trumptman

What the hell are you talking about or drinking?

Have you ever seen the devastation from a BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missile? Its beyond description. Standing in the impact area, its as if nothing has ever existed there before.

Its naive to think that something with so much destructive power is unlikely to cause collateral damage. I can only imagine the consequences of 159 and counting, the amount of force that has been unleashed in Libya as yet by western governments.

This morning, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates shrugged off any implication that military strikes are responsible for significant civilian casualties in Libya while at the same time playing down Americas role and the timeline for continued action.

This is insane. You are either at war, or you are not. Warfare requires clearly defined objectives, competent generals, and well-resourced fighting forces it cannot be waged with half-measures and stammering equivocation.

Yet, here we are again, watching bureaucrats tap dance in front of voters, playing down the long-term ramifications of engagement and outright rejecting the idea of regime change as an intended objective.

They feel 100% justified in their decision to wage a half war without getting their hands dirty, rejecting any consequences to civilians, all under the auspices of protecting civilians but only Libyan civilians.

Much praise has been heaped on Barack Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy, and the UN Security Council for their political courage, taking action in the face of popular backlash to defend Libyans.

Political courage is an oxymoron. Everything these people do is for their professional gain, to be reelected, and the fallout of these decisions costs lives and economic misfortune. The cost of the munitions alone so far is over a quarter billion dollars, let alone the human cost.

Barack Obama himself said in 2002, What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income  to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. Thats what Im opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Sounds great. Spoken like a true Nobel Laureate.

The intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy involved is phenomenal. The UN Security Council resolution (#1973) which authorized this invasion, expresses condemnation for Qadaffis deleterious actions against his own people

nevermind that the exact same thing is happening in Bahrain (which produces only 10% of Libyas oil) where the US Navys 5th Fleet is headquartered with front row seats to the show;

nevermind that governments have hardly uttered a word about the situation in Bahrain or Saudi Arabia;

nevermind that the western world has proven itself incompetent at regime change after the occupations of both Iraq and Afghanistan;

nevermind that 10-years of warfare have worn out the spirit and morale of fighting forces to the point that they are twisted into taking trophy photos of dead civilians like a 16-point buck;

nevermind that you cant just step in, bomb some targets, step out, and expect a peaceful, stable, democratic, pro-Western society to materialize out of thin air;

nevermind that the coalition forces lack the moral authority to cherry pick which countries to invade and which civilian populations to ignore.

When they lack moral authority, they simply create it out of thin air. Politicians and bureaucrats equate morality with legality. If something is legal, it must be just and if its not legal, theyll pass a law or resolution making it legal and hence just.

This is the way they operate using regulatory technicalities to wrap themselves in a blanket of righteousness in order to execute their agenda. As Tacitus said, the more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.

Oh boy. Now it's about French politics.

Uh, because I'm an American citizen and started a thread that focused on America's part in the whole thing. Perhaps I should have stated that openly.

I'm essentially libertarian, but not isolationist. I still stay it's the right action.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

We're America...we lead.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Let's assume you're right. Don't we need oil? Isn't it paramount re: our security and economy? Can we have him threatening the gobal oil markets?

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Bull. One plane crashing does not mean things are "going badly."

Originally Posted by SDW2001

We lose far more RESPECT when we don't lead. We're America...we lead. Or at least, we used to.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

That's how everything in the country is. Welcome to a representative republic.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Don't bother responding if it's going to be 4 straight points of mocking me. It's classless.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Jon Stewart nails it. Again.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

I am sorta curious...let's change the situation around. Let's say that some people in the US decided to rebel against the US central government. Let's say that maybe Texas decided it wanted to secede from the union and the US federal government...champions of freedom, independence and self-determination did what most reasonable people expect they would do...threaten and even execute violence against this seceding faction. And then...some outside country decided it needed to support the "rebels" by trying to implement a no-fly zone over Texas and flying cruise missiles into US federal government command bunkers and anti-aircraft batteries...what then would some think?

Just sort of an interesting thought exercise.

Originally Posted by SDW2001


So what is the reason then? Both countries are rich in oil, so that can't be it. We could easily destroy both militarily, so that can't be it. What is the hidden agenda?

. Oh boy...back to the military-industrial complex stuff again.

Uh, I have. Several times. And I've read the War Powers resolution. Obama, like all Presidents, clearly has the Constitutional authority to use the armed forces. He does not need to ask permission before the fact. Also, he briefed Congressional leaders on what was going to happen beforehand. He didn't even need to do that.

I'm essentially libertarian, but not isolationist. I still stay it's the right action.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

Thank YOU! I have been looking for a way to post this ever since Segovius (almost inexplicably) started posting how we (the US, or another country) needed to jump in and help solve this for Libya. What it comes down to is another country invading your borders and basically performing acts of war inside your borders.

Originally Posted by FloorJack

Obama the imperialist has started an illegal war without the authorization of the US Congress. He's ripped up the constitution and handed over the car keys to Big Oil. He's a war criminal and should be put on trial at The Hague.

Originally Posted by segovius

I think I said SOMEONE should intervene but NOT the US or UK.

The reason is a simple one: if you see thousands and more being slaughtered in Darfur say or Bosnia then there are two usual default positions:

1) Hawk: get in there all guns blazing woo-hoo.: result = general chaos

2) Object to intervention but come up with no other solution: result = nothing happens and people die.

My position is merely an attempt to try to square the circle - to stop people dying (the alleged reason for the interventions) without adopting position 1.

The problem is with the Governments both in the West and in the Arab world....you can't trust any of them.

It's like if the firemen or paramedics who come round to save your life or house are really casing the joint to see what they can rip-off.

But that doesn't mean I have to oppose the institution of paramedics - I think they need to be replaced with people with integrity.

Then people in situations like the Libyan people will have nothing to fear - now they have everything to fear - and if they get 'saved' by the West they will have infinitely more things to fear.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

Ok, but you still ask for it both ways. You say the west needs to step in, but that if they step in that "they will have infinitely more things to fear."

So what you are asking for is apparently something that will not happen. An outside government stepping in without expecting something in return.

Originally Posted by segovius

I guess so. But many people in many areas state what they think should happen when they know there is very little possibility.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

There is nothing wrong with wanting the best in a situation. There is also nothing wrong with not knowing how to fix that situation and saying so. I just take issue with asking a group for help while at the same time lashing out at that group as being incapable of helping.