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

[Frank]

@Lobohan

There is a link to the UN resolution upthread. Why not give it a read?

No, I’m asking you. What are the short-term goals of the United States?

When have we reached those goals, and when may we withdraw?

[ElvisL1ves]

@Sam_Stone

What happens if a stalemate is reached - which is only stable so long as the no-fly zones exist?

You then, at least temporarily, have a Republic of East Libya. Where, incidentally, most of the oil fields are.

Now you’ve committed your country to acting as the eternal ‘protector’ of half the population and enemy of the other half. How do you extricate yourself from that?

You start by not inferring that this conflict is between factions with differences deeper than being far enough away from Khadafy to be safe from those who still have to fear and obey them. You then conclude that you are not going to be the “enemy of the other half of the population”.

One of the reasons I supported the Iraq war was because the No-Fly zones were becoming unstable.

Except that that was not the fact. You were one of the many grasping for a rationalization to support your desire to see some action on your new widescreen. Your support was a given, as was your deciding that your own life was not worth it, only those of some anonymous American. You were a puke then and you remain a puke.

Bin Laden was using them and the presence of Americans in Saudi Arabia as a recruiting tool for al-Qaida.

Which was still a pissant operation which never had anything to do with Iraq, the war you supported on what you claim to have been that basis. You don’t even realize what a fucking liar you are about that because you’re still lying to yourself about it, aren’t you?

When the No-Fly zones failed to lead to an uprising to unseat Saddam

That wasn’t their purpose, therefore they didn’t fail. :rolleyes:

It seemed to me that the U.S. was in an untenable position - it couldn’t maintain the No-Fly zones forever

It had been doing so for ten years. Why not? The fact that you were getting bored has no bearing on the facts.

This operation runs the same risk.

Only for those engaging in false equivalence as a means of lying.

Worst-case scenario is that the U.S. winds up entangled in Libyan internal fighting for months or years to come, while Khadaffi uses the time to organize terror attacks against the west or the use of his mustard gas against his opponents.

It’s in the area around Tripoli and Misratah and east, west, south, and north somewhat, right? Tell us, is there anyone else left you know of, anyone at all, other than yourself who still believes in the WMD fairy tale?

Most of all, I have to say the same thing I said about the Bush administration - in these situations, the decision point is often determined by facts we are not privy to. … There is intelligence we don’t get to see, and military evaluations that are not public.

The evaluations that Saddam didn’t have WMD’s were pretty public. The fact that you chose not to believe them is your own fucking fault, no one else’s, and you still haven’t accepted the adult responsibility of facing how badly you bought a lie and then lied to yourself about it.

At some point, you have to put some faith in your POTUS and hope he knows what he’s doing.

That’s the way a loyal subject thinks, not a responsible citizen of a democracy.

However, I also think it’s a valid criticism to say that Obama shirked his legal responsibility to take the issue to Congress for a vote.

No it isn’t. Try leaning about our laws as well as our Constitution sometime. The appropriate references are even right here in this thread.
Now go grow the fuck up, even if just a little, you useful idiot.

[elucidator]

@Frank

Seriously? European air forces do not have the technology to defend their planes? And, frankly, if they would have lost planes, so what? Not. Our. Problem. If it’s not important enough to them to lose their own planes rather than ours, who cares?..

Not like that, its not as if they wouldn’t risk their own if they didn’t have our support. They may very well have, unless you have some firm evidence to the contrary. Of course they have the technology. Do they have as much, do you think? If you were to guess, would you guess that France or Germany has better? And even were that so, wouldn’t more be better than less?

…Mission accomplished. Why are we still bombing Tripoli?..

Are we? I actually don’t know that we are or we aren’t. If we have taken out the defenses of Tripoli, and the Yerps are bombing Tripoli for their own reasons, I’m inclined to trust their judgment. Being as they are our allies, and all. Its kinda like being friends, but for keeps.

…You support our intervention in the Congo, in Zaire, in Yemen, in Syria, in Kazahkstan, in Iraq (do not! forget that one), etc., etc., etc.?

You already know my stand on intervention in Iraq, I’m pretty sure. And it has already been explained how the comparison is apples and orangutans. As for the rest, are our allies moving towards that, as we speak? Have they asked for our assistance to that end? Is there a Security Council approval for those? No? Well, then, your equivalence is as false as it is facile.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

[URL="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110323/wl_nm/us_libya_usa_obama

It’s getting worse, RedFury. Reuters is quoting Obama as saying that Gaddhaffi could try to wait it out. A relevant quote:

“Gaddafi may try to hunker down and wait it out even in the face of the no-fly zone, even though his forces have been degraded,” Obama said.

The U.S. president’s comments acknowledged the longtime Libyan leader’s staying power and the limits of a U.N.-sanctioned no-fly zone over Libya that the United States and European countries are enforcing, with some Arab support.

I give this coalition another week and we’re going to be left holding the bag.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Frank

Mission accomplished. Why are we still bombing Tripoli?

The mission isn’t accomplished until Khadafy’s ability to massacre his people is eliminated. That’s why.

And remember, the fact that you can’t do everything doesn’t mean you can’t do anything.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

I’m sorry, I’m having problems with that URL. I’m going to try again.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110323/wl_nm/us_libya_usa_obama

[Frank]

@elucidator

Not like that, its not as if they wouldn’t risk their own if they didn’t have our support. They may very well have, unless you have some firm evidence to the contrary. Of course they have the technology. Do they have as much, do you think? If you were to guess, would you guess that France or Germany has better? And even were that so, wouldn’t more be better than less?

Great Jumping Jehosophat, elucidator, so fucking what? None. of . our. business. What is so hard to grasp about that point?

You already know my stand on intervention in Iraq, I’m pretty sure.

Yes, I do. That’s why it astounds me, and continues to astound me that such as you and Shayna continue to vociferously support a military action by a U.S. President that is no different in kind than the invasion of Iraq. And (on preview) ElvisL1ves.

[Frank]

@ElvisL1ves

The mission isn’t accomplished until Khadafy’s ability to massacre his people is eliminated. That’s why.

Sophistry. Pure and utter sophistry. It’s extremely obvious from the bombing that we are attempting to remove Qaddaffi’s ability to defend his government against a revolution.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Frank

None. of . our. business. What is so hard to grasp about that point?

Are we humans? Part of a community of humans? Where, in your “philosophy”, does “our business” end?

@Frank

That’s why it astounds me, and continues to astound me that such as you and Shayna continue to vociferously support a military action by a U.S. President that is no different in kind than the invasion of Iraq. And (on preview) ElvisL1ves.

It might not astound you if you were able to grasp that the comparison of the Libya no-fly zone is properly to the Iraq no-fly zones. If you see an actual invasion of Libya for trumped-up reasons, with the intent of conquest, then maybe you can draw comparisons to Iraq.

Your hysteria is becoming embarrassing to all of us. Maybe you should switch to decaf, m’kay?

[Frank]

@ElvisL1ves

Your hysteria is becoming embarrassing to all of us.

Heh.

All I see is a bunch of wild-ass back-pedalling and hand-waving and, yes–again, sophistry in an attempt to justify why an attack on a sovereign nation was not OK when a Republican did it but is OK when a Democrat does it.

At least the Republicans such as Bricker and Starving Artist and that lot are consistent. They support both. You and yours are not internally consistent.

[elucidator]

@Frank

Sophistry. Pure and utter sophistry. It’s extremely obvious from the bombing that we are attempting to remove Qaddaffi’s ability to defend his government against a revolution.

I get kinda hinky when people tell me something is “extremely obvious”. Too often, its code for “accept what I’m saying and I don’t have to prove shit, because its obvious…”

So, you don’t believe him? When he says what the goals are, what America will do, what America will not do, he’s lying? To what end? He thinks this is a politically expedient move, bound to draw universal approval? He’s a secret neo-con, bent on establishing American hegemony throughout the Middle East? Is he planning to cede Libya to Israel?

If he’s lying, to what end? If he’s not doing what he says he’s doing, what is he doing?

[elucidator]

@Frank

…at least the Republicans such as Bricker and Starving Artist and that lot are consistent…

You’re right, that is the least.

[Frank]

@elucidator

I get kinda hinky when people tell me something is “extremely obvious”. Too often, its code for “accept what I’m saying and I don’t have to prove shit, because its obvious…”

If our goal was to prevent a civilian massacre in Benghazi, then we accomplished that by bombing the government forces that were about to take the town. Those forces pulled back. Mission accomplished.

I do believe that it is extremely obvious that any further actions are designed to cripple the government’s ability to defend itself against a civil war. (None of our business, I’ll note.) That you cannot see that shows me that you are blinded by partisan defense or by extreme stonedness. Possibly both.

Regardless, this action is doomed. There is discord among NATO, the EU, and the Arab League as to the next step. We’re going to be left holding the fizzing stick of dynamite.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Frank

All I see is a bunch of wild-ass back-pedalling and hand-waving and, yes–again, sophistry in an attempt to justify why an attack on a sovereign nation was not OK when a Republican did it but is OK when a Democrat does it.

You’re a hardcore absolute isolationist , right? Because only then would that be a meaningful distinction. Unfortunately for your implicit assertion of superior morality and absolute consistency, though, that worldview is held only by a tiny minority, not the reality-based community.

You’d do much better by trying to understand this complex world that vexes you so than by denouncing it and its participants out of such profound and willful ignorance as you display here.

Or maybe you could start by trying to explain just what, in your philosophy, “our business” is and is not, rather than repeating your indignant handwaving assertion that this is not.

[Shayna]

@The_Peyote_Coyote

I give this coalition another week and we’re going to be left holding the bag.

I give it until Friday, next Monday the latest, and we’re out, with France, Brittain and the Arab League enforcing the NFZ in whatever way they manage to bang out.

@Frank

Yes, I do. That’s why it astounds me, and continues to astound me that such as you and Shayna continue to vociferously support a military action by a U.S. President that is no different in kind than the invasion of Iraq. And (on preview) ElvisL1ves.

I have said on more than one occasion that I do not like that we are doing this, but I understand why we’re doing it. You won’t get away with mischaracterizing my position as “vociferously supporting” it again.

I have also, on more than one occasion, drawn multiple, very specific ways in which this action and the action in Iraq differ. You won’t get away with micharacterizing my position as “vociferously supporting” a military action “that is no different in kind than the invasion of Iraq” again.

Until now I’ve been polite to you, Frank. Do you intend to man up and admit that you have misstated my position?

[elucidator]

@Frank

…I do believe that it is extremely obvious that any further actions are designed to cripple the government’s ability to defend itself against a civil war…

What “further actions?” Have the Marines landed in Tripoli? Navy Seals invaded Ghadaffis compound? What? Where?

…That you cannot see that shows me that you are blinded by partisan defense or by extreme stonedness. Possibly both…

Cheap shot, Frank. Tsk.

[Frank]

@ElvisL1ves

Or maybe you could start by trying to explain just what, in your philosophy, “our business” is and is not, rather than repeating your indignant handwaving assertion that this is not.

Genocide. A la Clinton’s intervention under U.N. auspices in the former Yugoslavia.

Harboring and defending terrorists who have attacked us. A la Bush the Younger’s immediate attack on Afghanistan when they refused to give the terrorists responsible for 9-11 up for trial.

An attack on the territory of the United States. A la Pearl Harbor.

Not a civil war. We didn’t intervene in Afghanistan’s civil war. Nor Uganda’s. Nor Sri Lanka’s. Nor any other of the many civil wars that have occurred in the past couple of decades. All of which caused civilian casualties.

I thought I made that clear in the OP.

[Frank]

@Shayna

Until now I’ve been polite to you, Frank. Do you intend to man up and admit that you have misstated my position?

No, I do not. It is irrelevant that you do not like this action; you have, in fact, been an apologist for it.

[John_Mace]

A lot has transpired here since my lost post.

At any rate, now that we have an understanding of what the War Powers Resolution says, I’d like some of you pro-intervention folks to explain how you justify this action. How does it meet any of the 3 criteria listed.

Then, I’d like to understand when we know that the No Fly Zone is no longer needed.

Then, I’d like to know what we do when both sides are slaughtering each other in close combat in the urban areas.

Then I’d like to know what we do to maintain order after this mess is over, assuming in the off chance that there is any order to maintain.

I’m sorry, but this is action without a plan. We don’t know what we will accomplish, we don’t know what happens next, and we don’t know what the end goal is. We don’t know to whom we are turning the lead once the No Fly Zone is established. We don’t know who these rebels are and what their goals are. We don’t know what their capabilities are. We don’t know how many factions there are.

Now, I will happily agree that this is peanuts compared to Bush’s war in Iraq. But that doesn’t make it good. That just makes it not as bad as something Bush would do-- a low bar if ever there was one.

[elucidator]

…Not a civil war. We didn’t intervene in Afghanistan’s civil war. Nor Uganda’s. Nor Sri Lanka’s. Nor any other of the many civil wars that have occurred in the past couple of decades. All of which caused civilian casualties.

I can’t imagine why it should make a difference, but have you any recollection of just how many civil wars we have intervened in? And how frequently on the side of the oppressors? How often we have sided against people rebelling against some of the nastiest sumbitches who ever wore shoes?