War in Libya...

[quote name='IRHari']Greenwald is saying that some people are making 'the claim', as are you, that since Congress ratified the UN charter, it is 'exempt' from the Constitutional requirement of seeking Congressional approval (through a war resolution vote). Congress approved the UN charter, but I'm not sure that means that Congress approves every war undertaken as part of a UN coalition.[/QUOTE]

Again, I'm not claiming anything is "exempt" from a Congressional authorization requirement, assuming one exists. What I'm saying is that one or some combination of the ratification of the UN Charter, or passage of the War Powers Act, or even the March 1st senate resolution CONSTITUTE authorization, an argument which seems compelling enough for me. If that isn't the case I'm simply wondering why those Congressional actions don't suffice, and from what I gather from the article, the response is "because they don't," which isn't much of an answer.

[quote name='IRHari']Fukc it, you might as well read the full article, lemme know what you think:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/18/libya/index.html

He addresses a lot of the defenses Obama supporters have come up with to justify Obama's actions in this case.[/QUOTE]

An interesting read, but it doesn't really answer my basic question as posed above and honestly seems to gloss over the counter-arguments it does address. For instance, I understand that the War Powers Act is constitutionally uncertain, but that doesn't mean Congress can just pretend it doesn't exist, which is what the article seems to imply.

Likewise, the interaction between the various clauses dealing with the military in Articles I and II of the Constitution is similarly less than clear, which makes me a bit skeptical of the article's attempt to dismiss possible issues with a bland "The War Powers Clause says this."

Finally, the federalist papers are interesting and all, but it's amusing enough when the Supreme Court has to reach back that far for precedent, much less a journalist. I wonder what the author would think about Thomas Jefferson's effectively unilateral declaration of war on Libya? To the shores of Tripoli, indeed. Rather undercuts the argument that this question is so settled, though, doncha think?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']This isn't setting a precedent, it's honoring a fucking tradition.[/QUOTE]

When a Republican/right-leaning politician does something bad/stupid and someone points out Democratic/left-leaning politicians who have done the same/similar things, it's all "stay on topic!" and "we're not talking about them".

When a Democratic politician(/leader) goes and does something bad/stupid, well, it's okay because the 'publicans have been doing it for years...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']When a Republican/right-leaning politician does something bad/stupid and someone points out Democratic/left-leaning politicians who have done the same/similar things, it's all "stay on topic!" and "we're not talking about them".

When a Democratic politician(/leader) goes and does something bad/stupid, well, it's okay because the 'publicans have been doing it for years...[/QUOTE]
Theres nothing in there that says its ok, dependent on the party or otherwise. The response is correcting a false statement that a particular thing is a precedent, which it is not. You're thinking of a completely different line of questioning, since neither what Myke said nor what he was responding to has anything to do with what you just said.

If someone says that Bush's military actions constitute war crimes, that will prompt a certain response.
If someone says that Bush's military actions constitute a precedent, that will prompt a very different response.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Theres nothing in there that says its ok, dependent on the party or otherwise.[/QUOTE]

See, that's the thing though - when I (or likely, someone else) points out that an individual from Group A has done the same evil/stupid thing as the individual from Group B, I'm not excusing the behavior of either individual either. It's not that it's "okay" and it's not that it should (necessarily) be "accepted". But, time and time again, to point out that "both sides do it" is off topic blah blah blah. Unless, of course, it's about rationalizing the behavior of one of the "good guys"...
 
If we're bothering to liberate some country.... why aren't we planting a flag and claiming everything in it?

It worked for building this nation, so why can't we create Lybia the next province of USA.

Claim the oils fields and put everyone that doesn't agree, onto their own "reservation".


It's either go crazy or go home.....
 
[quote name='xycury']If we're bothering to liberate some country.... why aren't we planting a flag and claiming everything in it?

It worked for building this nation, so why can't we create Lybia the next province of USA.

Claim the oils fields and put everyone that doesn't agree, onto their own "reservation".


It's either go crazy or go home.....[/QUOTE]

We only use our military for grab-assing and square dancing with expensive ordianance now.
Our country's citizens don't have the appetite or political will to use our military for what it's designed to do, so we play tickle fights around the world with it instead.

We could never justify having such a big military budget without slipping into a quagmire every 5-10 years now, could we?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Not even the oil excuse people have mentioned above really works this time since Libya only has like 2% of the world's oil reserves. We don't really have any big interest there.[/QUOTE]

I can't help but wonder where all the "No blood for Oil" Code Pinker's are now. Maybe they're out there and the media just isn't covering them?

As for the 2% thing:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2178rank.html
Libya ranks in at #9 on known oil reserves. It's no #4, but it's nothing to sneeze at either. (It's also >3% of known world reserves).

Then, when you look at actual oil production by country:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2173rank.html
Libya ranks down at #18... while Iraq ranks in at #12. Sounds like a huge difference, until you compare the actual production numbers - a difference of only about 600,000 barrels/day. A drop in the hat of the US's 20,000,000+ barrels/day.

I'd say it's just as likely we went into Iraq for blood-oil as we did Libya.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']Again, I'm not claiming anything is "exempt" from a Congressional authorization requirement, assuming one exists. What I'm saying is that one or some combination of the ratification of the UN Charter, or passage of the War Powers Act, or even the March 1st senate resolution CONSTITUTE authorization, an argument which seems compelling enough for me. If that isn't the case I'm simply wondering why those Congressional actions don't suffice, and from what I gather from the article, the response is "because they don't," which isn't much of an answer.



An interesting read, but it doesn't really answer my basic question as posed above and honestly seems to gloss over the counter-arguments it does address. For instance, I understand that the War Powers Act is constitutionally uncertain, but that doesn't mean Congress can just pretend it doesn't exist, which is what the article seems to imply.

Likewise, the interaction between the various clauses dealing with the military in Articles I and II of the Constitution is similarly less than clear, which makes me a bit skeptical of the article's attempt to dismiss possible issues with a bland "The War Powers Clause says this."

Finally, the federalist papers are interesting and all, but it's amusing enough when the Supreme Court has to reach back that far for precedent, much less a journalist. I wonder what the author would think about Thomas Jefferson's effectively unilateral declaration of war on Libya? To the shores of Tripoli, indeed. Rather undercuts the argument that this question is so settled, though, doncha think?[/QUOTE]

The War Powers Resolution provides that the President can only send the military into action only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is under attack or imminent threat of an attack.

John Adams pushed hard for the Alien and Seditions Acts, which were amongst the most vile pieces of legislation in our history before the PATRIOT Act. They shredded the Bill of Rights and the basis for the founding of our country - are you suggesting that if a President undertakes an action that it supersedes the Constitution?

Greenwald (as well as myself) would disagree firmly with Jefferson's actions against the Barbary pirates if asked. It is one of the stains on his record. See my last paragraph (same sentiment applies).

[quote name='Clak']Sorry Griswald Greenwald, but that bit about putting Japanese in internment camps is just ridiculous. Precedent does matter, but in the context of the time. We'd never do that in this day and time, but presidents single handedly using the military is about as common as the elections that bring them into power. I'm not going to argue about the constitutionality of it, but it does matter that it's happened plenty of tiems before and has become fairly common. If it mattered to everyone that much something should have been done a decade ago.[/quote]

Wow, fascist much? That block of text could be used to support Bush's wars, the PATRIOT Act, Military Commissions Act, slavery, and any other BS action undertaken or ever to be suggested by government.

Bob:

myke's been consistent in opposing foreign militarism, so far as I've seen. He wasn't supporting the actions taken by Obama, Bush 43, Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, et al; he was lamenting the fact that Presidents have been fancying themselves as kings. Also, Code Pink's spokeswoman was on O'Rly's show the other night, hammering home the theme of foreign non-intervention. O'Rly, of course, was in AMERICA fuck YEAH mode.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']The War Powers Resolution provides that the President can only send the military into action only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is under attack or imminent threat of an attack.

John Adams pushed hard for the Alien and Seditions Acts, which were amongst the most vile pieces of legislation in our history before the PATRIOT Act. They shredded the Bill of Rights and the basis for the founding of our country - are you suggesting that if a President undertakes an action that it supersedes the Constitution?

Greenwald (as well as myself) would disagree firmly with Jefferson's actions against the Barbary pirates if asked. It is one of the stains on his record. See my last paragraph (same sentiment applies).



Wow, fascist much? That block of text could be used to support Bush's wars, the PATRIOT Act, Military Commissions Act, slavery, and any other BS action undertaken or ever to be suggested by government.

Bob:

myke's been consistent in opposing foreign militarism, so far as I've seen. He wasn't supporting the actions taken by Obama, Bush 43, Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, et al; he was lamenting the fact that Presidents have been fancying themselves as kings. Also, Code Pink's spokeswoman was on O'Rly's show the other night, hammering home the theme of foreign non-intervention. O'Rly, of course, was in AMERICA fuck YEAH mode.[/QUOTE]It's true though. It's ridiculous to say that Japanese interment during WW2 could be used to justify it today because of precedent. I actually don't think Bush over stepped his bounds in invading Iraq, I simply think it was a stupid thing to do. The rest of what you said, that's equally ridiculous. No, the precedent of slavery from centuries ago could not be used to justify it today because, again, the context of the time matters. I think the patriot act went too far, but again, think of what had happened to us recently. I think it should be repealed now, but I understand the fear and paranoia of the time in which it was enacted too.
 
[quote name='Clak']Just because I'm curious, what was our military designed to do, thrust?[/QUOTE]

To protect and defend the country and it's interests. It's that latter part that gets interpreted differently by different factions and puts us in all kinds of shit.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']The War Powers Resolution provides that the President can only send the military into action only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is under attack or imminent threat of an attack.[/QUOTE]

...which is part of the reason its Constitutionality is ambiguous. Regardless, I'm just waiting for someone to posit a definition on what the Constitutional "Congressional authorization" requirement actually is.

[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']John Adams pushed hard for the Alien and Seditions Acts, which were amongst the most vile pieces of legislation in our history before the PATRIOT Act. They shredded the Bill of Rights and the basis for the founding of our country - are you suggesting that if a President undertakes an action that it supersedes the Constitution?[/QUOTE]

No. Are you suggesting that if Congress undertakes an action it supersedes the Constitution? (I don't think you are, since that wouldn't make much sense.)

[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Greenwald (as well as myself) would disagree firmly with Jefferson's actions against the Barbary pirates if asked. It is one of the stains on his record. See my last paragraph (same sentiment applies).[/QUOTE]

Fair enough, but a degree of "authorization" for that action existed. My only point in bringing it up is to suggest that the way war powers are divided between Congress and the Executive is and always has been far from clear despite Greenwald's implication that everyone from John Jay on down would've considered the commitment of forces to the UN action in Libya illegal.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']To protect and defend the country and it's interests. It's that latter part that gets interpreted differently by different factions and puts us in all kinds of shit.[/QUOTE]
So we don't have the appetite to use the military to defend ourselves any more? What you said earlier and then the above doesn't seem to make much sense taken together.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']
myke's been consistent in opposing foreign militarism, so far as I've seen. He wasn't supporting the actions taken by Obama, Bush 43, Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, et al; he was lamenting the fact that Presidents have been fancying themselves as kings. Also, Code Pink's spokeswoman was on O'Rly's show the other night, hammering home the theme of foreign non-intervention. O'Rly, of course, was in AMERICA fuck YEAH mode.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I'm not questioning Myke's position - just pointing out the hypocrisy in the actions of accusing others of derailing threads by saying "the other guy did it", then posting "the other guy did it."

O'Riley doesn't count as news (does FOX? :D). I'm glad to see Code Pink isn't staying this one out (though it'd be great if they did a better job conveying their message) - it'll be interesting if they'll get the same type of coverage they got when Bush was in the chair.
 
What's going to be interesting to see is all the Obama defenders in this thread do a complete 180 when President Pawlenty or President Huckabee unilaterally invade Iran without UN approval or Congressional approval.
 
[quote name='IRHari']What's going to be interesting to see is all the Obama defenders in this thread do a complete 180 when President Pawlenty or President Huckabee unilaterally invade Iran without UN approval or Congressional approval.[/QUOTE]

An apt comparison, given that we're discussing an American invasion of Libya without UN or Congressional sanction. :roll:

But hey, you're right. Everyone's arguments are partisan and unprincipled. Let's have another donkey-elephant cage match and tomorrow morning we can wonder why the news media feels the need to so brazenly pander to us at every possible turn.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']An apt comparison, given that we're discussing an American invasion of Libya without UN or Congressional sanction. :roll:[/QUOTE]

Approval, not sanction. Any honest person will agree that a Republican president will not give a shit about the UN. The question is, will you come to the defense of Huckabee/Pawlenty when they invade Iran and skip over not just the UN (which they will almost certainly do), but possibly Congress as well?

To be consistent, you probably should.
 
[quote name='IRHari']What's going to be interesting to see is all the Obama defenders in this thread do a complete 180 when President Pawlenty or President Huckabee unilaterally invade Iran without UN approval or Congressional approval.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't criticize it on the basis that it was unconstitutional. i'd criticize it on the basis of it being a stupid thing to do, especially at the moment, as I doubt much will change by 2012.

edit- As much as hate to say it, I agree with bob.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Approval, not sanction. Any honest person will agree that a Republican president will not give a shit about the UN. The question is, will you come to the defense of Huckabee/Pawlenty when they invade Iran and skip over not just the UN (which they will almost certainly do), but possibly Congress as well?

To be consistent, you probably should.[/QUOTE]

I don't see how "consistency" demands that my answer concerning the legal powers of the President in certain circumstances shouldn't change even when the facts do (i.e. this is not an "invasion" without UN "approval"). Still, it would depend on the constitutional balance of war powers between the branches. I'm willing to accept that some level of Congressional authorization requirement exists even short of a "war," but I struggle to see why what President Obama has here isn't enough.

In turn, my question is why the identity of this hypothetical future president matters so much to you.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']but I struggle to see why what President Obama has here isn't enough.[/QUOTE]

What does Obama have here, in this case, the war in Libya, that meets the Congressional authorization requirement? Congress hasn't authorized anything so far relating to the war in Libya.
 
[quote name='IRHari']What does Obama have here, in this case, the war in Libya, that meets the Congressional authorization requirement? Congress hasn't authorized anything so far relating to the war in Libya.[/QUOTE]

Coming full circle on this, it seems there are three possibilities:

(1) Ratification of the UN Charter in 1945.
(2) The War Powers Resolution of 1973.
(3) Senate Resolution 85 of March 1, 2011. (To save you the read, it, among other things, calls for the Security Council to establish a no-fly zone over Libya.)

Seeing as how I read your previous posts, I anticipate your response will be "none of those enough in of themselves or together," which is certainly an argument, but one for which I'm going to need more support than the points you've already raised which, as I explained above, don't actually support your position. It might help if you clarified exactly what you think the Constitutional requirement of "Congressional authorization" actually demands instead of merely assuming the notion is set in stone like that article you linked to did.
 
[quote name='Clak']So we don't have the appetite to use the military to defend ourselves any more? What you said earlier and then the above doesn't seem to make much sense taken together.[/QUOTE]

It's like taking a very expensive bull into a china shop and try to make it only break the blue tea-cups, then we get all kinds of pissed if it breaks more. And we do it over and over and over.

We put our military into these nation building / policeman adventures with nine fingers tied behind it's back.

Not only is the military's purpose not really for super precision-surgical attacks that we usually use it for, most military spending is on stuff that couldn't be used for that anyway.



It's a massive waste on both ends.
 
Oh I'm not saying it's not, the military wastes plenty of cash. I just don't understand the previous bit about us not having the stomach for using the military for what it was designed for. If you mean we don't have the stomach to use it to conquer anymore, well good for us. As far as actually defending ourselves, I don't see where we've lost the will to do that.
 
[quote name='Magus8472'](3) Senate Resolution 85 of March 1, 2011. (To save you the read, it, among other things, calls for the Security Council to establish a no-fly zone over Libya.)[/QUOTE]

one could argue attacking tanks / other ground targets is a little more than establishing a no-fly zone, unless of course they had wings.

My biggest problem is anyway you cut it... setting up a no-fly zone (even if that's all you did which isn't the case here) is an act of war... a war that has pretty much no goal. It's doubtful that the rebels are strong enough or organized enough to win and Obama has already thrown out the comment that we will use no ground troops (Honestly I don't want to see ground troops used here, but does the man not know how to play poker).

So what is the goal? Gaddafi really only cares for himself so he's probably not going to surrender no matter how much bombing goes on.
 
Is it that no US troops will go there but NATO Allied Forces will and maybe some UN "Peacekeeping" missions as well?

I'm out of the loop on this one as I had a pretty rough case of aids over the weekend.
 
The rebels dont look like they're in a position to fight professional or heavy forces if/when the make it to Tripoli. Even if we Dresden up the place, its gonna be real tough to get him unless we're counting on all this pressure to make his top military guys turn on him, but who knows what the odds of that are.
 
Well, I think Obama did a pretty good job of laying out his reasons for the action in Libya and what our goals are there. I'm still not sure I agree with it, but he made a solid case and made it clear the military will not be used to try to oust Qaddafi, but political measures will be.

I have a lot less objections to it since the turn over to NATO is happening quicker than I expected with control being turned over on Wednesday.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Well, I think Obama did a pretty good job of laying out his reasons for the action in Libya and what our goals are there. I'm still not sure I agree with it, but he made a solid case and made it clear the military will not be used to try to oust Qaddafi, but political measures will be.

I have a lot less objections to it since the turn over to NATO is happening quicker than I expected with control being turned over on Wednesday.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this.

The constitution, which says only congress can declare war, was written in a time not only when no fly zones didn't exist, but fucking flight didn't exist. It can't contemplate everything. Which begs the question...

what is a "war"???
 
Well it used to be that war was actually officially declared against a country, these days that doesn't seem to be the case. That seems to make it hard to decide whether something actually is a war.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Well, I think Obama did a pretty good job of laying out his reasons for the action in Libya and what our goals are there. I'm still not sure I agree with it, but he made a solid case and made it clear the military will not be used to try to oust Qaddafi, but political measures will be.

I have a lot less objections to it since the turn over to NATO is happening quicker than I expected with control being turned over on Wednesday.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I guess we should just congratulate Libya on winning the "Middle East humanitarian defense sweeptstakes", since Obama's so-called "case" he made could easily apply to several other countries in the region right now.

Making a case for Libya doesn't mean a whole lot when you can't also describe why their people's suffering was more important or somehow worse than other countries.

[quote name='pittpizza']
The constitution, which says only congress can declare war, was written in a time not only when no fly zones didn't exist, but fucking flight didn't exist. It can't contemplate everything. Which begs the question...
[/QUOTE]

I hate this line of logic. It's the classical left-wing/neocon approach; when the constitution gets in the way of what you want to do - just excuse it as an archaic document that couldn't possibly have _____ in mind when it was written.

That's not the way this country works. If you want to make that case, get an amendment made to compensate for ______, have it changed, BEFORE you decide to ignore parts of it. You don't just get to ignore it when it doesn't suit you.

what is a "war"???
Click to expand...
wtf-seriously?
 
Maybe Obama, unlike old Bushie boy, actually realizes that this region of the world isn't one homogeneous region and that each case is different? Besides that, we don't have the resources to intervene in every country. Just as an example, Libya is different from Egypt in that the military wasn't really fighting back against the protestors. All Mubarak had were mostly paid thugs, Gaddafi actually has a professional army to fight the rebels there. We didn't need to intervene in Egypt because they basically had it covered and were just waiting for Mubarak to step down.
 
[quote name='Clak']Maybe Obama, unlike old Bushie boy, actually realizes that this region of the world isn't one homogeneous region and that each case is different? Besides that, we don't have the resources to intervene in every country. Just as an example, Libya is different from Egypt in that the military wasn't really fighting back against the protestors. All Mubarak had were mostly paid thugs, Gaddafi actually has a professional army to fight the rebels there. We didn't need to intervene in Egypt because they basically had it covered and were just waiting for Mubarak to step down.[/QUOTE]


Exactly. He made it pretty clear that the difference here was that Qadaffi (I've given up trying to spell as even different news outlets spell it differently!) was actively using his military, including fighter jets and tanks against his people.

Thus it's a much greater risk for a massive genocide than say Syria where it's government forces shooting protesters. That's nothing to ignore, but 61 shot protestors isn't going to be helped by a no fly zone etc.

If other places in the middle east start actively using their military on the protestors, then we/NATO had better intervene there like we are in Libya for sure.

But I don't see inconsistencies in doing nothing now as the other circumstances are different and can't really be helped with air strikes and no fly zones as they aren't using tanks and jets etc. against the protesters, but police, snipers etc. which can't be hit with bombs without a lot of collateral damage.


The main point Obama made that I agreed with the most was essentially saying that we should only act unilaterally when our safety or interests (or htose of our allies) are directly affected. In cases like Libya where they are not, we should act only with multi-lateral support.

I agree 100% with that. It shouldn't be our responsibility to bear sole burden for protecting human rights around the world. That should be an international effort and headed by groups like NATO and the UN. Acting unilateral is too much cost on us (both financial and risk to US lives etc.) and often serves to piss of parts of the world by acting like the world police. Let the international coalitions head them up, and any ire is at least spread out or aimed at the coalitions rather than solely focused on us.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
If other places in the middle east start actively using their military on the protestors, then we/NATO had better intervene there like we are in Libya for sure.
[/QUOTE]

Like in Bahrain you mean, I didn't see anyone rushing in to create a no-fly zone there?

Ahh but of course the Saudis took care of that one didn't they?
 
[quote name='benjamouth']Like in Bahrain you mean, I didn't see anyone rushing in to create a no-fly zone there?

Ahh but of course the Saudis took care of that one didn't they?[/QUOTE]

For whatever reason Bahrain hasn't been in the news as much as Libya, Syria and Yemen lately, so I'll admit I don't know as much about the specifics there.

Have they used planes, tanks etc. against the protestors?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']For whatever reason Bahrain hasn't been in the news as much as Libya, Syria and Yemen lately, so I'll admit I don't know as much about the specifics there.

Have they used planes, tanks etc. against the protestors?[/QUOTE]

Tanks yes, planes I'm not sure.

From the wiki

"The 2011 Bahraini protests are a series of demonstrations in the Persian Gulf country of Bahrain. As part of the 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests, the Bahraini protests were initially aimed at achieving greater political freedom and equality for the majority Shia population,[19][20] and expanded to a call to end the monarchy[3] following a deadly night raid on 17 February against protesters at Pearl Roundabout in Manama.[21][22] Protesters in Manama camped out for days at the Pearl Roundabout, which functions as the centre point of protests there. After a month, the government requested troops and police from the Gulf Cooperation Council, which arrived on 14 March, and a day later, the king of Bahrain declared martial law and a three-month state of emergency.[23][24] The following day security forces violently confronted protesters at the Pearl Roundabout, drawing international condemnation."

So basically this was a Shia uprising against a Sunni minority, got crushed, no "help" from the US required.

I'd imagine you didn't hear the President condemning the treatment of the people of Bahrain he didn't. I believe the only comment was "Step in the wrong direction" or some such thing.
 
I find it sad, and somewhat repulsive, that the current talking points on rightie-radio are that this is a US invasion of Libya. It's weird that the neocons get mad when someone else gets a chance to do some neoconning.
 
Definitely probably some inconsistencies there then with the international community being more reluctant to intervene due to political sensitivity with Saudi Arabia and Iran mixed into the situation.

Though, at the same time, I still think the situation there wasn't quite as dire as Libya where Qaddafi had sent jets to bomb protesters/rebels, threatened to go door-to-door and show no mercy etc. And maybe just not as amenable to an air attack if there wasn't an issue of needing to destroy jets and air defenses to enforce a no fly zone etc.

But, as I said, if things escalate in Bahrain or elsewhere to clearly being on the same level as what Qaddafi was doing/directly threatening, then I hope NATO/UN steps up and takes similar measures there as the organizations will further lose legitimacy if they pick and choose where to intervene based on anything other than similar levels of risk of loss of live for civilians.
 
UK – Foreign Secretary William Hague said he was "deeply concerned" by the "unacceptable violence" used against protesters.[151] The British government has been accused of providing arms for Arab regimes while their government are suppressing the demonstrations.[152] It then announced that in light of the unrest it has decided to revoke some arms export licenses to Bahrain stating that "licenses will not be issued when officials judge that there is a risk that the exports may provoke regional or internal conflicts or be used to facilitate internal repression".[153] USA – President Barack Obama said he was "deeply concerned" by the violence,[129] while Secretary of State Hilary Clinton urged restraint.[154] George Washington University Professor Hossein Askari blames the "power of the Saudi lobby in Washington" for the failure of the American government to defend the democracy protesters in Bahrain in 2011. [155]
Click to expand...
Lulz, lets face it, as far as the Saudi's are concerned the West is bought and paid for!

Protesters crushed in Bahrain
West - "We're Deeply concerned"

Arab League says "We'd be happy to see the back of Gadafi"
West - "GET TO THE CHOPPAH !!!!, Last one to fire a missile is a rotten egg"
 
Burma
Bahrain
Yemen
Cuba
Syria
Pakistan
Iran
North Korea
Niger
Somalia
Sudan
Egypt

From memory, all of those countries are under military junta or dictatorship, or are otherwise complete shitholes. That's a whole lot of humanitarian bombing left on the table. I'd throw Singapore in here too, for being a police state.

Our best bet is to not militarily involve ourselves around the world. The world would be a much better place if we simply set a good example and kept open trade, travel, and communication with all countries. How many times must we bribe countries monetarily if they do what we want and bomb them military if they don't, isolate countries economically with sanctions, and experience the blowback associated with supporting or forcing rulers or various sides of civil wars before we come to our senses?
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Burma
Our best bet is to not militarily involve ourselves around the world. The world would be a much better place if we simply set a good example and kept open trade, travel, and communication with all countries. [/QUOTE]

I do mostly agree with that. Just saying that I can see where Obama was coming from with his reasoning of the risk being more severe currently in Libya than other places and not wanting a repeat of the Balkans from the 1990s etc.

Though at the same time I do think the UN should be much more active in working to stop human rights violations than they are. That should be the organization that is taking the lead in preventing human rights violations and organizing responses when they do occur/escalate. Not individual nations.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']we didn't need to intervene in egypt because we aren't the united states of egypt. just like there is no reason for us to be involved in a war in libya.[/QUOTE]

Or one in Rwanda, naturally.
 
The president needs to be clear on the path ahead and he is purposely being vague. To institute the change he wants in this country either you arm rebels put boots on the ground or both. There is really no support for this at all!!! Also what hasn't been pointed out is that the whole country isn't fighting Gadhafi this is a civil war tell the American people the truth. This part of Libya hasn't ever been a pro Gadhafi region from every report I've read. Also are we simply going to start bombing civilans that Gadhafi has armed because apparently they are resisting the opposition? So we will bomb civilians who disagree and are opposing this rebellion? Do we know the layout of the land meaning these people are broke up by tribes within Libya which is a foriegn concept to westerners. What if Gadhafi is holding these tribes together and this turns into an even messier civil war? Will the U.S./NATO forces put boots on the ground to stop this from happening? Also what is the commitment long term for building this nation? Because make no mistake that what needs to be done. Has anyone offered Gadhafi a way out? Not the step down so we can arrest you and your family and have them prosecuted in an international court. More along the lines of hey you gotta give us somebody call him the butcher of "insert town here" to drag before the Europeans, then we give you a billion and you and your offspring can take a one way flight to Venezuela since Hugo likes you so much. Is it distasteful yes, but people stop dying this way.


I know all i have is questions but I feel my government is insulting my intelligence just say we've picked sides in a civil war and anyone that opposes the rebel army is a potential target. See how well that goes over.
 
I thought he was pretty clear that the goal of the military option was solely to protect civilians. And while he thinks Qaddafi should go, that it would be a mistake to use the military intervention to do that directly.

Arming the rebels would also be a huge mistake. That's bitten us in the ass many time in the past from arming rebels in Afghanistan against the russians to see them turn into the Taliban and Al Qaeda, arming Sadam and Iraq in the war against Iran, arming rebels in Nicaragua etc.

There's already reports that some of the rebel leaders may have ties to Al Qaeda and Hezbollah. Just too risky to arm them as there's no guarantee that they'll be any better than Qaddafi when it comes to helping fight terrorism etc.

At most keep civilians safe as much as we can with air strikes and use diplomacy to work to promote regime change.

Though again I'd prefer we just stay out of this crap. At a time of record deficits and all kinds of budget shortfalls we just can't afford to be intervening around the world when we can't even take care of crucial needs like education and health care back home.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I thought he was pretty clear that the goal of the military option was solely to protect civilians. And while he thinks Qaddafi should go, that it would be a mistake to use the military intervention to do that directly.

Arming the rebels would also be a huge mistake. That's bitten us in the ass many time in the past from arming rebels in Afghanistan against the russians to see them turn into the Taliban and Al Qaeda, arming Sadam and Iraq in the war against Iran, arming rebels in Nicaragua etc.

There's already reports that some of the rebel leaders may have ties to Al Qaeda and Hezbollah. Just too risky to arm them as there's no guarantee that they'll be any better than Qaddafi when it comes to helping fight terrorism etc.

At most keep civilians safe as much as we can with air strikes and use diplomacy to work to promote regime change.

Though again I'd prefer we just stay out of this crap. At a time of record deficits and all kinds of budget shortfalls we just can't afford to be intervening around the world when we can't even take care of crucial needs like education and health care back home.[/QUOTE]


I agree with most of your points but those "civilians" were at a time advancing and taking towns and were quite successful because of the Air power. Those "civilians" also tried to take a town that was pro Gaddafi and other armed "civilians" drove them out. MLK these folks are not. This has turned into an army we are supporting everyone knows it and we were using our air power not as much to protect but to help them push forward. Now that NATO has taken over Gaddafi is on the move again and with no air cover this could be over by the end of the week. My main point is there are two standing armies now and we are in the middle of a civil war.
 
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330

President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.

Obama signed the order, known as a presidential "finding", within the last two or three weeks, according to four U.S. government sources familiar with the matter.

Such findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA and the White House declined immediate comment.

News that Obama had given the authorization surfaced as the President and other U.S. and allied officials spoke openly about the possibility of sending arms supplies to Gaddafi's opponents, who are fighting better-equipped government forces
Click to expand...

I thought something was up when there were reports a couple weeks ago of ground forces being shipped to Libya on another forum I belong to. Nothing could possibly go wrong with this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top