Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Levant on March 19, 2011, 04:23:21 PM
-
So how was Libya a threat to the US, France, or Great Britain? And what is a "Coalition of the willing"? Aren't any gang or group of bullies in any school just a coalition of the willing?
-
we attacked? when?
-
Turn on CNN
-
Started this morning. Hitting AA sites with 110 cruise missles.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Berlin_discotheque_bombing
Revenge is a dish best served multiple times.
May G-man die in a fire, and do it soon. And may we leave the area immediately after this is over.
-
SON OF A GUN ! never thought obama had the nerve
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Berlin_discotheque_bombing
Revenge is a dish best served multiple times.
Well, that certainly justifies it. This is just a 25-year-late response to terrorism.
SON OF A GUN ! never thought obama had the nerve
That is why he's the Bushmill President.
-
...he did it? Damn.
-
And that is a good thing?
-
And that is a good thing?
No, it's not.
Once we get bored of meddling in the affairs of Libya, maybe we can use more bombs to enforce what we think is right on yet another country. Lets make sure to choose one that is not a direct problem for our country. Like lets skip the Mexican border and attack Guatemala!!!!
-
"Operation Odyssey Dawn"
The US, GB and France are taking out air defense batteries on the coast, moving tanks
and strategic spots in Tipolis.
I didn't see that one coming. Tunesia, Egypt, Japan and now a full blown attack against Gaddafi.
Here is to him and his sons matching Saddam's end.
-
I didn't see that one coming. Tunesia, Egypt, Japan and now a full blown attack against Gaddafi.
Here is to him and his sons matching Saddam's end.
Do the ends justify the means? The US in yet another war? Anyone the US Government doesn't like gets overthrown? I wonder how Obama would respond to armed protests in the US. Would he send troops on Americans or would he step down? And if he failed to step down would Great Britain and France attack the US?
-
Oh god, the whining. I guess I'm the last hawk left here. I'm sick and tired of the hand wringing over protecting the poor misguided military children. They volunteered, they want to be there. Or, if they joined for the college money, ha ha, you deserve what you get.
Now, on Team America, World Police. Ok, have it your way isolationists. Let's bring them all home. I'm sure some other benevolent great power will spring up to protect the sea lanes, keep tinpot dicators from getting too bold and such. I'm sure they'll patch countries back together and leave them better than they found them, I'm sure that they will be lousy imperialists just like us. Or maybe.... Maybe yet another crazy dictator will arise, take over half the world, kill 10-20 million of his own and then 3 years too late we will fight him after we finish re-arming and re-training a military that both has boots and can pour piss out of them. And once again the cost in American lives will be lighter than everyone else but will be hundreds of thousands. I'd prefer to keep conflicts small personally, but it is proving a negative, we see a few dead servicemembers now and you can't prove to someone that the cost of isolationism would be much, much higher. Someone will police the world when we don't, the terms will not be near as favorable as us doing it.
Now Libya in particular. It is a legitimate question whether we should intervene. I personally fall into the adjust their mean sea level camp. It would be fine if we publicly said that it was an internal Libyan affair and we would do nothing. I find that morally wrong, but again, within our rights as a nation with no direct interest there. The chilling effect of people getting bombed by their own government no longer looking to the USA for help is pretty huge though, as is the void for some helpful little jihadis to step in, oppose the dictator and win a ton of hearts and minds.
But, as I said, legitimate decision whether or not we should be there. A decision that needed to be made on about day 2 of it being revealed he was sending attack aircraft against mobs of his own people, not 4 weeks later. Everyone knows that the "rebels" looked to us and Europe for help. It should have been a clear answer yes or no early, not leave them hanging, fighting with the hopes we'd save them. Sit with our thumb up our arse until everyone else says we got to do something, that's that good old USA leadership that made us great.
-
SON OF A GUN ! never thought obama had the nerve
He didn't. He was waiting on the UN, the Arab League, and the EU to tell U.S. to act.
-
good point still surprised he pulled the trigger woulda loved to be a fly on the wall
-
good point still surprised he pulled the trigger woulda loved to be a fly on the wall
Don't worry, I'm sure he would have asked your opinion if you were. Wanted everyone else's opinion.
-
yea you see it the same way.... that way you can blame it on the fall guy dujour
-
Oh god, the whining. I guess I'm the last hawk left here. I'm sick and tired of the hand wringing over protecting the poor misguided military children. They volunteered, they want to be there. Or, if they joined for the college money, ha ha, you deserve what you get.
Well, you're defending a point that was never made. Even so, I find it odd that someone would think it's ok to kill volunteers. But no ground forces have been involved and no US troops have been in any danger so no one has made any such argument.
Now, on Team America, World Police. Ok, have it your way isolationists. Let's bring them all home. I'm sure some other benevolent great power will spring up to protect the sea lanes, keep tinpot dicators from getting too bold and such. I'm sure they'll patch countries back together and leave them better than they found them, I'm sure that they will be lousy imperialists just like us. Or maybe.... Maybe yet another crazy dictator will arise, take over half the world, kill 10-20 million of his own and then 3 years too late we will fight him after we finish re-arming and re-training a military that both has boots and can pour piss out of them. And once again the cost in American lives will be lighter than everyone else but will be hundreds of thousands. I'd prefer to keep conflicts small personally, but it is proving a negative, we see a few dead servicemembers now and you can't prove to someone that the cost of isolationism would be much, much higher. Someone will police the world when we don't, the terms will not be near as favorable as us doing it.
Well, again, no one has made these arguments about attacking Libya - at least not in this thread. You're defending an un-attacked position.
Now Libya in particular. It is a legitimate question whether we should intervene. I personally fall into the adjust their mean sea level camp. It would be fine if we publicly said that it was an internal Libyan affair and we would do nothing. I find that morally wrong, but again, within our rights as a nation with no direct interest there. The chilling effect of people getting bombed by their own government no longer looking to the USA for help is pretty huge though, as is the void for some helpful little jihadis to step in, oppose the dictator and win a ton of hearts and minds.
But, as I said, legitimate decision whether or not we should be there. A decision that needed to be made on about day 2 of it being revealed he was sending attack aircraft against mobs of his own people, not 4 weeks later. Everyone knows that the "rebels" looked to us and Europe for help. It should have been a clear answer yes or no early, not leave them hanging, fighting with the hopes we'd save them. Sit with our thumb up our arse until everyone else says we got to do something, that's that good old USA leadership that made us great.
At least now you've brought it on topic. But how do we have the right to attack a country dealing with civil unrest? If we have civil unrest or protests in this country are you suggesting that the Government should step down and leave the country in the hands of a few rebels? And if it is government genocide that we are so valiantly defending against, then wouldn't Sudan be a better target for our military "protection"?
Instead, following on the huge successes in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're going to make the world a safer place by attacking Libya. I'm sure Syria is next.
-
Unbroached subjects, think of it as a pre-dawn preemptive strike. I've heard all this before. >:D
I'm one of those volunteers. My only regret about my military service is I was never the guy with the trigger. I've done no-fly zones all over the world. Some people just need killing.
Well, again, no one has made these arguments about attacking Libya - at least not in this thread. You're defending an un-attacked position.
Also, in light of your baitish looking OP, I can feed the troll whatever I got right? Everything I addressed was implied in your OP and title.
And if it is government genocide that we are so valiantly defending against, then wouldn't Sudan be a better target for our military "protection"?
Instead, following on the huge successes in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're going to make the world a safer place by attacking Libya. I'm sure Syria is next.
Hey we agree on something! Yeah it was pretty lame ass of us to sit around and avoid any eye contact with reality all the years that people got slaughtered in Rwanda, Darfur and such. Economic sanctions do little to failed economic states, harsh words even less. Also, I think we put in a good turn in Iraq and Afghanistan. Glad you do too.
-
He didn't. He was waiting on the UN, the Arab League, and the EU to tell U.S. to act.
Yep. FRANCE was making him look bad.
And I might agree with the neutral/isolationist sentiments. America as some sort of ginormous libertarian Switzerland is appealing... However, we grabbed the tail of the world-cop tiger long ago and letting go now would only hurt us now.
-
Distinctly mixed feelings on this.
1. Khadaffi is not our friend. Berlin disco bombing. Lockerbie bombing. Khadaffi was up to his eyebrows in both. We should have taken him out YEARS ago. But we didn't.
2. It's not at all clear to me that the rebels/revolutionaries/whatever are going to be an improvement. Do we REALLY want a Moslem Brotherhood/Al Qaeda/Taliban government to form in Libya? This MAY be a case of "better the devil you know . . . "
3. We're effectively in a state of war with Libya. If Khadaffi has any operatives here, they can put uniforms on and . . . do something nasty. And when we catch them, they'll have to be treated as ordinary POWs. Not that we should avoid necessary action because of retaliation fears, just that we really need to think about what we're doing and be prepared if the enemy, for some reason, doesn't co-operate.
-
But how do we have the right to attack a country dealing with civil unrest? If we have civil unrest or protests in this country are you suggesting that the Government should step down and leave the country in the hands of a few rebels? And if it is government genocide that we are so valiantly defending against, then wouldn't Sudan be a better target for our military "protection"?
What a bizarre example of moral equivelance. Gadhafi is a thug and a tyrant/terrorist. His people are revolting --supposedly -- because they want to oust him and obtain a more just government. Would you have taken Hitler's side in WW2? ??? ???
So how was Libya a threat to the US, France, or Great Britain? And what is a "Coalition of the willing"? Aren't any gang or group of bullies in any school just a coalition of the willing?
That isn't the reason why this coalition is doing this. Gadhafi is attacking his own citizens. Does every thing we do in trying to defend civilians and deter thugs have to "threaten" us before we do something?
Go to Wiki and look up the Reverend Martin Neimueller. There's a famous quote attached to him you might learn from.
And that is a good thing?
YES
Get your head screwed on straight. Or is the rust preventing that? Opposing evil jackwagons like Gadhafi is definantly a good thing.
-
yea you see it the same way.... that way you can blame it on the fall guy dujour
Hillary's war.
-
Now that we are attacking, we need to go all the way and finish it.
What I do not like is we are allowing the UN and every other group to decide who rules a country that has not attacked any other nation. Yes, they were involved with a bombing and as such were under sanctions. When they agreed to be inspected for WMD's they pass out of those sanctions. Back to the point, what criteria is the UN going to use to determine who rules in Libya? Please don't get me wrong, Gaddafi needed a bullet between the eyes and I would not have a problem if it was a US strike team doing it. We were attacked and our soldiers killed, so we have the right to retaliate. I have no faith or trust in the UN, nor obama for that matter.
-
What a bizarre example of moral equivelance. Gadhafi is a thug and a tyrant/terrorist. His people are revolting --supposedly -- because they want to oust him and obtain a more just government. Would you have taken Hitler's side in WW2? ??? ???
It is exactly the moral equivalent. Hitler is not. Hitler invaded other countries. We didn't fight Hitler because he was killing Jews. We attacked him because he was attacking allies. Which ally did Gaddafi attack? We're not fighting Gaddafi because he's killing his people. We didn't care at all about genocide in Darfur. There have been plenty of opportunities for the US to use its military might to prevent government genocide and we have not taken any of them. This is about US financial interests alone.
There's a famous quote attached to him you might learn from.
Nice parlor trick. I know the quote. That situation is not this situation. Gaddafi has not been attacking his citizens until we encouraged the Egyptians which encouraged the Libyans.
I despise Gaddafi as much as any American might but the US cannot go around destroying civilizations to ensure our access to the world's oil. Look at Iraq. Has it worked out well for us to overthrow a Mid-Eastern dictator? Is the world a safer place? Are we winning the war on freedom otherwise known as the war on terror? Well, yes we are defeating freedom but we're not doing anything to reduce terrorism.
Get your head screwed on straight. Or is the rust preventing that? Opposing evil jackwagons like Gadhafi is definantly a good thing.
A good thing, how? It makes the world safer? Makes the Mid-East more stable? Or just because it's the moral thing to do? Well, you can't claim morality in this short term situation while completely ignoring genocide in other places.
-
Now that we are attacking, we need to go all the way and finish it.
Like in Iraq? Or Afghanistan? Or Vietnam? Or Korea? Other than Grenada, we haven't "finished" anything in a very long time. Every time we get involved in these things, the world and the US become less safe.
-
A good thing, how? It makes the world safer? Makes the Mid-East more stable? Or just because it's the moral thing to do? Well, you can't claim morality in this short term situation while completely ignoring genocide in other places.
So your argument is, because America doesn't have military force great enough to completely overrun all the middle eastern crapholes at ones, you shouldn't even try?
Like in Iraq?
Cough. America is winning Iraq by any kind of military measure.
Korea
Do explain how Korea made the US less safe.
Well, yes we are defeating freedom but we're not doing anything to reduce terrorism.
What are your statistics for that? How many terrorist attacks have been committed against Western or pro-Western targets in 2010 as compared to 2006? 2005?
-
The only thing that bothers me is the hypocrisy.
Bush removes saddam. "ZOMGILLEGALWESHOULDNTBEREMOVINGDICTATORSITSNOTOURJOB"
Obama strikes Libya. No problems.
-
Like in Iraq? Or Afghanistan? Or Vietnam? Or Korea? Other than Grenada, we haven't "finished" anything in a very long time.
Iraq is well on it's way to home rule. More than likely you are too young to remember but it took years of rebuilding before Germany and Japan were truly self sufficient. Afghanistan, well, we are still working on that one. Obama, when running for office said that was where we should be focusing our efforts. Vietnam, well the politicians lost heart and hamstrung the military, causing us to fail. Korea, was the UN mandate ever to march to the Chinese border? We were to defend the South Koreans.
Every time we get involved in these things, the world and the US become less safe.
Really, have we been attacked since 9/11? The middle eastern only understands and respects the big stick. You hit them until they know you mean business.
-
The only thing that bothers me is the hypocrisy.
Bush removes saddam. "ZOMGILLEGALWESHOULDNTBEREMOVINGDICTATORSITSNOTOURJOB"
Obama strikes Libya. No problems.
Senator Barack Obama, December 20, 2007, “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.”
you forgot Clinton in the Bosnia/Croat thing. ... but you're correct if a Dem attacks another country its all good/needed to be done sooner if a Repub attacks then its an unprovoked attack illegal war for OIL!
-
'Bout damn time. The world will be a better place without Ghadafi. Let's hope our dithering President hasn't squandered this golden opportunity by delaying too long.
Thankfully there are stronger men in France and England willing to hold Barry's feet to the fire. God help us these next two years, and let's hope we get some leadership back into the White House in 2012.
-
The world will be a better place without Ghadafi. Let's hope our dithering President hasn't squandered this golden opportunity by delaying too long.
Thankfully there are stronger men in France and England willing to hold Barry's feet to the fire. God help us these next two years, and let's hope we get some leadership back into the White House in 2012.
I agree he's a *expletive deleted*che. I just hate that this *expletive deleted*it is "OK" when a dem does it, and evil when a republican does it.
I'm all for kicking Libya's ass. If we sent ground troops in tomorrow i'd volunteer immediately.
The asskicking doesn't bother me... the hypocrisy does.
-
The only thing that bothers me is the hypocrisy.
Bush removes saddam. "ZOMGILLEGALWESHOULDNTBEREMOVINGDICTATORSITSNOTOURJOB"
Obama strikes Libya. No problems.
Very nice very true.
A little incomplete though. Venturing outside of Libya it's like the guy has a book called My 100 most favoritist dumbest plays by G.W. Bush and yet no one calls him on it from his own camp. I mean I'm glad he closed Gitmo and all but eventually he's got to stand up and be his own President.
-
correct me if I'm wrong but he didn't close gitmo
-
It is exactly the moral equivalent. Hitler is not. Hitler invaded other countries. We didn't fight Hitler because he was killing Jews. We attacked him because he was attacking allies. Which ally did Gaddafi attack? We're not fighting Gaddafi because he's killing his people. We didn't care at all about genocide in Darfur. There have been plenty of opportunities for the US to use its military might to prevent government genocide and we have not taken any of them. This is about US financial interests alone.
Where did I say Gaddafi had "attacked" anyone outside of his own country? Stop moving goal posts all around. We don't have to "care" about Darfur as some bizarre prerequisite to stopping Gaddafi from bombing his own people.
And we don't get oil from Libya, but some parts of europe do, so it is not about "our" financial interests, atleast so far as oil is concerned.
Nice parlor trick. I know the quote. That situation is not this situation. Gaddafi has not been attacking his citizens until we encouraged the Egyptians which encouraged the Libyans.
So England, France and Italy can't help prevent Gaddafi from attacking his own people because "we encouraged the Egyptians"?? :facepalm: How does THAT justify what Gaddafi is doing -- and if IT DOESN'T justify it, then why SHOULDN'T Gaddafi be stopped?
I despise Gaddafi as much as any American might but the US cannot go around destroying civilizations to ensure our access to the world's oil. Look at Iraq. Has it worked out well for us to overthrow a Mid-Eastern dictator? Is the world a safer place? Are we winning the war on freedom otherwise known as the war on terror? Well, yes we are defeating freedom but we're not doing anything to reduce terrorism.
A good thing, how? It makes the world safer? Makes the Mid-East more stable? Or just because it's the moral thing to do? Well, you can't claim morality in this short term situation while completely ignoring genocide in other places.
We aare not destroying civilizations. You impute far too much power to us, and we're only just nominally in charge of what is happening in Libya. We're not "defeating" freedom. Thats utter BS from out of the heart of Moveon.com.
If we don't settle what's going on in Iraq, we may very well leave the place more unstable than it is -- and that region has never been really stable in a looong time. " ... you can't claim morality in this short term situation while completely ignoring genocide in other places." ??? So I take it you're saying that unless we can make the whole world genocide free we can't stop any genocide or killings anywhere? You have GOT to be kidding me.
You don't even want to stop this "genocide." You want the world to allow it to continue unabated. What the ***** kind of "morality" is that?
-
correct me if I'm wrong but he didn't close gitmo
I know he didn't. =D
-
Correct that we have no business in Libya.
If our Arab allies have such a need for us to assist, they can immediately begin to pump more oil first.
What have all of our 'allies' done for us lately? Not much.
There are many bad people / countries in the world. It is not our job to take them on.
We cannot afford the cost, nor the loss of American lives.
-
The US attacks yet another country that has not attacked us
Toppling a regime does not qualify as attacking a country. Get your facts straight.
There is no moral need to wait for the other guy to hit first. Get your morality straight.
-
Obama has had his Bay of Pigs moment, like another Democrat from about 50 years ago... Hopefully his encouragement, and subsequent lack of activity, will be remembered by historians. The "rebels," including women and children, have racked up an estimated 15,000+ dead because of this... As great a tragedy, if not greater, than what is happening in Japan.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gunshopfinder.com%2Firaq_sign.jpg&hash=b06be25f8c0d7056489c1e56d2374b58b516ebd5)
-
I'll refrain from making any comments other then I've been waiting a long time for Kh...Qa....Ghadfadi to get his. Since that SOB damn near killed me.
And from what I understand we simply degraded his Air Defenses so that we (and I mean the Arab world, Europe and the UN, dragging us along) can impose a no-fly zone so that things can be sorted out mano-a-mano on the ground.
-
It's not at all clear to me that the rebels/revolutionaries/whatever are going to be an improvement. Do we REALLY want a Moslem Brotherhood/Al Qaeda/Taliban government to form in Libya?
I think this is an important point that is easily overlooed. Just because the rebels and the US share a common opponet (Ghadfadi) doesn't mean we have the same goals or intrests.
As to the question of defending American interests, realistically that means oil in that area. Can anyone point out to me how our last few adventures over there has lead to stability or safety of the oil supply?
-
Can anyone point out to me how our last few adventures over there has lead to stability or safety of the oil supply?
What!?
You mean that gasoline prices in the US have not dropped since we saved Kuwait? No kidding.
Saudi Arabia, our bestest buddy Arab ally, has not done much for us lately.....
They do not scratch our back, we don't scratch theirs.
-
Get your head screwed on straight. Or is the rust preventing that? .
Can we be done with the personal attacks this weekend? I've got a hangover and am not in the mood for this crap.
-
I think this is an important point that is easily overlooed. Just because the rebels and the US share a common opponet (Ghadfadi) doesn't mean we have the same goals or intrests.
Who says we need to share common goals?
Ghadafi needs to go. That's our goal and that's what we're working to bring about.
Sure, we don't know for certain that his replacement will be better. But if Ghadafi goes, we know there's at least a good possibility of improvement. We know that if Ghadafi stays there will never be any improvement.
If all it costs to oust Ghadafi is some cruise missiles and jet fuel, then this is one of the greatest bargains in the history of international conflict.
-
Who says we need to share common goals?
I'll be more blunt, we may be assisting anti-American groups to take over a country. Sounds like a bad idea to me.
-
I'll be more blunt, we may be assisting anti-American groups to take over a country. Sounds like a bad idea to me.
Whereas Qhaddafi is known as a reliable ally of the United States.
-
Kim Jong Il needs to go. He starves and tortures his citizens, possibly sells nuke secrets to our enemies, and are belligerents on a national scale. When do we attack? :D
Oh, right, they have nukes and China.
Chris
-
Kim Jong Il needs to go. He starves and tortures his citizens, possibly sells nuke secrets to our enemies, and are belligerents on a national scale. When do we attack? :D
Oh, right, they have nukes and China.
Chris
And no oil.
-
And China holds a ton of our debt, so we can't put the screws to them.
If they didn't have us by the financial nuts, don't you think the State Department wouldn't be applying pressure for China to get the little guy to toe the line?
-
Kim Jong Il needs to go. He starves and tortures his citizens, possibly sells nuke secrets to our enemies, and are belligerents on a national scale. When do we attack? :D
Oh, right, they have nukes and China.
Chris
What's yer point?
I'd fully support removing Jong Il's regime. You're right, though, he's a harder nut to crack.
Regarldess, that's no reason not to take out easier targets like Ghaddafi, when opportunity arises.
-
I'll be more blunt, we may be assisting anti-American groups to take over a country. Sounds like a bad idea to me.
Even if that's true, and we have no reason to believe that it is, then it'd still be no net loss.
-
And China holds a ton of our debt, so we can't put the screws to them.
If they didn't have us by the financial nuts, don't you think the State Department wouldn't be applying pressure for China to get the little guy to toe the line?
Of course not, there's no oil in NK.
-
So how was Libya a threat to the US, France, or Great Britain? And what is a "Coalition of the willing"? Aren't any gang or group of bullies in any school just a coalition of the willing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese)
DD
-
What's yer point?
I'd fully support removing Jong Il's regime. You're right, though, he's a harder nut to crack.
Regarldess, that's no reason not to take out easier targets like Ghaddafi, when opportunity arises.
That's my point entirely, we are inconsistent on matters of "freedom" when the task is difficult or when the populace doesn't favor our interests.
If we really favored these actions in the name of "freedom", we would be rolling in to Saudi Arabia as well.
Meh, we'll spend more money on another 3rd world shithole and have nothing to show for it. Weren't we recently complaining about debt, deficits, and spending? Those missiles aren't free...
Chris
-
That's my point entirely, we are inconsistent on matters of "freedom" when the task is difficult or when the populace doesn't favor our interests.
That ain't inconsistency; it's cost/benefit analysis. And it makes perfect sense.
-
Of course not, there's no oil in NK.
Right. No blood for oil.
-
If we really favored these actions in the name of "freedom", we would be rolling in to Saudi Arabia as well.
This is an unreasonable argument. Do you believe that just because the West ( it is not just an American operation) can't 'roll in' everywhere, we should not act anywhere?
-
This is an unreasonable argument. Do you believe that just because the West ( it is not just an American operation) can't 'roll in' everywhere, we should not act anywhere?
Agreed. Thanks, MB.
DD
-
This is an unreasonable argument. Do you believe that just because the West ( it is not just an American operation) can't 'roll in' everywhere, we should not act anywhere?
I think that when it comes to military action, we have finite resources, and thus need to pick and choose where we decide to apply military action. I have no problem with applying a cost/benefit analysis when it comes to American military force to determine if this action favors American interests substantially, and then see if other interests enter into the analysis. Other countries and politicians can be very enthusiastic when it comes to advocating for American military force to serve their own interests. After all, they are not spending the lives of their citizens and national treasury.
-
That ain't inconsistency; it's cost/benefit analysis. And it makes perfect sense.
We know what the cost is because the military ain't free, so what is the benefit? What do we get out of it? So far, all it seems to have done is bolster Obama's Hawkish street cred.
Meh, throw another trillion on the national debt to benefit another 3rd world cesspool, we've got plenty to spare.
Chris
-
That ain't inconsistency; it's cost/benefit analysis. And it makes perfect sense.
Exactly right.
-
We know what the cost is because the military ain't free, so what is the benefit? What do we get out of it? So far, all it seems to have done is bolster Obama's Hawkish street cred.
Meh, throw another trillion on the national debt to benefit another 3rd world cesspool, we've got plenty to spare.
I didn't say that the military action in Lybia makes sense. I meant the fact that we intervene in one place and not another, based on difficulty and popular support, makes sense.
Now if we had a full-on globo-cop view of foreign policy, or a strictly isolationist policy, then we would either topple every dictator or topple none of them. If we avoid those two extremes, we can choose on a case-by-case basis.
-
Even if that's true, and we have no reason to believe that it is, then it'd still be no net loss.
Well, the history of the ME is one bloody tyrant or group ousting another. Sometimes they make noise about pan-arabism, socialism, or some such modern artifice, but the end result in almost every case in the last 100 years is just one more regime that kills & tortures to stay in power. The only real change is who gets tortured.
I think a lack of enthusiasm for dictator-swapping is rational. If we had killed K-boy years ago and upended his regime for his affronts to the USA, I'd have had more enthusiasm. Ending K-boy in this manner and with this rhetoric, I suspect we will be drawn in for years to spend untold bullions propping up yet another thug who hates us and will stab us in the back once we turn off the the money spigot.
Meh, we'll spend more money on another 3rd world shithole and have nothing to show for it. Weren't we recently complaining about debt, deficits, and spending? Those missiles aren't free...
Chris
The free-as-in-free-beer unicorn fart-bombs generated by the sheer wisdom and benevolence of Obama lack the payload to inflict damage on folks willing to use actual force to stay in power.
-
Apologies, haven't seen the other thread.
-
Read this comment at althouse:
The 90s are back, baby! There's a Clinton running things and we're killing people that mean us no harm with Tomahawk missiles.
Now where the *expletive deleted*ck is my Internet bubble?
-
Well, the history of the ME is one bloody tyrant or group ousting another. Sometimes they make noise about pan-arabism, socialism, or some such modern artifice, but the end result in almost every case in the last 100 years is just one more regime that kills & tortures to stay in power. The only real change is who gets tortured.
I think a lack of enthusiasm for dictator-swapping is rational. If we had killed K-boy years ago and upended his regime for his affronts to the USA, I'd have had more enthusiasm. Ending K-boy in this manner and with this rhetoric, I suspect we will be drawn in for years to spend untold bullions propping up yet another thug who hates us and will stab us in the back once we turn off the the money spigot.
There are plenty of examples of middle eastern autocracies and monarchies that are stable and not hostile to the outside world. There's no reason to doubt that such a thing is possible in Libya once Gadhafi is outta there.
It isn't necessary for Libya to acquire a perfect leader through this operation. All we're looking for is a little justice and an improvement over Gadhafi. That's not a high bar to clear.
It would have been nice if Reagan had gotten Gadhafi back in the day, but he didn't. Gadhafi still deserves a pine box retirement, and if we can give him one today, then I say better late than never.
As for dictator swapping, why not? In this case it costs us virtually nothing, it provides some long overdue justice to a man who attacked us multiple times and killed a number of our people, and it stands a real chance of improving things. Even if the worst case scenario ensues and an equally bad dictator rises from the ashes, seeing Gadhafi finally get what's coming might serve as a poignant object lesson: Don't mess with the US! We have the power to wreck your world any time we want, and while we may not be prompt about applying that power, we have a very long memory.
I'm all for it.
-
Don't mess with the US! We have the power to wreck your world any time we want, and while we may not be prompt about applying that power, we have a very long memory.
This should be carved on a stone tablet somewhere.
-
Don't mess with the US! We have the power to wreck your world any time we want, and while we may not be prompt about applying that power, we have a very long memory.
But we do not do that.
We are piddling away time, life, and dollars in Iraq and Afganistan, where we look more ignorant than the Russian's did in Afganistan.
-
But we do not do that.
We are piddling away time, life, and dollars in Iraq and Afganistan, where we look more ignorant than the Russian's did in Afganistan.
Tell that to Saddam Hussein or Mullah Omar.
-
But no one can tell Bin Laden.
We do not need to go in, have a nice war, then spend yares and a lot of dollars rebuilding the country.
It worked so well in Iran with the Shah.
-
It worked so well in Iran with the Shah.
You mean how we back-stabbed a strong ally and got a crazy enemy instead?
Yeah, we really shouldn't oppose our strong ally, Ghadaffi. (As an aside, spellcheck wants me to fix that word to "Daffiness". Fitting.)
-
You mean how we back-stabbed a strong ally and got a crazy enemy instead
Different perspective here;
We supported him while he was in power.
His regime was perceived as brutal, oppressive, and as an American puppet by the Iranian people.
In reality, his economic recovery plan was too aggressive, which caused food shortages and inflation.
The people revolted, and his security forces were unable to quell the riots, as there were just too many people.
You can't blame the people for their towards him and the US when we were perceived as helping to shove his dictatorship down their throats.
The US has a nasty habit of getting in offensive situations without studying the culture of the people involved.
Shame that this lack of cultural knowledge in Vietnam did not teach us anything.
-
any of you young ones familiar with the story of how the shah took over from his dad? and the us role?
-
But we do not do that.
We are piddling away time, life, and dollars in Iraq and Afganistan, where we look more ignorant than the Russian's did in Afganistan.
Except for that bit where violence rates have fallen over the last few month, and casualties are far less than Russian casualties over a corresponding period of time.
-
any of you young ones familiar with the story of how the shah took over from his dad? and the us role?
Russians and Brits in the early 40's, I believe,
-
story i was told was patricide
-
Awesome. Now the Arab League is pissed off that we're actually enforcing the no fly zone.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12803222
-
Wait... aren't they the ones who asked for it in the first place?!
-
Wait... aren't they the ones who asked for it in the first place?!
I think they wanted a sternly worded letter telling Gaddafi to stop using airplanes against his people.
They didn't really mean for us to use weapons against his air defenses and C&C...
(Just further proof this was a stupid idea to begin with....)
-
Just found this...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/arab-league-asks-un-for-no-fly-zone-over-libya/2011/03/12/ABoie0R_story.html
They asked the UN for the no fly zone.
Did they think that a no fly zone can be accomplished without the destruction of air defenses?
-
Just found this...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/arab-league-asks-un-for-no-fly-zone-over-libya/2011/03/12/ABoie0R_story.html
They asked the UN for the no fly zone.
Did they think that a no fly zone can be accomplished without the destruction of air defenses?
Only as long as we use the special missles that completely spare civilian casualties and only destroy the actual hardware! :facepalm:
-
Awesome. Now the Arab League is pissed off that we're actually enforcing the no fly zone.
Screw them - they just need to shut up and pump more oil for us.
We should have kept Kuwait the last time.
-
The reason we need consistency in our decisions that we claim are based on morality is so we can earn some respect instead of being feared. All the talk about saving civilians and American interests is obviously just an attempt at justification if we are not consistent. The ones who are effectively saying “we can kill whoever we want to kill because we are powerful” are at least honest. I would call it immoral, but honest.
By the way, our government is now saying we are NOT targeting Gaddafi. We want him to step down and will destroy his military to force that step, but we aren’t aiming for him. Besides my objections on other grounds that makes no sense to me.
One more objection: I know you don’t want to hear it when it makes the desired path difficult, but there is the matter of the US Constitution requiring congress to approve a war.
-
The reason we need consistency in our decisions that we claim are based on morality is so we can earn some respect instead of being feared. All the talk about saving civilians and American interests is obviously just an attempt at justification if we are not consistent. The ones who are effectively saying “we can kill whoever we want to kill because we are powerful” are at least honest. I would call it immoral, but honest.
By the way, our government is now saying we are NOT targeting Gaddafi. We want him to step down and will destroy his military to force that step, but we aren’t aiming for him. Besides my objections on other grounds that makes no sense to me.
One more objection: I know you don’t want to hear it when it makes the desired path difficult, but there is the matter of the US Constitution requiring congress to approve a war.
We don't follow the Constitution anywhere else, why bother with that pesky little provision?
-
If this effort lasts long enough to require congressional approval, I doubt we'll have any trouble obtaining it.
-
So the second amendment is the only time the Constitution matters?
-
If you say so?
???
-
So the second amendment is the only time the Constitution matters?
With all of the rules and restrictions in place at the federal and state levels, and even more restrictions in some localities, why would anyone say the Second Amendment matters?
-
One more objection: I know you don’t want to hear it when it makes the desired path difficult, but there is the matter of the US Constitution requiring congress to approve a war.
No, it does not. It allows Congess to declare war, but it certainly does not require such a thing. Usually it is believed Congressional approval is enough for military action, such as that given for Iraq and Afghanistan.
-
No, it does not. It allows Congess to declare war, but it certainly does not require such a thing. Usually it is believed Congressional approval is enough for military action, such as that given for Iraq and Afghanistan.
There is also considerable debate as to just when such a congressional authorization is required.
There is no debate that the Prez has the authority to command the military. That the congress has authority to declare war doesn't lessen that. A conflict arises when, if at all, an order by the prez creates a state of war.
I don't think anyone except Ghadafi believes the no-fly zone is meant as an all-out war between the United States and the the state of Libya. As such, I'm comfortable that no declaration of war is necessary, and that at least during the early phases of the operation, not even an authorization of force is necessary from congress. If the operation persists for a while then an authorization would become appropriate in order for the action to continue. But we're not there yet.
To repeat what I said earlier, I trust that if this mess lasts long enough to merit an authorization from congress, such will be provided by congress.
-
No, it does not. It allows Congess to declare war, but it certainly does not require such a thing. Usually it is believed Congressional approval is enough for military action, such as that given for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Which BHO has not gotten for his latest hijinks.
To repeat what I said earlier, I trust that if this mess lasts long enough to merit an authorization from congress, such will be provided by congress.
If Libya was going out in international waters and shooting up our boys, sure, respond then & there & ask Congress for permission later. This was not an issue where American interests or citizens were at risk unless immediate action was taken.
Oh, and approval is not a foregone conclusion. A majority of bovine GOP concresscritters support it, but there are plenty of Dems who do not, who happen to be the majority on one of the chambers.
-
A noted constitutional scholar has weighed in:
"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."
Barack Obama, Dec. 20, 2007.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/
-
Oh, and approval is not a foregone conclusion. A majority of bovine GOP concresscritters support it, but there are plenty of Dems who do not, who happen to be the majority on one of the chambers.
I don't see any sound reason to doubt that an authorization can be secured. We've seen that even the most retrograde anti-American Democrat, Barack Obama, can be made to see the light eventually.
But on the off chance that the time ever arises when an authorization becomes necessary and no authorization is provided, then I would expect Barry to withdraw our forces. Only if he refuses would a violation of the constitution occur. We aren't there yet, not by a long shot.
Citing unconstitutionality as an argument against the action, when no such unconstitutionality exists, doesn't seem very sensible to me.
-
I don't see any sound reason to doubt that an authorization can be secured. We've seen that even the most retrograde anti-American Democrat Barack Obama can be made to see the light eventually.
But on the off chance that the time ever arises when an authorization becomes necessary and no authorization is provided, then I would expect Barry to withdraw our forces. Only if he refuses would a violation of the constitution occur. We aren't there yet, not by a long shot.
Citing unconstitutionality as an argument against the action, when no such unconstitutionality exists, doesn't seem very sensible to me.
Bill Clinton already crossed that bridge - dropping bombs even after Congress told him he couldn't.
Bush continued the expansion of Clinton's doctrine, which was itself built on several layers since Vietnam.
The Constitutional mandates are a sideshow - what people should be debating is whether or not this power makes any sense. I'd go so far as to say a constitutional amendment is in order to clarify the war making powers. Perhaps something like requiring a mandatory retrospective agreement from Congress for any acts of war would work, without which the President must step down.
-
Bill Clinton already crossed that bridge - dropping bombs even after Congress told him he couldn't.
Bush continued the expansion of Clinton's doctrine, which was itself built on several layers since Vietnam.
Uh, come again?
Slick Willy never got authorization, but Bush the Lesser most certainly did get authorization from Congress, after a lengthy debate. The Dems squawked like chickens when he pushed for the vote right before the election, but a majority of Dems voted for it, too, to include Senator Reporting For Duty and Senator Whitewater.
Lots of things to criticize GWB for, but failing to get Congress's approval to smash Iraq and A-stan ain't one of them.
-
Bill Clinton already crossed that bridge - dropping bombs even after Congress told him he couldn't.
Bush continued the expansion of Clinton's doctrine, which was itself built on several layers since Vietnam.
The Constitutional mandates are a sideshow - what people should be debating is whether or not this power makes any sense. I'd go so far as to say a constitutional amendment is in order to clarify the war making powers. Perhaps something like requiring a mandatory retrospective agreement from Congress for any acts of war would work, without which the President must step down.
Bush had congressional authorization for both Iraq and Afghanistan+, so not particularly applicable.
I'm not sure which Clinton incident you're referring to. He had authorization in Bosnia and Somalia, IIRC. (Or was it HW who first sent troops to Mogadishu? I misremember.) He never had authorization for bombing the aspirin factory in Sudan, but neither did he have a prohibition from congress. I'm not sure he would have needed authorization for Sudan, given that congress' role is to declare wars and fund them, and neither of those actions were required to lob in a few cruise missiles.
I would support some legal clarification on these matters. It happens far too often that politicians will twist these things around into meanings that are convenient at one time, then twist them around into the exact opposite some time later, as it suits them. Witness the Barack Obama quote above, from 2007. I doubt we need for a constitutional amendment though. Something like the war powers act would suffice, provided that a version could be written without obvious constitutional conflicts.
-
Uh, come again?
Lots of things to criticize GWB for, but failing to get Congress's approval to smash Iraq and A-stan ain't one of them.
Bush maintained that he didn't need it - it was all politics. His admin wholeheartedly and explicitly embraced the Clinton doctrine. Yes he did get approval in the end, but his policies were still to promote that kind of executive power.
-
Bush maintained that he didn't need it - it was all politics. His admin wholeheartedly and explicitly embraced the Clinton doctrine. Yes he did get approval in the end, but his policies were still to promote that kind of executive power.
If by "he did get approval in the end" you really mean "he got approval well in advance", then you'd be correct.
The Afghanistan authorization was passed by congress on Sept 14, 2001. Fighting in A-stan began October 7.
The Iraq authorization was passed by congress on October 16, 2002. Fighting began March 20, 2003.
-
Your facts are meaningless in the face of ZOMg Bush is evil!!!!1!
-
Awesome. Now the Arab League is pissed off that we're actually enforcing the no fly zone.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12803222
The Arab League is covering their bases. If this Libya business goes sour for some reason, they can tell their people that they never wanted or expected the Great Satan to do anything but enforce a no-fly zone, and this is just typical American oppression of an innocent guy like Gadaffi.
This sort of two-facedness tells me that the Middle East is ripe for democracy. :laugh:
-
Bush maintained that he didn't need it - it was all politics. His admin wholeheartedly and explicitly embraced the Clinton doctrine. Yes he did get approval in the end, but his policies were still to promote that kind of executive power.
my nominee for waffle of the year
-
The Arab League is covering their bases. If this Libya business goes sour for some reason, they can tell their people that they never wanted or expected the Great Satan to do anything but enforce a no-fly zone, and this is just typical American oppression of an innocent guy like Gadaffi.
This sort of two-facedness tells me that the Middle East is ripe for democracy. :laugh:
wow! i gotta hand it to you that was a very good summation and shows a better grasp of the reality than most of the folks we elect in dc. its great to hear it from you though i am moved to great sadness by the fact the folks in dc don't/won't get it
-
I was going by Article 1 Section 8 that says Congress shall have the power to declare War. I am aware that it also says the President shall be the Commander in Chief, and I'll readily admit I am not a Constitutional scholar so I have a simple approach to the matter. But since we were not actually invaded, or in imminent Danger, it seems in the couple of weeks it took to decide to begin acts of war he could have mentioned it to congress. If your position is that sending missiles to destroy military assets is not and act of war, please tell me at what stage does an attack become an act of war?
-
If by "he did get approval in the end" you really mean "he got approval well in advance", then you'd be correct.
What HTG wrote.
I may not like what BtL did, or how he did it, but he bent over backwards to comply with the COTUS declaration of war bits, the War Power Act bits, as well as common sense by getting Congress to sign on to the deal. Not to mention putting on a show for the savages and thugs at the UN.
BTW, bravo on uniting two (or more) posters who were at odds over another issue. Keep it up and they might call you "The Hanging Lawyer," as you manage to get all your clients tossed into the hoosegow serving maximum sentences.
-
Bush maintained that he didn't need it - it was all politics. His admin wholeheartedly and explicitly embraced the Clinton doctrine. Yes he did get approval in the end, but his policies were still to promote that kind of executive power.
Sweet baby xenu, I hope that if I'm ever charged with a crime I can get you to be my lawyer. You just don't quit, do you? Since when is 4 months in advance "in the end"?
-
"But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history." -B.O., in 2002
But I guess Gadaffi was poised to reduce D.C. to rubble, right?
-
I'm confused...
Why do we care if Bush (yay Bush! / grumblegrumble I hate Bush!) or Obama ( hopechange! / pinkocommiesissy ) is in the White House? Why can't we examine the merits of military involvement based upon the environment and American interests, rather than the politics of the office holder?
I don't care if Obama's a hypocrite on this issue, or if Bush is 100% consistent on this issue. I don't care about Obama's previous quotes on the issue, prior to understanding the international politics of the office of the President of the United States.
I'd be bagging on Bush for waiting 2 weeks and allowing the insurgency to be nearly crushed... the same as I am bagging on Obama for it. If you want to oust a dictator, then help the insurgency BEFORE they get turned into hamburger by air superiority.
And I'd be bagging on both/either of them for spending American lives on yet another dark-ages bunghole in the Middle East. Europe was happy handling this one. Way to go, guys. Let the French and the Brits handle it.
To me... there will ALWAYS be a Middle East bunghole on which to expend Western lives. At what point do we learn that it's just not worth it?
Let the West be the West. Let the dark-ages Middle East be it's nasty incestuous Caliphate. When the Caliphate comes knocking to change our lives, nuke it into extinction. Otherwise, I just don't care. Why aren't we in Burma/Myanmar? Why aren't we in half the countries in Africa? Why aren't we in Timor? Why aren't we in Western China?
Because we can't be everywhere that Democratic Injustice exists. We can't protect everyone's right to Liberty.
Also, liberty doesn't have a very good track record in places where it's "given" rather than "taken."
Some may argue that with modern technology, it's impossible for a lay militia force to overthrow a complex government with high tech military assets. It may or may not be true. Maybe Libyans have demonstrated enough resolve to earn a "leveling" of the playing field by Western military intervention against air assets. The French helped the US with naval power during the Revolutionary War. I appreciate that point.
But we've spread a LOT of democracy around. Let's let someone else do it for a bit.
-
The French helped the US with naval power during the Revolutionary War
And weapons, supplies, and training. And it wasn't in interest of helping the Continentals, it was to hurt France's enemy Great Britain.
-
"Are We Dumber Than a Hamster?" asks Mark Krikorian at ANtional Review.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262481/are-we-dumber-hamster-mark-krikorian
"The debate over whether we should invade Libya reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Lisa puts an electrode in a cupcake to see whether her brother Bart or a hamster will be the first to figure out not to touch it. The hamster figures it out after one shock, while Bart keeps grabbing at the cupcake and getting shocked, over and over and over again...
...everyone knows we’ll end up staying to pacify the country, trying in vain to reconcile one gang of cretinous barbarians with the neighboring gang of cretinous barbarians."
Read the whole thing.
-
Libyan rebels: “Now is the time of Jihad!”
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/03/20/libyan-rebels-%E2%80%9Cnow-is-the-time-of-jihad%E2%80%9D/
This will not end well.
-
Libyan rebels: “Now is the time of Jihad!”
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/03/20/libyan-rebels-%E2%80%9Cnow-is-the-time-of-jihad%E2%80%9D/
This will not end well.
I'm not worried about that.
I wish they talked about "freedom" rather than Jihad, but it seems to be the only higher calling that the Islamic world is capable of understanding.
If they implode into their own Jihads against one another for a couple decades, I'd be happy.
And if "Jihad" comes to mean "quit screwing with my chances at a happy life... I'm starving and I'm poor and I want a freakin' opportunity to accomplish to the greatest ability I can so that I can do honor upon Mohamed (peace be upon him)" then so be it. I'm okay with that sentiment.
They haven't declared Jihad against Westernism. They've declared Jihad against a tyrant.
I like that, so far.
-
Yup and Yup. I hope the costs are worth it next time we're bitching about the budget and overall state of the economy. I can accept getting mixed up in stuff like this when we're not suffering financially, but this is like buying a car after maxing out your CCs and taking out a Home Equity Loan.
Chris
-
How much do you expect this to actually cost?
You mentioned $1 trillion earlier, but I can only assume that was a joke.
-
Well....how much does a tomahawk miss le cost? We already used 120 of them....
-
How much do you expect this to actually cost?
You mentioned $1 trillion earlier, but I can only assume that was a joke.
Obama spends by the trillion, not by the billion and certainly not by the million.
-
How much do you expect this to actually cost?
You mentioned $1 trillion earlier, but I can only assume that was a joke.
No clue, but as I've pointed out, those missiles aren't free and we're using enough of them. Then there's the operational costs associated with the action (beyond the munitions).
Yes, the trillion dollar comment was a a joke (you have to ask?). Kind of seems pointless to say "throw another m/b/illion on the debt" since we do that daily without firing missiles at a 3rd world shithole.
But you do learn who's serious about debt reduction when it comes time to take shots at 3rd worlders.
Chris
-
Historical fact: At least one major Muslim religious authority refers to America's war against the Wahabbis as a Jihad and urges the faithful to be ready to help out.
-
Well....how much does a tomahawk miss le cost? We already used 120 of them....
A quick Google search claims $569K apiece when purchased, but the replacement cost could be significantly higher.
-
Historical fact: At least one major Muslim religious authority refers to America's war against the Wahabbis as a Jihad and urges the faithful to be ready to help out.
At least one major Christian religious church thinks soldiers dying is just punishment for America's lax views on homosexuality. A greater number of major religious leaders think every large natural disaster is God punshing X people for Y sinfulness.
-
A quick Google search claims $569K apiece when purchased, but the replacement cost could be significantly higher.
Plus the cost of repositioning forces to enforce the no fly zone, fuel and munitions to be expended, contractors to be paid, and I'm sure with a new crisis Obama will need to go play golf again.
-
Also, seems the no-fly coalition is falling apart.
-
Plus the cost of repositioning forces to enforce the no fly zone, fuel and munitions to be expended, contractors to be paid, and I'm sure with a new crisis Obama will need to go play golf again.
Local talk show guy called him The Puppy President. If you wanna distract him, just throw a ball in front of him.
http://www.mediabistro.com/sportsnewser/did-president-obama-wait-for-the-texas-oakland-game-before-commenting-on-libya_b6845
-
The only thing that bothers me is the hypocrisy.
Bush removes saddam. "ZOMGILLEGALWESHOULDNTBEREMOVINGDICTATORSITSNOTOURJOB"
Obama strikes Libya. No problems.
Major comparison fail. Nothing about the two situations are alike.
First off what was Iraq doing that was threatening the U.S. that we needed to invade immediately? Their involvement in 9/11? Nope, that wasn't them, that was the Saudi's and Paki's. Their WMD's? That turned out to be cherry picked nonsense. The Iraqi people weren't in open revolt being slaughtered via air strikes by Saddam. The Libya people are actively calling for international aid in setting up a no fly zone, an emissary was set to Britain a few days ago IIRC. The U.N. hadn't approved our actions in Iraqi, this time their organizing the response. The best comparison to Libya and Iraq would be after the first Gulf War in which we encouraged the people to revolt against Saddam, and when they did we left them to be slaughtered. So what about these two situations are similar again? ???
And for everyone frustrated that Obama didn't do anything sooner, I understand the sentiment but we couldn't afford to go this alone. Not politically, militarily, or financially.
1. We couldn't go into Libya with out U.N. approval or else it would have spurred talk of "American colonization of the middle east. Didn't want those accusation flying around. Heck apparently the Arab league is already upset with how where handling the no fly zone. Imagine how much worse it would have been if we hadn't have gotten their go head.
2. Our military forces are stretched thin as is, no need to explain further to this group, but we couldn't do this alone; we needed a multinational force with U.N. approval for this to work out in the long run. Nor should we be responsible for every time a dictator has to be deposed but since we are the Brightest Beacon of Freedom in the world it would be nice to help out. Set an example for other countries to follow.
3. This has already been mentioned in the thread, but fighting a war ain't cheap, and we shouldn't have to pick up the whole tab to rid the world of an unstable dictator.
If you want to criticize Obama for his lack of leadership up until this moment, go ahead. You won't hear me defending him, because it shouldn't have taken the U.N. to decided that this is the "right" thing to do before he said something, he should have been pressuring the U.N. from the minute those civilians started getting bombed, be he didn't and that is a monumental failure on his behalf. But damn, Obama's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't, theres really no pleasing some people no matter what he does.
-
They haven't declared Jihad against Westernism. They've declared Jihad against a tyrant.
Show us a Muslim nation that isn't run by a tyrant. Islam requires totalitarianism.
-
But you do learn who's serious about debt reduction when it comes time to take shots at 3rd worlders.
Damn straight.
The local school district is facing serious cuts in its budget. 10%-20% is the estimate. So, what does the district board of (misplaced) trustees do? They want the voters to approve a multi-million dollar bond package. I mentioned that maybe an economic downturn might be a poor time to take on new debt and just pay as we go. Yeah, crazy talk from roo_ster again.
-
Show us a Muslim nation that isn't run by a tyrant. Islam requires totalitarianism.
Indonesia. Mali. Kosovo. Albania. We've been through this. Islam requires no such thing.
-
Yes, all exemplary states. Right. All very enlightened. Shall we go country by country? Indonesia is a hotbed of religious conflict. Kosovo? The main drug artery leading to Europe. Albania--ask the Italians. Mali. My next vacation spot, how'd you know?
You've been through it, because you are trying so hard to convince yourself that peace is just around the corner. Maybe if I lived in Israel I'd have the same hope.
-
Yes, all exemplary states. Right. All very enlightened. Shall we go country by country? Indonesia is a hotbed of religious conflict. Kosovo? The main drug artery leading to Europe. Albania--ask the Italians. Mali. My next vacation spot, how'd you know?
You've been through it, because you are trying so hard to convince yourself that peace is just around the corner. Maybe if I lived in Israel I'd have the same hope.
Yes, all of those are exemplary states as compared to an actual dictatorship.
In the same way the United States in the 1940's still had compulsory sterilizations, racial conflict, and rigged elections - but it was miles better than the people it fought against.
-
Any country with regular semi-fair elections, even partial free speech, and a functioning legislature is in an entirely different world as compared to jackwagons who strafe protesters with CAS planes.
-
Any country with regular semi-fair elections, even partial free speech, and a functioning legislature is in an entirely different world as compared to jackwagons who strafe protesters with CAS planes.
This bears repeating.
We aren't looking for utopia in Libya, just an improvement over what's there now. Even if we end up with a new dictatorship replacing the old, so long as the new dictator doesn't murder Americans (or other foreigners) it'll be a net improvement for us (and the rest of the world).
-
Oh....just lost an F15 over Lybia. Suppossedly mechanical failure, pilots might have been rescued. What's an F15 cost again?
-
Oh....just lost an F15 over Lybia. Suppossedly mechanical failure, pilots might have been rescued. What's an F15 cost again?
With or without the decades of use they've been put through? I thought it was clear those things needed replacement when a couple disintegrated in flight when put under moderate G loads. =| I don't think you could get very much for them on the surplus market now, so another question, through it's useful lifespan, did we get our money's worth?
By the by, it's being reported that the crew were rescued by Libyan rebels. I suppose that's a good sign with regards to rebel sentiment towards America.
-
With or without the decades of use they've been put through? I thought it was clear those things needed replacement when a couple disintegrated in flight when put under moderate G loads. =| I don't think you could get very much for them on the surplus market now, so another question, through it's useful lifespan, did we get our money's worth?
Something else needs to be put up in its place, and that counts as replacement cost.
-
Something else needs to be put up in its place, and that counts as replacement cost.
In that cast, the F-22, at a unit cost of $150M (2009 USD), but replacing the F-15's of a ratio 5.45:1 (Approximately 1020 F-15's of various models purchased versus 187 F-22's) giving an individual replacement cost of.. Approximately $27.5M (2009 USD), which is less than the original purchase cost of $28-30M (1998 USD) or, adjusted for inflation, $36.7-39.3M (2009 USD).
So that mechanical failure was worth $27.5M going by it's replacement cost.
I still think that probably isn't wholly accurate though as the plane was utilized through out it's useful life span, rather than being lost prematurely before a full return on the original investment that was the manufacturing costs (such as the F-22 that was lost in Alaska only a year or two after rolling off the assembly line). Also it's replacement was created before the aircraft's loss or decommissioning (the F-22's), so the $27.5M individual replacement cost also doesn't really count as it was going to be spent/has already been spent regardless of the final disposition of this F-15.
*shrug* Anyone wanna tally the numbers for what it cost to go pick the crew up, properly "thanking" the rebels (hey, I'm not above monetary reward if a semi-friendly faction rescues and returns our people for us), and any modern ordnance the bird was carrying that was lost?
-
It was a mechanical failure? Did it have anything at all to do with the Libya operation?
-
It was a mechanical failure? Did it have anything at all to do with the Libya operation?
Yep. It was being flown in combat operations over Lybia. Would we have still lost the airframe elswhere? Possibly. But at least we could have sacrificed it in the actual defense of our assets and nation.
Dear China:
Can we borrow some money to go around the world overthrowing despotic leaders who kill off thier own people? Oh...wait.... :lol:
-
So if that faulty fighter had met its end during a joyride somewhere over the English countryside, that would have been a good and noble use for the plane, but losing it in an operation to bring down a foreign leader who kills American servicemen and civilians is just a waste.
-
So if that faulty fighter had met its end during a joyride somewhere over the English countryside, that would have been a good and noble use for the plane, but losing it in an operation to bring down a foreign leader who kills American servicemen and civilians is just a waste.
If he wasn't bad enough to take him down 25-odd years ago (yeah, we bombed him, but didn't or couldn't finish the job), or again less than a decade ago, why now? Why are Libyans so precious we have to waste our resources to topple this guy?
Chris
-
If your question is "why now?" then the answer is simple. Because it's never going to be easier than it is right now.
There's a bit more to it than that, but that's the immediate and obvious answer.
-
By the by, it's being reported that the crew were rescued by Libyan rebels. I suppose that's a good sign with regards to rebel sentiment towards America.
it endears them to my heart but historically we've not always lived up to our obligations to those that helped us like this. ho chi minh comes to mind.
or these folks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AiyFF9qOls
-
Nobel Committee asked to strip Obama of Peace Prize (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/304909)
By Joseph E Lovell.
The Bolivian President and a Russian political leader have launched a campaign to revoke Obama's honour after the US attacked Libya.
Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/304909#ixzz1HLObv3DJ
Works for me.... >:D
-
If your question is "why now?" then the answer is simple.
BHO understands we have no interest in their tribal warfare and it is boob bait for a whole lot of not-so-conservatives?
Also, combat operations are a wee bit more taxing on equipment, what with the enemy shooting real bullets. Also, no friendly airfields to land on as there likely would be somewhere over Airstrip One.
-
Also, combat operations are a wee bit more taxing on equipment, what with the enemy shooting real bullets. Also, no friendly airfields to land on as there likely would be somewhere over Airstrip One.
Just what equipment has been shot up over Libya?
-
Works for me.... >:D
Do you know who Zhirinovsky is?
The clowns in your local circus are about as relevant to foreign policy. Albeit less entertaining.
This is Zhirinovsky. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbKuYPVQuOk) NSFW for language and disgusting racist talk. This is how this man actually acts.
-
Just what equipment has been shot up over Libya?
Even if Muomar's boys never manage to shoot down one of our jets, the risk of total loss of equipment is greater during combat operations over enemy territory.
1. Increased optempo that allows whatever probabilities govern non-enemy-caused mechanical failure more opportunities.
2. Increased optempo likely cuts into PM or precludes more extensive evaluation of equipment given a lesser optempo.
3. Increased probability of failure to harder use, due to reaction to increased number of threats and/or greater magnitude of those reactions.
4. In the event of a non-catastrophic failure, there is nowhere safe to land one of our jets. Enemy airfields are either cratered or still in the hands of Muomar. If they were flying over DFW, there are about 20 airfields they could land at, recover the aircraft, and repair it.
This is not rocket science, folks.
-
If he wasn't bad enough to take him down 25-odd years ago (yeah, we bombed him, but didn't or couldn't finish the job), or again less than a decade ago, why now? Why are Libyans so precious we have to waste our resources to topple this guy?
Chris
Again, we see a confusion about "consistency."
-
Do you know who Zhirinovsky is?
The clowns in your local circus are about as relevant to foreign policy. Albeit less entertaining.
This is Zhirinovsky. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbKuYPVQuOk) NSFW for language and disgusting racist talk. This is how this man actually acts.
:O What a buffoon! ;/ ;/
-
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/03/drones-suicidal-cousins/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher
From the above article:
From the outside, the Block IVs look much like their predecessors: a little over 20 feet long, and about 3,300 pounds. Like the older models, they’re still expensive, too — at about $1.1 million a pop, the initial assault on Libya chewed through $134 million in missile costs alone. They can fly for about two hours or 1,000 miles, whichever comes first.
Still a heck of a lot cheaper than losing expensive personnel and aircraft. Aircraft can be replaced. Personnel not so much.
-
Related to topic:
http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=592071&vId=
Bolivian President Evo Morales has called for US President Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize to be revoked following his decision to attack Libya.
:laugh:
It's funny to see all these people treating Obama like they did Bush. I wonder what DU's saying about this.
-
Related to topic:
http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=592071&vId= :laugh:
It's funny to see all these people treating Obama like they did Bush. I wonder what DU's saying about this.
Maybe we can all find some common ground out of all this. Like: "Let's not spend American lives and American gold FRN on pacifying 3rd world hellholes that have chosen to be 3rd world hellholes for the last 100 years."
-
Don't forget the opportunity cost.
While we're making the world safe for anti-Gadafi-tribal cretins, we are not supporting dissident groups in countries that are a much greater threat to the USA, like those in Iran or in Syria, which has also chosen to kill some of its protesters, recently.
-
The saudis and the other gulf states have contributed more to Islamic terrorism than any other states in the world - we should be cheering those protestors instead of letting the medieval clerics put them down.
The Libya mission is a clear Obama leadership failure - there's no clear goal being explained to the public. The refusal to come out and take sides is bizarre; everyone knows we're trying to get rid of qhaddafi. Why not just say so and demand that his army defect or face bombing in any place?
-
The saudis and the other gulf states have contributed more to Islamic terrorism than any other states in the world - we should be cheering those protestors instead of letting the medieval clerics put them down.
The Libya mission is a clear Obama leadership failure - there's no clear goal being explained to the public. The refusal to come out and take sides is bizarre; everyone knows we're trying to get rid of qhaddafi. Why not just say so and demand that his army defect or face bombing in any place?
I think hell might have frozen over. Can someone check?
I find myself in complete agreement with De SS.
Most important parts highlighted.
-
The Libya mission is a clear Obama leadership failure - there's no clear goal being explained to the public. The refusal to come out and take sides is bizarre; everyone knows we're trying to get rid of qhaddafi. Why not just say so and demand that his army defect or face bombing in any place?
I think you're exactly right. Obama doesn't seem to know what he's doing or why. Truly, I doubt he knows why he gave the order. Because Hillary made him? To protect innocent civilians? Spread democracy? Because the UN voted unanimously to do it and he thinks he has to go along?
I fully support giving Ghaddafi a dirt nap. I think this is the best chance we're going to have to make that happen and we ought to seize it. That said, I always assumed we'd have competent leadership acting concertedly towards that end. All we have now is a dithering idiot ordering airplanes around and acting confused. If Obama doesn't get his *expletive deleted* squared away fast, then we're going to end up doing more harm than good here.
I'm surprised the senior military leadership is standing for this. Yeah, the Generals have to follow POTUS's orders, but they still should have considerable influence and clout within the White House. I can't imagine them getting behind this clusterbleep.
Does anyone remember, back during the Presidential campaigns, the bit about the 3:00am phone call and who you'd want to be sleeping in the White House to answer it? This right here is why we didn't want it to be Obama.
-
*shrug* Anyone wanna tally the numbers for what it cost to go pick the crew up, properly "thanking" the rebels (hey, I'm not above monetary reward if a semi-friendly faction rescues and returns our people for us)...
We thanked those rebels by shooting six of them, including a young boy who may lose a leg due to his wounds.
-
Interesting that O is more interested in the U.N.'s guidance than in Congressional approval.
-
Interesting that O is more interested in the U.N.'s guidance than in Congressional approval.
Can you say, "Community Organizer"?
-
We thanked those rebels by shooting six of them, including a young boy who may lose a leg due to his wounds.
Are you saying that we should never wage war lest a friendly-fire incident occur?
Are you saying the rebels would be better off if America wasn't there?
-
Are you saying that we should never wage war lest a friendly-fire incident occur?
Are you saying the rebels would be better off if America wasn't there?
It's was just meant as an interesting counterpoint to kgbs statement. The US rescuers did indeed shoot six Libyans that had gone to assist the downed airmen. This sort of thing has always happened in war, it always will, and it is damned unfortunate.
And no, I am not entirely convinced we should be there. Quackdaffy has been pretty well contained for the last decade or so. He is a nasty individual, busy raping Libya and its people, and that is truely unfortunate. But he poses no real threat to the US. Libya's problems are none of our concern.
-
I think Obama has a plan, but thinks it's clever to pretend he's just following a limited international coalition.
It isn't. Pretending there's no real war won't work. What he should have are clear goals and a lightning fast delivery.
-
I think hell might have frozen over. Can someone check?
I find myself in complete agreement with De SS.
Most important parts highlighted.
Dogs and cats living together...mass hysteria!
-
Dogs and cats living together...mass hysteria!
Thank you Dr. Venkman.
Chris
-
Obama hasn't slowed down, and is using snipers to target rebels in one of the towns. Yesterday, one of our military commanders said that all military options were on the table.
I'm starting a pool. Any bets on how long until we're on the ground there?
-
Freudian slip?
-
There is an article in today's WSJ about the F-15 crash and personnel recovery. I was interested to see that this was a TRAP mission by the Marines off the USS Kearsarge. And the interesting thing, to me, was the use of two CH-53's as top cover (along with two Harriers), but the actual landing and recovery was by one of two MV-22 Ospreys. It is nice to see the Osprey being used operationally for this sort of tactical mission.
-
53's as top cover? That's kind of....odd...maybe they had more troops on board as back up....but 53's are lightly armed at best....
-
Lemme help you with that..
53's as top cover? That's kind of....odd...maybe they had more troops on board as back up....but 53's are lightly armed and huge honking targets at best....
-
So much for no boots on the ground if this is correct
http://www.wcti12.com/news/27257042/detail.html
We've seen Camp Lejuene marines in Iraq and Afghanistan and now they are joining the fight against Libya. 2200 marines from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, or 26th MEU will take part. Their mission is to help end the violence directed at the Libyan people
-
Not to worry: we've got the USMC in there now, fighting to protect Al-Q and the M. Bro'hood.
All is going according to plan on Penn. Ave.
-
So much for no boots on the ground if this is correct
http://www.wcti12.com/news/27257042/detail.html
A MEU isn't just grunts. The article states that the MEU's harriers were part of strikes against Lybian assets.
(that said, I predict boots on the ground by the end of April)
-
Since it is a NATO operation and the commander of NATO is presently a Canuck...
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/263106/libya-blame-canada-daniel-foster
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/263122/re-libya-blame-canada-mark-steyn
"...re: General Bouchard, our new Supreme Allied Commander of Kinetic Scope-Limited Action, as much as I like the idea of Canadian military commanders randomly invading Muslim nations, I feel the gig should have gone to a Mexican general. After all, the Administration pretty much insisted this is a job Americans won’t do."
One of the comments:
"A Mexican general? So you want to go from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli?"
-
Not to worry: we've got the USMC in there now, fighting to protect Al-Q and the M. Bro'hood.
All is going according to plan on Penn. Ave.
Again, the presence of a MEU isn't boots on the ground. A MEU has enough air power to take over France.
-
The leadership fail continues. To date, no clear statement of the desired outcome, and no clear policy on democracy in Arab countries.
I think the vagaries around Libya are a not-so-clever attempt to avoid displaying obvious hypocrisy towards protestors in Yemen, Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Morocco (all US allies.) All that's being accomplished is for the public to be left hanging, for Quackduffy (I like it) to continue working to destroy the revolution with his cronies, and for the rest of the Arab world to get more and more enraged with US support for their own dictators.
-
The leadership fail continues. To date, no clear statement of the desired outcome, and no clear policy on democracy in Arab countries.
See, Obama does know how to unite people coming from almost completely different points of view!
-
See, Obama does know how to unite people coming from almost completely different points of view!
True - although I've never had much good to say about Obama on this forum. In that respect, I'm not exactly coming from a different viewpoint.
-
Again, the presence of a MEU isn't boots on the ground. A MEU has enough air power to take over France.
Big deal. The Girl Scouts have enough power to take over France. [tinfoil]
-
Just one question (well, two really): when does the nation-building, at American expense, begin? And when do we start getting the Libyan refugees here in America? That's a pretty effective double-pronged strategy for taking us further along the current self-destructive course.
-
More in the annals of Islamic tyranny: Kosovo elects a woman president. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/07/kosovo-president-idUSLDE7361JI20110407)