The US attacks yet another country that has not attacked us

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

[Jamisjockey]

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.

[Doggy Daddy]

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

DD

[mtnbkr]

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

[Perd Hapley]

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.

[Monkeyleg]

Of course not, there's no oil in NK.

Right. No blood for oil.

[MicroBalrog]

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?

[Doggy Daddy]

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

[MillCreek]

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.

[mtnbkr]

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

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

That ain't inconsistency; it's cost/benefit analysis. And it makes perfect sense.

Exactly right.

[Perd Hapley]

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.

[roo_ster]

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.

[MicroBalrog]

Apologies, haven't seen the other thread.

[roo_ster]

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?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

[MillCreek]

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.

[Jamie B]

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.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.  

[Jamie B]

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.

[makattak]

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.)

[Jamie B]

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.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

any of you young ones familiar with the story of how the shah took over from his dad?  and the us role?

[MicroBalrog]

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.