Libya

[davdesid]

Hmmm....

I'd say some of the lefties on here, who bashed Bush for wanting to depose a tyrant (you know who you are), have some 'splainin to do...

pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/117078/

[davdesid]

Mar 19, 2011 17:14:37 GMT -8 John, Your Pal said:

Mar 19, 2011 17:06:55 GMT -8 davdesid said:

Hmmm....

I'd say some of the lefties on here, who bashed Bush for wanting to depose a tyrant (you know who you are), have some 'splainin to do...

pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/117078/

Why? Is the left wing throwing parties celebrating Obama's actions in this matter?

I don't know about any parties, but they sure are quiet about criticism when it comes to the turd they thought was going to bring all that hopey-changey $#!+.

Barack O-Bomb-A

Gotta love the irony.

[inevitec]

Mar 19, 2011 17:20:25 GMT -8 davdesid said:

Mar 19, 2011 17:14:37 GMT -8 John, Your Pal said:

Why? Is the left wing throwing parties celebrating Obama's actions in this matter?

I don't know about any parties, but they sure are quiet about criticism when it comes to the turd they thought was going to bring all that hopey-changey $#!+.

Barack O-Bomb-A

Gotta love the irony.

I disagree with what Obama did. Military action was ill advised, wrong and ineffective in Iraq and Afghanistan and it is ill advised, wrong and will be ineffective in Libya.

[Bob Forsythe]

Mar 19, 2011 17:20:25 GMT -8 davdesid said:

Mar 19, 2011 17:14:37 GMT -8 John, Your Pal said:

Why? Is the left wing throwing parties celebrating Obama's actions in this matter?

I don't know about any parties, but they sure are quiet about criticism when it comes to the turd they thought was going to bring all that hopey-changey $#!+.

Barack O-Bomb-A

Gotta love the irony.

Why? The left has never had a problem with "just wars" which is why, for the most part, we haven't had a problem with Afghanistan. Your view is skewed by Vietnam. I still totally believe my opposition to that war was justified but I certainly supported Gulf 1 as I supported The Shrub going into Afghanistan. It was Iraq that was was unnecessary.

Unlike the conservatives, we reserve the right to support or oppose wars, which, BTW, the Republicans once did, or have you never heard the phrase, "Mr. Roosevelt's War"? Outside of both Iraq wars it's been the Democrats who have taken us to war since 1917, for better or worse with the worst being Vietnam, so your comments are basically ideological nonsense.

But then your main purpose on here is to troll. What you never seem capable of understanding is that a really good troll contains at least a modicum of truth.

=Bob

[aztecwin]

Mar 19, 2011 17:20:25 GMT -8 davdesid said:

Mar 19, 2011 17:14:37 GMT -8 John, Your Pal said:

Why? Is the left wing throwing parties celebrating Obama's actions in this matter?

I don't know about any parties, but they sure are quiet about criticism when it comes to the turd they thought was going to bring all that hopey-changey $#!+.

Barack O-Bomb-A

Gotta love the irony.

Barack O-Bomb-A is two weeks late.

[aztecwin]

Mar 19, 2011 17:35:55 GMT -8 John, Your Pal said:

Sounds like, although you generally disagree with his policies, you support Obama in this case.

Correct?

If he had moved faster, maybe.

[aztec70]

Mar 19, 2011 17:06:55 GMT -8 davdesid said:

Hmmm....

I'd say some of the lefties on here, who bashed Bush for wanting to depose a tyrant (you know who you are), have some 'splainin to do...

pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/117078/

So weapons of mass destruction and getting those al Queda guys that were being helped by Saddam was just a coverup?

Who knew?

[aztec70]

Did anyone note that those cowardly French were the first to fly missions over Libya? Gosh.

[davdesid]

Mar 19, 2011 17:35:55 GMT -8 John, Your Pal said:

Sounds like, although you generally disagree with his policies, you support Obama in this case.

Correct?

Correct.

[davdesid]

Mar 19, 2011 18:13:51 GMT -8 Bob Forsythe said:

Mar 19, 2011 17:20:25 GMT -8 davdesid said:

I don't know about any parties, but they sure are quiet about criticism when it comes to the turd they thought was going to bring all that hopey-changey $#!+.

Barack O-Bomb-A

Gotta love the irony.

Why? The left has never had a problem with "just wars" which is why, for the most part, we haven't had a problem with Afghanistan. Your view is skewed by Vietnam. I still totally believe my opposition to that war was justified but I certainly supported Gulf 1 as I supported The Shrub going into Afghanistan. It was Iraq that was was unnecessary.

Unlike the conservatives, we reserve the right to support or oppose wars, which, BTW, the Republicans once did, or have you never heard the phrase, "Mr. Roosevelt's War"? Outside of both Iraq wars it's been the Democrats who have taken us to war since 1917, for better or worse with the worst being Vietnam, so your comments are basically ideological nonsense.

But then your main purpose on here is to troll. What you never seem capable of understanding is that a really good troll contains at least a modicum of truth.

=Bob

Your main purpose appears to be to deflect, dissemble and dodge. Who said anything about Viet-Nam?

Are you suggesting that attacking Libya is "just"? If so, why?

Is it because 'daffy is brutalizing his people? Did 'daffy attack us?

And you opposed Iraq because Saddam was neither brutalizing his people and he never attacked us. Right?

Love your situational ethics.

[Deleted]

Who are the rebels? Why are we backing them? In Iraq, we were there on the ground to effect the aftermath of regime change. In Afghanistan, we're propping up a regime that is at least nominally friendly and committed to some form of democracy. Libya? Are we supporting a bunch of Pro-Iranian Islamic thugs? Tribal thugs? Pluralistic secularists?

The administration, I think spoke too soon in backing these guys. The delayed action concerning the "no fly" zone has in itself created the conditions for a protracted , bloody civil war. If it had been implemented earlier when the rebels had the initiative, Qaddafi would already be gone. If we had waited, the Libyan army would eventually re-assert its control. Doing it now effectively turns the thing into a stalemate that will be fought by the bloodiest of methods; men with guns and grudges exacting revenge on each other for a very long time. Neither side able to gain an upper hand. Neither side will come out of it with a favorable view of the west. They will both feel "betrayed" in the Arab context.

[davdesid]

Mar 20, 2011 9:53:00 GMT -8 aztec70 said:

Did anyone note that those cowardly French were the first to fly missions over Libya? Gosh.

I noticed. My hat is off to them.

[Yoda]

The reason that this is different than Iraq is the same reason that Obama didn't act a couple of weeks ago. This time, our actions were supported by both the other Arab nations and the UN.

When Bush went into Iraq, he did it more or less unilaterally. the Arabs didn't make a request and the UN never formally authorized the invasion. There was a coalition of the willing but other than the British, it wasn't much of a coalition. Iceland contributed 5 soldiers or something as I recall. We alienated most of our allies by acting on our own.

And supposedly, even with the urging of other Arab nations and with the blessing of the UN, our involvement will be principally limited to a few days clearing out weapons that would otherwise take out allied aircraft. Iraq involved a long term, on the ground commitment.

The situation is very different if only because Obama wasn't going to make the same mistakes that Bush made. Arab support and a UN resolution had to come first and there will be no ground troops -- assuming that this thing doesn't blow up on us.

That said, I question that I support this move. The UN never used to go in to countries to address internal affairs and I'm not sure that they should be doing so now. And I'm one of those old fashioned people who believe that the Senate is supposed to formally declare war. We haven't done so since WWII, and I'm not comfortable with that.

Yoda out...

[aztecwin]

Mar 20, 2011 13:49:44 GMT -8 Yoda said:

The reason that this is different than Iraq is the same reason that Obama didn't act a couple of weeks ago. This time, our actions were supported by both the other Arab nations and the UN.

When Bush went into Iraq, he did it more or less unilaterally. the Arabs didn't make a request and the UN never formally authorized the invasion. There was a coalition of the willing but other than the British, it wasn't much of a coalition. Iceland contributed 5 soldiers or something as I recall. We alienated most of our allies by acting on our own.

And supposedly, even with the urging of other Arab nations and with the blessing of the UN, our involvement will be principally limited to a few days clearing out weapons that would otherwise take out allied aircraft. Iraq involved a long term, on the ground commitment.

The situation is very different if only because Obama wasn't going to make the same mistakes that Bush made. Arab support and a UN resolution had to come first and there will be no ground troops -- assuming that this thing doesn't blow up on us.

That said, I question that I support this move. The UN never used to go in to countries to address internal affairs and I'm not sure that they should be doing so now. And I'm one of those old fashioned people who believe that the Senate is supposed to formally declare war. We haven't done so since WWII, and I'm not comfortable with that.

Yoda out...

That is a rather long winded way of saying Obama waited to see which way the wind was blowing before doing anything in our own best interest.

[Yoda]

Mar 20, 2011 14:06:57 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

That is a rather long winded way of saying Obama waited to see which way the wind was blowing before doing anything in our own best interest.

No, it is a way of saying that working with our allies is in our best interests while going "rogue cowboy" is not. Obama recognizes that while Bush did not.

Besides, how exactly did taking out SAM sites further "our own best interest"?

Yoda out...

[Deleted]

Mar 20, 2011 14:15:58 GMT -8 Yoda said:

Mar 20, 2011 14:06:57 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

That is a rather long winded way of saying Obama waited to see which way the wind was blowing before doing anything in our own best interest.

No, it is a way of saying that working with our allies is in our best interests while going "rogue cowboy" is not. Obama recognizes that while Bush did not.

Besides, how exactly did taking out SAM sites further "our own best interest"?

Yoda out...

There were many more countries in our "coalition of the willing" including Arab countries, than currently support the actions in Libya. That's not to say it's a bad, or good thing. The question is are we acting in our interests? Also, what do we gain? Who are the rebels?
What is the intent of our actions? A "no fly" zone will not protect civilians, it will only change the way in which they are attacked. A no fly zone will not be sufficient to accomplish a regime change if that's the goal. A no fly zone will not ensure a peaceful transition to democracy. A no fly zone will not feed the starving. A no fly zone will not stabilize oil production. It is a half-measure. The result will be protracted, low level civil war/ethnic cleansing. All of the resolutions and strongly worded missives issued by the international class will do nothing to change that.

[davdesid]

Mar 20, 2011 13:49:44 GMT -8 Yoda said:

The reason that this is different than Iraq is the same reason that Obama didn't act a couple of weeks ago. This time, our actions were supported by both the other Arab nations and the UN.

When Bush went into Iraq, he did it more or less unilaterally. the Arabs didn't make a request and the UN never formally authorized the invasion. There was a coalition of the willing but other than the British, it wasn't much of a coalition. Iceland contributed 5 soldiers or something as I recall. We alienated most of our allies by acting on our own.

And supposedly, even with the urging of other Arab nations and with the blessing of the UN, our involvement will be principally limited to a few days clearing out weapons that would otherwise take out allied aircraft. Iraq involved a long term, on the ground commitment.

The situation is very different if only because Obama wasn't going to make the same mistakes that Bush made. Arab support and a UN resolution had to come first and there will be no ground troops -- assuming that this thing doesn't blow up on us.

That said, I question that I support this move. The UN never used to go in to countries to address internal affairs and I'm not sure that they should be doing so now. And I'm one of those old fashioned people who believe that the Senate is supposed to formally declare war. We haven't done so since WWII, and I'm not comfortable with that.

Yoda out...

Wasn't much of a coalition?? US, UK and 5 soldiers from Iceland was about it?

Your memory is selective. There were nealy 40 nations involved in the invasion of Iraq.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq

Also the Congress did authorize the President to use military action.

usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa101102a.htm

There is no formal wording for a "declaration of war", and to argue that a use of force authorization is not the functional equivalent of such a declaration is simply a pathetic quibble.

No such Congressional authorization has been given for the Libya operation.

(I think 'daffy should have been taken out right after Lockerbie. But that's just me.)

[aztecwin]

Mar 20, 2011 14:15:58 GMT -8 Yoda said:

Mar 20, 2011 14:06:57 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

That is a rather long winded way of saying Obama waited to see which way the wind was blowing before doing anything in our own best interest.

No, it is a way of saying that working with our allies is in our best interests while going "rogue cowboy" is not. Obama recognizes that while Bush did not.

Besides, how exactly did taking out SAM sites further "our own best interest"?

Yoda out...

Waiting for a permission slip from the UN and France rather than act when it would have done the Rebels some real good is just another "dither".

I did not see the order of battle, but would it be safe to assume that taking out the SAM sites allowed the French to safely fly over at 30K feet?

[davdesid]

WRT Congressional authorization, and just for grins, here is a quote:


"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."

-Senator Barack Obama, Dec. 20, 2007-

[Yoda]

Mar 20, 2011 14:45:15 GMT -8 davdesid said:

Wasn't much of a coalition?? US, UK and 5 soldiers from Iceland was about it?

Your memory is selective. There were nealy 40 nations involved in the invasion of Iraq.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing

Of the 48 states on the list, three contributed troops to the invasion force (the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland). An additional 37 countries provided some number of troops to support military operations after the invasion was complete.

Yoda out...