Libya - Page 4

Subterfuge? I was just asking who you meant. You meant officials. Fair enough...though I really don't think many officials claimed it would be "easy." There may have been some. In some ways they were right about the timeline anyway (duration of combat). What was not anticipated was the post-war security situation. They clearly misjudged that.


Uh, wow. Making a "claim" is not the same as stating what one posted previously. That's not "a claim." That's what happened. I'm actually surprised that you'd challenge this. It's tantamount to calling someone a liar. In any case, I looked for the thread but was unable to find it. It was called "The American People Now Overwhelmingly Support War" (or something close...that might have been the tag line). There was this whole discussion on the nature of the poll (it was not a scientific poll, which caused quite a stir. A moderator intervened, edited my post for no other reason than to discredit the poll and win the argument (causing a blow-up as you might imagine). It's possible it was just too long ago. In its place I can offer some other polling data on support for the war at the time, which was significant if not actually overwhelming.


from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular...#February_2003


What am I supposed to admit? You seem to get very frustrated when anyone disagrees with you, or in my case...when someone asks a simple question. I decided to unblock you and respond to your post because I thought you might actually want to discuss and debate the issues as well. I stated clearly that I supported the military operation in Libya and I didn't think President Obama needed to go to Congress first. I took issue with how the operation has been explained and communicated. You responded by bringing up Iraq. Huh?

Edit: Re: Cartoon issues. I don't consider the birth certificate issue to be "cartoon." I'm not a birther, but I am starting to wonder why that certificate is not just released to shut the birthers up. I think it's a worthy question. You don't agree?

Well, that just confirms what a disaster they have been in terms of explaining it.


There is, whether you like it or not.


Questionable in your opinion.


Not really, since it's totally different and utterly unrealistic.


Dude, it was tongue-in-cheek. Relax.

So, they've done a GOOD job?


First, I'm not hypocritical, nor am I feeling guilty. I'm simply saying that you are a citizen of the United States. You may not support what your government does, but that government still represents the nation as a whole. "We" is the United States. It doesn't mean everyone agrees. "We" attacked Libya. "We" attacked Iraq. "We" have a huge deficit and overall debt. You can't divorce yourself from it because you disagree with a policy.


That's not what you stated. You stated that it was my right to support the action for "questionable reasons." I support it for what I consider to be good reasons. If there were not good reasons, I would not support it. In this case I believe that the humanitarian situation and security of oil markets warranted participating. You're saying you disagree, which is both fine and something I respect. But don't disrespect me because we have different opinions.


First, I won't tell you where to put that condescending eye roll, but I'm sure you can guess. Secondly, I could respond with the same indignation over your "thought exercise." Why? Because it really IS totally different and unrealistic.

• We settled the fight over a secession a long time ago
• The US would not use active-duty military against it's population, particularly to slaughter people.
• The only known historical example that peratins here is the Civil War. That war was fought between two ARMIES.
• The US is not ruled by a brutal dictator. It is based on individual liberty and freedom consistent with law and order. It participates in world affairs and is part of the community of nations. It's a democracy. Libya is not.
• Libya is nearly a rogue nation. It's leader has sponsored terrorism and violated human rights for 40 years.
• Realistically, there is no power on Earth that has the capability to intervene in US affairs.

Any "thought exercise" like the one you outlined is shallow and a waste of time. The facts are that we and a handful of other nations have the power to stop guys like this. Now, if you feel we shouldn't be involved, that's fine with me. But that needs to be communicated and applies across the board. Obama's problem here has been communication. Of course, that itself is looking like he doesn't really know what our policy is to begin in the first place.

A good point. However, I think that here it's more about communication than it was with Obamacare. Don't get me wrong, I'm starting to see signs that they don't know what the policy is. Since we last communicate Obama gave that disaster of a speech.


Sorry, it does. It represents us all, as does Obama. I can't stand him for a whole host of reasons, but that's the way it is.


I think intervening to stop a slaughter and intervening to make sure the the oil supply is stable are two good reasons for the type of action we took.


That is what I understand, yes.


Agreed there.


Yes, I understand. Democracy is used interchangeably...at least in modern times.


I don't think this situation is quite the same. We had something different here. There was an uprising. G-boy responded with tanks and attack aircraft and stated he would target civilians and show no mercy. The international community pushed for a no-fly to stop him. Knowing Obama as we do, I doubt he would have acted alone on this.


Again, two different issues. As of right now, what we're doing is pretty clear: Enforcing a no-fly zone in order to protect civilians and protecting our interests in the region (oil). But his communication of it has been horrible. He should have gone to airwaves from the Oval office the very day he ordered the operation. He should have explained his reasons with a short, to-the-point speech. Instead, we had was Obama is Brazil, on ESPN giving his NCAA picks, different admin officials saying different things, and general pandemonium.

Now, going forward? That's what I'm worrying about. They keep talking about regime change and that our official policy is that G must leave power. Then we hear about potential arms to rebels. At the same time we're told the mission is limited and we're not interested in regime change. Honestly, other than Obama not going on TV when he ordered the mission, I was supportive of this...until his rambling, lecturing, contradictory speech the other night. Now I I'm totally convinced that Obama another liberal-pseudo-intellectual that gets himself so twisted up in knots of circular logic that he doesn't know which way is "up" anymore. If we want regime change, state that, then target Ghadaffi full-on from the air. If we just want to stop him, then let's stop saying he needs to leave.

Dude, you can live in fantasy land and scream "NOT MY PRESIDENT!" all you want, but as a U.S. citizen, you are represented by the government. The actions taken are taken in the name of the American people, right or wrong. I'm not saying you agree with the action. I'm not saying you're directly involved. But you're still an American. I fail to see how this is even debatable.


I think the first point is definitely part of it. The second point I find puzzling. We have a contradictory policy here: We want Gadaffi gone, but we're not willing to attack him directly. If we're not going to get involved in regime change, then let's not talk about it. It seems to me Obama is being pushed hard by the powers that be in Washington on this. I don't think he wants to go after Gadaffi. I don't think he believes our policy should be "he must go." I think he only wanted to stop the impending slaughter of civilians. But now, we've got half the administration running around talking about Gadaffi leaving power. Even Obama's talking about it. However, we're stating that we're not going to do anything to facilitate it. Mark my words...this has the potential to be a historic Vietnam-like embarrassment for this country. And it's not because we dropped some bombs a launched a few hundred Tomahawk missiles. It's because of Obama's complete and utter lack of leadership and vision. Soon we'll decide we need to send weapons and "advisors," if we're not doing that already. This is exactly the opposite of what we should have done. The President should have ordered the operation to protect the cities and attack advancing forces. Then he should have gotten on TV and explained what he did. He doesn't seem to understand that when the POTUS says a leader "must go," it has huge consequences.



You're telling me a state has the right to secede?


See above.

Again, we don't disagree. His handling of this is only getting worse from what I can tell. I support a limited military action for the reasons I listed. And, if we think this guy is bad enough that we want him out, take him out. We can decimate him from the air. But we've not done that. It's a total repudiation of the Powell Doctrine on Obama's part.

I think we can agree to disagree about the military action. You have your opinion and I have mine. But I don't see what you can disagree with re: "we." It's really not even debatable.



Please explain that one. The last time states tried to do that we had the bloodiest war in American history.



I'm not saying I support regime change here. I really don't think we should be involved in that unless he poses a real threat. We had him in his box for a decade, after all. What I'm saying is that IF "we" (hehe) choose to go that route, then let's just do it. If we're not going that route, then "we" should stop talking about it. THAT is what gets the world pissed off at us. We're talking loudly and carrying a small stick.

[QUOTE=MJ1970;1839835]I believe it is debatable. Ultimately we disagree here.[/qupte]

You disagree that you're an American? You disagree that people of other nations associated American government actions with Americans themselves?


Totalitarian? Wow. And frankly, I prefer to deal with this not in theory but in reality. In reality states do not have the "right" secede. Secession is also a matter of practical impossibility at this point. The states and federal governments are inextricably linked at this point.


No, not "basically slaves." And it's not ANYTHING like renouncing citizenship. Come on dude...get real. States don't have the right to secede, no matter how much you try to history-professor your way to that conclusion.

OK.


States don't have the right to secede. If you doubt that, see what happens when one tries.


I think definitely.


I am too, and I appreciate honest differences.

You're making a purely academic argument. States cannot secede. They do not have that legal right. And yes, sometimes legal mandates must be back up with the threat of force. This is true in criminal law (jail) and civil law (financial awards).

Comparing this hypothetical situation with Libya is flawed reasoning. Libya is not a Democratic Republic with a defining, guiding document like our Constitution. They are rising up against true tyranny and brutality...against a literal dictator. While we can certainly agree our government does things that intrude on our freedoms, our government is not tyrannical or brutal in the true sense of the words. If it was, I would agree that we have the moral right to overthrow it. Speaking of which, that is the problem. We are talking about moral rights (which are subjective) and that leads to a purely academic discussion. In reality, U.S. states cannot legally or practically secede (nor can foreign forces intervene. The federal government is simply too strong). Libyan rebels can perhaps overthrow the Tyrant of Tripoli. The two situations are just wholly different.

OK. Show me some legal justification for states seceding. Go ahead.