Libya and Obama; it's the last straw for me

[Shayna]

@Frank

NO, I AM NOT. I see no qualitative difference between then and now. None. Both are unwarranted interferences in the affairs of a sovereign nation for no better reason than that we don’t care for its leader. I don’t care how many nations are standing around cheering it on. I opposed the attack on Iraq. I oppose the attack on Libya.

Qualitatively, Saddam Hussein may have been a mad man with allegations against him that he and his sicko sons engaged in unbridled slaughter of civilians, but he hadn’t declared war on his citizens. He wasn’t strafing villages with bullets, dropping bombs on them from the air and sending his military in in tanks. He hadn’t publicly announced that it was about to get even worse. There was no war going on in Iraq.

There is a war going on in Libya. A war that not only threatens the lives of tens of thousands (or more) of innocent civilians, but a war that threatens to destabilize an entire region that is teetering on very shaky political ground right now.

Qualitatively, we were told to mind our own damn business when it came to Iraq and had no support from any of the neighboring countries. Our “excuse” for riding in there like cowboys was a big, fat, steaming lie.

Qualitatively there is no lie here. The cards are out there on the table. The region is delving into instability. The Arab League wants Western help in preventing that from happening in those areas where they can’t handle it themselves (Saudi Arabia and The UAE have already sent troops into Bahrain in an effort to restore order there). We were asked to provide help, and we agreed, with conditions; those being that we would not send in ground troops and that our participation would be for days, not weeks (let alone months or years).

I would love to know why you dismiss every bit of the facts that distinguish these two events that don’t fit your knee jerk reaction. I’m here to tell you that my first reaction was exactly the same as yours. When I first heard the news, my first words were, “This sucks. Why can’t we just stay out of it? Let the European countries around the Mediterranean take this one on for a change. I’m sick to death of inserting ourselves in everybody else’s business. :mad:”

And then I took a breath and did some reading. I listened to what the President said. I looked at the facts. And I realized I was wrong. This is different from Iraq for myriad reasons.

A reasonable person would at least be willing to look at the factual data and accept that much, even if those differences don’t change their mind. But because you keep insisting that there’s no difference between Iraq and Libya, I can tell you aren’t being reasonable.

[elucidator]

What if we take him at his word? What then?

If he’s telling us the truth, then he’s supporting an effort by our allies, who have every right to call on our assistance, having come to ours. Its important to recognize that this does not involve directly defending our allies, which is the most essential element of alliance. But it is not unreasonable for them to ask.

It would make perfect sense for Obama to say “OK, I’ll go this far: I will assist your disruption of air defenses and offer technical support. But we cannot and will not offer ground troops, if it comes to that, you cannot depend on us, fair warning. And we expect to be able to hand over the principal role in this to European and Arab nations, and will insist on our acknowledged right to do so.”

All right, suppose he does exactly that? First mission, the prevention of a massacre in Bengazi. Done, apparently. But with all the wailing of “what now!?” we miss the other question, what was there already. This civil war will go badly, all wars do. There is a chance this one may be briefer than most, we can only hope.

But I don’t see anything in Obama’s actions or statements that commit us to an outcome, save the stated outcome: prevent a massacre, and offer support to our allies, sanctioned by the appropriate authorities. Nothing Obama has done has made things worse, the trajectory of the shit had already intersected the locus of the fan, Obama didn’t start anything. Not only is this not a unilateral military action, we didn’t even lead!

If this all goes totally South, it is mostly Ghadaffi’s fault, maybe the rebels, maybe France, but not much ours. Everything had already blown to shit, we prevented a massacre.

I wonder if we are not so used to America being the worlds foremost pain in the buttinski, we think every time something like this happens, we must be primarily responsible. Or at that any unfortunate results that may occur are somehow ours to atone for.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@Starving_Artist

(Or falling from the sky if I’m in Cincinnati.)

Clarification? I live around here. Are you referencing the whole stupid flying pig thing?

[Shayna]

@elucidator

What if we take him at his word? What then?

If he’s telling us the truth, then he’s supporting an effort by our allies, who have every right to call on our assistance, having come to ours. Its important to recognize that this does not involve directly defending our allies, which is the most essential element of alliance. But it is not unreasonable for them to ask.

It would make perfect sense for Obama to say “OK, I’ll go this far: I will assist your disruption of air defenses and offer technical support. But we cannot and will not offer ground troops, if it comes to that, you cannot depend on us, fair warning. And we expect to be able to hand over the principal role in this to European and Arab nations, and will insist on our acknowledged right to do so.”

All right, suppose he does exactly that? First mission, the prevention of a massacre in Bengazi. Done, apparently. But with all the wailing of “what now!?” we miss the other question, what was there already. This civil war will go badly, all wars do. There is a chance this one may be briefer than most, we can only hope.

But I don’t see anything in Obama’s actions or statements that commit us to an outcome, save the stated outcome: prevent a massacre, and offer support to our allies, sanctioned by the appropriate authorities. Nothing Obama has done has made things worse, the trajectory of the shit had already intersected the locus of the fan, Obama didn’t start anything. Not only is this not a unilateral military action, we didn’t even lead!

If this all goes totally South, it is mostly Ghadaffi’s fault, maybe the rebels, maybe France, but not much ours. Everything had already blown to shit, we prevented a massacre.

I wonder if we are not so used to America being the worlds foremost pain in the buttinski, we think every time something like this happens, we must be primarily responsible. Or at that any unfortunate results that may occur are somehow ours to atone for.

If we had the “reputation” feature of vBulletin enabled, you’d be +1 right now. Great post.

[elucidator]

Aw, shucks, m’am, just another smart-ass peckerwood from Waco.

[Tom_Tildrum]

@Shayna

There is a war going on in Libya. A war that not only threatens the lives of tens of thousands (or more) of innocent civilians, but a war that threatens to destabilize an entire region that is teetering on very shaky political ground right now.

Just so we’re clear, your view is that the mission of the coalition powers is to stop the war, then? To prevent any military action either by Qaddafi or by the rebels?

@Boyo_Jim

He decided it was not in our national interest to intervene, and then did so anyway at the behest of an international body.

Hillary’s not bad-looking, but I wouldn’t call her an “international body.”

[Starving_Artist]

@Shayna

Either we’re here to suss out the “straight dope” and hope to sway others to the truth of our opinions, or we just want an echo chamber where our debate opponents are always wrong, even when they agree with us.

Bricker and Starving Artist are two of my least favorite posters here, but for reasons entirely different from their willingness to acknowledge when “our” side is right. For that reason, they tend to stand alone among the crowd of conservatives around here, because they at least occasionally listen to our arguments and come to agree with us. For that they have my admiration. That they earn your scorn for that is obscene.

I have to say I appreciate this, especially coming as it does from a poster whose intelligence, passion and integrity I’ve come to admire despite despite the fact that we’re often on opposite sides politically. Thank you.

@elucidator

Aw, shucks, m’am, just another smart-ass peckerwood from Waco.

And one who appears not only to misunderstand the term “civil war”, but who also has a presumptuous tendency to attribute his inclination to blame America first to everyone, rather than to himself and his particular political/philosophical cohort.

And FoisGras, no, I was referencing the funny-but-appalling falling turkey thing from WKRP in Cincinnati. I’m not familiar with any tie-in between Cincinnati and flying pigs.

[elucidator]

He walks into the room, and it feels like somebody really smart just left.

[Starving_Artist]

Can’t help but notice you’re still here, though. And since you tend to think you’re the smartest person in the room I’m curious to know who that person might be.

[Shayna]

@Tom_Tildrum

Just so we’re clear, your view is that the mission of the coalition powers is to stop the war, then? To prevent any military action either by Qaddafi or by the rebels?

No. I only drew the distinction between the fact that there’s an ongoing war in Libya where there was not in Iraq, in response to Frank’s allegation that the two situations are qualitatively the same.

@Starving_Artist

I have to say I appreciate this, especially coming as it does from a poster whose intelligence, passion and integrity I’ve come to admire despite despite the fact that we’re often on opposite sides politically. Thank you.

You’re welcome.

[Frank]

@Shayna

A reasonable person would at least be willing to look at the factual data and accept that much, even if those differences don’t change their mind. But because you keep insisting that there’s no difference between Iraq and Libya, I can tell you aren’t being reasonable.

Are you deliberately misreading my posts? Those differences are irrelevant. They don’t matter. We are attacking another nation for no good reason. That’s what matters.

[Frank]

@Starving_Artist

Don’t think I’ve ever seen a wingless bat.

Please substitute moonbat or wingnut, as it pleases you.

That’s nothing. In another thread I made reference to the War of 1814. I think my brain wasn’t clicking on all cylinders last evening.

[Starving_Artist]

In 1814 we took a little trip…

[flickster]

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
~Sen. Obama, 12/20/2007

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

Really? The innocent civilians would be just as innocent, and just as dead, either way, but if the “international community” is not moved to act, then it’s wrong to act alone?

Perhaps that’s a useful guideline, but I can’t really accept it as the definition of “right.”

Well, people are fallible, so you can’t just let them meddle whenever they like. It’s the same reason our justice system (and all justice systems) sometimes puts innocent men behind bars and lets guilty ones go free: because there have to be some rules.

[QUOTE=flickster]
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
~Sen. Obama, 12/20/2007
[/QUOTE]

Do you know what unilateral means?

[John_Mace]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Do you know what unilateral means?

In that context, it means without authorization from Congress. Did you think it meant something else?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Enforcement of the no-fly zone is authorized by Congress, isn’t it?

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Enforcement of the no-fly zone is authorized by Congress, isn’t it?

Not that I’m aware of. I welcome correction on the point.

[Oakminster]

Well, we’ve lost a fighter. This was an F-15E, which is a ground attack variant of the F-15 series of aircraft. Regular F-15s are called Eagles, and back when I was in the Air Force, the F-15E was sometimes called the “Mud Hen”.

Fortunately, both aircrew on board ejected, and are out of Libya now.

Costs are mounting. A quick google of dubious accuracy suggests tomahawk missiles cost about $500K each for the newer models, over a million for the older ones, and I think we’ve fired around 150 missiles so far. Plus the cost of the crashed fighter.

[Sinaptics]

@HookerChemical

Please don’t forget the history of US hatred for Canada. They have oil. And Saudi Arabia. And Qatar, Nigeria, and Angola. Don’t forget Russia (okay, maybe we do still have a little hate-on for them).

I don’t see much correlation between who has oil, who the US invades, and who we have bad relationships with.

Fucking Angola. God, I hate those bastards.