Hello again,

I'm still having trouble figuring out WHY we started another war in the Mid East. We weren't attacked. He didn't threaten us. We can't afford it. Yes, he's not very nice to his own people... THAT is not a reason to go to war. Oh, I guess we could conger up old scores to settle with him, but they're seen for what they are - excuses to go in now.

Don't get me wrong. I AM for the underdog, and I'd support 'em militarily, too, if only we could change the world by FORCE. I'm just a tad doubtful that we could. So, since we CAN'T, why even dip our toes into the water?

Plus, I'm highly doubtful about the "humanitarian" aspect of this war... If we're so concerned about underdogs getting slaughtered by tyrants, why aren't we going into Bahrain, Yemen and Syria? Why don't we take out Mugabe? Why don't we start a war with the Ivory Coast?

In addition, do ANY of you warmongers think we'll be in and out, just like that?? Really?

I haven't even addressed the Constitutional violations this war has engendered, but I WILL as we proceed. This war is absolutely ILLEGAL.

excon

Has he earned his Nobel yet?

Quote:

---

If we're so concerned about underdogs getting slaughtered by tyrants, why aren't we going into Bahrain, Yemen and Syria? Why don't we take out Mugabe? Why don't we start a war with the Ivory Coast?

---

I note that many people are for intervention in 'that other place.' Darfur was the popular one a few years ago after the fact ;so was Rhwanda. There are people now who are bemoaning this intervention who say we should've intervened in Congo. If we didn't intervene in Haiti years ago it would've been a negative .(note that the exile Aristide flew back in their this week to make trouble ) .
The Ivory Coast has an active humanitarian 'Peace keeping" force on the ground already . When the Israeli's began to pound Hezbollah into submission the world rushed to intervene .

Quote:

---

I'm still having trouble figuring out WHY we started another war in the Mid East. We weren't attacked. He didn't threaten us. We can't afford it. Yes, he's not very nice to his own people... THAT is not a reason to go to war. Oh, I guess we could conger up old scores to settle with him, but they're seen for what they are - excuses to go in now.

---

Maybe Jillian Assange has some secret insights he'll reveal.
Let's put it this way. The Libyan oil is not consequential enough to be a factor. Yet ,a nation like France ;which led the opposition in the UN to the Iraq war is leading this effort by all accounts.
My guess is that they know something about the Duck and the threat he poses to lead the charge.

BTW . The US went into WWI because a civilian transport (a ship ) was destroyed killing Americans .

I'll also repeat something that is pertinent like it or not. The American Revolution would've failed without foreign intervention. Jefferson and Franklin spent the war years desperately looking for funding and military assistance.
The French and Dutch among others came to our assistance. Did it work out for the French ? They ended up in a revolution of their own and a war against the US within 15 years. But I'm sure if you take the long view. It served them well.

Now we have spent the last century promoting the freedom model over the model of tyranny . We have more than once used force to promote it. You yourself have said some of our biggest failures have been when we took a realpolitik view and saw our national interest in status quo and stability .

Quote:

---

In addition, do ANY of you warmongers think we'll be in and out, just like that?? Really?

---

I don't know. I think the Petraeus Doctrine is being invoked in the strategy... ie protect the civilians .
http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/milreview.../Petraeus1.pdf
He doesn't recommend a heavy foot print because liberation armies quicky become occupation armies . You need to assist them towards their goal of liberation.

Or as Lawrence of Arabia said :
Better the Arabs do it tolerably than that you do it perfectly. It is their war, and you are to help them, not win it for them. Actually, also, under the very odd conditions of Arabia, your practical work will not be as good as, perhaps, you think it is. It may take them longer and it may not be as good as you think, but if it is theirs, it will be better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I'll also repeat something that is pertinent like it or not. The American Revolution would've failed without foreign intervention. Jefferson and Franklin spent the war years desperately looking for funding and military assistance.

---

Hello again, tom:

I don't dislike it. It's just apples, when we're talking about oranges... Jefferson and Franklin were PROVEN democrats. When France invested in us, the outcome was predictable... France was NOT guessing.

Here's what YOU don't like. If our intelligence services were spying on the Lybyan's instead of YOU and ME, maybe, just maybe, we'd KNOW who the democrats are amongst the rebels.. But, we DON'T. Backing someone we don't KNOW is worse than not backing anyone.

excon

Quote:

---

maybe, just maybe, we'd KNOW who the democrats are amongst the rebels.. But, we DON'T. Backing someone we don't KNOW is worse than not backing anyone

---

.


I'd say the same applies to Egypt.Actually worse because we knew ahead of time the likely outcome would be the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. This weekend's vote in Egypt confirms that they will play a huge role in future Egyptian leadership.

As far as I can tell the only consistent policy until now was that if the people had an uprising against nations we have friendly relationships with ;it's a good thing worthy of our support . If it's a nation that has been hostile for the last 3 decades then we should just butt out .

I take the opposite logic. If the nation has an authoritarian leadership that is hostile to us ,it advances our security to support the people when they rise up regardless of what the future may bring.
We are late to this game. Palin was calling for no fly zones when Daffy was shooting the Libyan people protesting with his air assets.

However ;I am leaning towards agreement with you on the Constitutional issue.

This whole thing is typical american overkill, instaed of enforcing a no fly zone which can be done by shooting down any offending aircraft the military led by the US has opted for destroying the country's military capability. What are they afraid of? Some obsolete aircraft and air defence systems? The Libyian navy?

I can understand enforcing a cease fire but no one has mentioned that beyond the first day and it can't be done without ground forces. As soon as Daffy's forces were chastised for continued fighting the rebels attempted to consoldate previous gains, so cease fire wasn't in their plans. This is a one sided battle and the UN may as well issue an ultimatium now. Daffy would do well to remember what happened the last time a regime threatened the US with arming the population and fight to the death

As far as I can tell ,the only consistent goal articulated has been Obama's call for Daffy and sons to leave(after Obama did his obligatory Hamlet-like waffling ) . If it was being done for civilian protection then it would've been implemented in February.
I have no problem with regime change. But shouldn't helping the rebellion begun back around the time of this op ,when the regime was on the ropes ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

This whole thing is typical american overkill, instaed of enforcing a no fly zone which can be done by shooting down any offending aircraft the military led by the US has opted for destroying the countries military capability. What are they afraid of? some obsolete aircraft and air defence systems? the Libyian navy?

I can understand enforcing a cease fire but noone has mentioned that beyond the first day and it can't be done with ground forces. As soon as Daffy's forces were chastised for continued fighting the rebels attempted to consoldate previous gains, so cease fire wasn't in their plans. This is a one sided battle and the UN may as well issue an ultimatium now. Daffy would do well to remember what happened the last time a regime threatened the US with arming the population and fight to the death

---

It actually has more to do with destroying command and control and ground radar and weapons tracking abilities. Otherwise anyone flying (our people at this point) is at risk to anti-aircraft fire and surface-to-air missles. And is SOP when establishing a No-fly zone as a result.

Not overkill. Overkill would have been carpet bombing the entire country as a precursor to a no-fly zone being established.

We are also targeting his ground based armor.. T-72 tanks etc. Hope there is some special forces on the ground to coordinate rebel movements with the strategic bombing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

We are also targetting his ground based armor .. T-72 tanks etc. Hope there is some special forces on the ground to coordinate rebel movements with the strategic bombing.

---

But there are no american troops involved, BO said so, so it must be right. This thing is beginning to look like a CIA operation

Hello again,

This is a disaster for the US, in more ways that I can mention... But, I'll mention a few.

Obama is, at the VERY least, legally required to NOTIFY congress of his intention to take the nation to war. He sent a letter AFTER he invaded. It's a big mistake. It makes the war unconstitutional.

We went in to SAVE people from extermination. If we DON'T take Kaddafy out, what makes us think they won't be exterminated when we leave??

Therefore, the in and out is BS. The NO ground troops is BS.

If we're so interested in saving people from their brutal dictator, why aren't we saving the Baharanians, the Syrians, or the Yemeni's? We're not because Obama is LYING. Kucinnich is right. Obama should be impeached.

excon

I agree with most of what you say about the end game. Daffy has to go . It can be done w/o US ground troops or a very small foot print as long as there is no occupation at the end.

You are correct in that Obama blew it big time by committing without Congressional authorization. Not sure that it makes the move unconstitutional(we have had limited interventions in the past without Congressional approval) ;but it would've been the right thing to do politically . He would've gotten the support of the Kerry Democrats and most of the Republicans .It would've been a bi-partisan international policy.

I think there are some people in his circle of advisors ;Evita , Samantha Power ,Susan Rice who have led him to this decision. His male advisors did not want to do this action. Power has been long outspoken in favor of 'humanitarian ' intervention.

Despite the denials ,it was apparent before the intervention began that regime change is the only acceptable outcome the President will accept .

Libya, the West and the Narrative of Democracy | STRATFOR

It is an interesting evolution. He became President (or at least the Democrat candidate ) by being the candidate who opposed Operation Iraqi Freedom from the beginning (at least that was his narrative... hard to say what he would've done if he was in the US Senate at the time instead of the Illinois Senate .)

When speaking of his opposition he said :

"I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity ... But ... Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors ..."

Remove Saddam's name from this and replace it with Daffy and the contradiction is obvious. Iraq was the "wrong 'war ,the "dumb "war .

Maybe if there was a 1 year build up to the conflict ,with the forging of a real coalition ,taking his case to the people ,securing Congressional ,AND UN relevent authorizations ,perhaps the President would've had the opportunity to make his case to the American people .......that's what President Bush did in his "rush to war".

That's right ,the libs said there was a 'rush to war'. They called it 'unilateral' even though the active and supporting allies numbered close to 50 nations . Even though there were 17 supporting UN resolutions ,they said the US was "thumbing it's nose" at the "international community" .

Where are the 100's of thousand anti-war protesters ?
Kucinich ,Michael Moore and Ralph Nadar are the ones out there with the 'No blood for oil' signs and the paper mache puppet heads.

Hello again, tom:

Because Obama was able to accomplish in a couple weeks, what it took Bush a year or more to do, doesn't change the wrongheadedness of EITHER war.

One of your favorite libs, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post answered my previous inquiry about why NOT those other country's. Here's what he said:

"Why is Libya so different? Basically, because the dictators of Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia -- also Jordan and the Persian Gulf sheikdoms, for that matter -- are friendly, cooperative and useful. Gaddafi is not.. .

Gaddafi is crazy and evil; obviously, he wasn't going to listen to our advice about democracy. The world would be fortunate to be rid of him. But war in Libya is justifiable only if we are going to hold compliant dictators to the same standard we set for defiant ones. If not, then please spare us all the homilies about universal rights and freedoms. We'll know this isn't about justice, it's about power."

He's right on. Impeach Obama!

excon

Perhaps . He excluded Syria and Iran ;both nations I'd welcome regime change AND have attacked and killed Americans AND have all but declared war on the US (as has Daffy over the course of 40 years ) . Truth is that libs like Robinson like it when America's friends get defeated and deplore it when America's enemies lose.

Bahrain is a proxy war between Iran and Saudia Arabia.

Ex, your neocon president has finally decided the goal in Libya is regime change. He won't say it in so many words but that's the goal, "installing a democratic system that respects the people’s will.”

The Obama Doctrine says that if the "international community " says it's OK to do a regime change or a 'humanitarian intervention ', then US troops can be committed ;as long as we can pretend we aren't taking the lead. To him ,it is a must to get 'legal authority ' 1st from the UN .It's also evidently OK to ignore the constitutional requirements of getting legal authority from Congress.

When the UN gives the go ahead to take out Israel ,he'll go along ,so long as a nation like Iran takes the command.

More than 50% of the people would like Obama to be out of office... will HE leave?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

More than 50% of the people would like Obama to be out of office.....will HE leave?

---

To be replaced by whom?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

To be replaced by whom?

---

To be determined... but Donald Trump would be a good choice. He at least has a clue about actually running a business. And is pretty good at it.


Yeah I know constitutionally that's not how it works.