Barry gets a pass on Libya

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Pithy.

However, having a "plan" that is unreasonable and that you know you can't and won't follow is not planning.

I would even go so far as to say it is, "planning to fail."

Hey it sure helped the last guy and all his PNAC buddies who got rich to sell the country a large plate of BULLSHIT

Congratualtions on bashing a guy who isn't in office. Care to comment about the guy that is, or the situation at hand?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Rephrase: does anyone know what president Obama's exit strategy and time table are for Libya?

I heard an former military officer (Col, but I don't remember his name) on the radio the other day who stated that having a timetable and exit strategy for Iraq didn't imply that the war was any better planned than what's going on in Libya. He pointed out that the exit strategy and timetable for Iraq were pure fiction. Having a timetable and exit strategy for Libya, while it may be comforting, probably won't have anything to do with what actually happens.

I wish we had stayed out of the conflict in Libya, and I sincerely hope we can extricate ourselves quickly, but not having a timetable of exit strategy doesn't mean much to me.

I agree wholeheartedly. I mentioned time-tables because I seem to recall the president or one of his advisors talking about US forces being there "short term; days, not weeks,"

I really don't see how the US can get involved in every humanitarian crisis without causing the country to go under that much faster.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Pithy.

However, having a "plan" that is unreasonable and that you know you can't and won't follow is not planning.

I would even go so far as to say it is, "planning to fail."

Well, you're suggesting that not thinking about it at all is better than incomplete thinking. This can be true, but given a choice of the two, any reasonable person wants some thinking.

The fact is that thanks to the prior commitments given to us by the last guy, and the Democrats inability or unwillingness to undo it after 4 years of opportunity, we don't have the luxury of starting yet another engagement. And given that governments left and right on the Med coast are shooting their people, it sets a precedent we can't possibly maintain.

This was an opportunity for the Arab League to take care of itself. But as most of them fear an end result where Gaddafi remains in power, none of them will do a thing, yet want the US and the other European powers to take on all of the responsibility and blame.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Pithy.

However, having a "plan" that is unreasonable and that you know you can't and won't follow is not planning.

I would even go so far as to say it is, "planning to fail."

Hey it sure helped the last guy and all his PNAC buddies who got rich to sell the country a large plate of BULLSHIT

Congratualtions on bashing a guy who isn't in office. Care to comment about the guy that is, or the situation at hand?

Care to comment on your support for the last guy who did far worse.... without a peep from you or your fellow travellers.....

WHY DAT???

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Pithy.

However, having a "plan" that is unreasonable and that you know you can't and won't follow is not planning.

I would even go so far as to say it is, "planning to fail."

Hey it sure helped the last guy and all his PNAC buddies who got rich to sell the country a large plate of BULLSHIT

Congratualtions on bashing a guy who isn't in office. Care to comment about the guy that is, or the situation at hand?

Care to comment on your support for the last guy who did far worse.... without a peep from you or your fellow travellers.....

WHY DAT???

Apparently the right wing has forgotten all the Clinton bashing they did (and continue to do) after he left office.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Pithy.

However, having a "plan" that is unreasonable and that you know you can't and won't follow is not planning.

I would even go so far as to say it is, "planning to fail."

Hey it sure helped the last guy and all his PNAC buddies who got rich to sell the country a large plate of BULLSHIT

Congratualtions on bashing a guy who isn't in office. Care to comment about the guy that is, or the situation at hand?

Care to comment on your support for the last guy who did far worse.... without a peep from you or your fellow travellers.....

WHY DAT???

Apparently the right wing has forgotten all the Clinton bashing they did (and continue to do) after he left office.

Its the lack of blow jobs..... they still begrudge the man all those blowjobs.

The right wing.. always has been and apparently always will be a sad bunch of cockblockers ... if they can't get none.. no other guy should be getting some.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Congratualtions on bashing a guy who isn't in office. Care to comment about the guy that is, or the situation at hand?

Care to comment on your support for the last guy who did far worse.... without a peep from you or your fellow travellers.....

WHY DAT???

Apparently the right wing has forgotten all the Clinton bashing they did (and continue to do) after he left office.

Its the lack of blow jobs..... they still begrudge the man all those blowjobs.

The right wing.. always has been and apparently always will be a sad bunch of cockblockers ... if they can't get none.. no other guy should be getting some.

Impressive thread hijack (and another good example of jeanne's obsession with politicians' sexual kink). I could give a shit about what you say the rightwing did. Can you point to a post where I used a D to excuse the wrong acts of an R president? Then your point is a worthless dodge. Are either of you going to comment on President Obama, Libya, American intervention into humanitarian crises, or how this is different?

Or will you run and hide behind "Bush did it first" and "Republicans hid behind 'Clinton did it first'"? Both show intellectual dishonesty and inability to address the issue at hand.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[DanG 1]

I actually agree with everything you say. I don't think we should be involved, I think it sets a bad precedent (just like Iraq), and I think we'll be stuck there far longer than we want. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprized if there is a plan (in fact I'd be surprized if there isn't) but I doubt that whatever plan there is has anything to do with what will actually transpire.

- Dan G

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

.....you going to comment on President Obama, Libya, American intervention into humanitarian crises, or how this is different?

I'm not a fan of our involvement in Libya but I certainly see it as very different from our involvement in Iraq. We were sold a bill of goods WRT Iraq. There is no hindsight involved because we had the information to prove that the crap we were sold was indeed crap. The national dialog just decided not to exclude most of it.

In contrast, the actions in Libya demanded quick attention to avoid additional slaughter. Obama also approached it pretty much as he promised he would handle his foreign policy. Instead of taking a unilateral approach and after a request for help by the Arab League he joined a coalition (note the word "joined" as opposed to buying off one member at a time). Also, his desire was to provide help and then hand off the operation to others. Whether that's actually possible is my biggest question.

So while I'm disappointed that we're involved I don't think it was necessarily the wrong thing to do. And I certainly don't agree that anyone can equate this action in Libya with our our multi-trillion dollar, trumped up "war of choice" in Iraq.

And for the record, if Bush had nixed the Iraq BS in favor of sending troops to Darfur in 2003 I wouldn't have had a problem with it.

[Kennedy 0]

So, forget the bill of goods we were sold in regards to Iraq. Would the people supporting President Obama have supproted Bush going into Iraq on the basis of stopping slaughter of Kurds, Shi'ites (or was it Sunnis) and other people Saddam didn't like?

And for anyone who believes we should be in Libya helping out, why shouldn't we be in Syria, or Rawanda, or Liberia? Bahrain? Mali? Somalia? Or any other country where a dictator is oppressing the masses and people want to protest or fight back?

Where do they draw the line in the sand? Is there any clearly defined boundries or rationale to the "Obama Doctrine"?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

So, forget the bill of goods we were sold in regards to Iraq.

Well that does relate directly to the OP but.....ok.

Quote

Would the people supporting President Obama have supproted Bush going into Iraq on the basis of stopping slaughter of Kurds, Shi'ites (or was it Sunnis) and other people Saddam didn't like?

If he was killing his own people, like he was doing when he was our ally (or shortly thereafter) and the Arab League and NATO were asking for our help then I probably would have reluctantly agreed that it was appropriate action. I also would have been very skeptical that Bush would be eager to simply leave and hand the operations over to NATO.

Quote

And for anyone who believes we should be in Libya helping out, why shouldn't we be in Syria, or Rawanda, or Liberia? Bahrain? Mali? Somalia? Or any other country where a dictator is oppressing the masses and people want to protest or fight back?

Where do they draw the line in the sand? Is there any clearly defined boundries or rationale to the "Obama Doctrine"?

First of all, drawing lines in the sand and acting unilaterally was what Obama campaigned against. Secondly, we still have to walk a fine line with regard to our alliances. Are we going to attack Bahrain or are we going to keep our mouths shut and continue to operate out of our base there? And finally, we literally can't afford to draw a line in the sand. We're broke. Sadly, AQ is winning on that front. We should have picked our wars better.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Impressive thread hijack (and another good example of jeanne's obsession with politicians' sexual kink). I could give a shit about what you say the rightwing did. Can you point to a post where I used a D to excuse the wrong acts of an R president? Then your point is a worthless dodge. Are either of you going to comment on President Obama, Libya, American intervention into humanitarian crises, or how this is different?

Or will you run and hide behind "Bush did it first" and "Republicans hid behind 'Clinton did it first'"? Both show intellectual dishonesty and inability to address the issue at hand.

Oh and here I thought it was a guy thing.. the more power the guy has....

I know... its so hard for you to keep up.... tsk tsk tsk...

Perhaps you need some FIRST hand experience in the ME.. to get a firmer grip on reality and a historical perspective you are certainly lacking.

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

Would the people supporting President Obama have supproted Bush going into Iraq on the basis of stopping slaughter of Kurds, Shi'ites (or was it Sunnis) and other people Saddam didn't like?

If he was killing his own people, like he was doing when he was our ally (or shortly thereafter) and the Arab League and NATO were asking for our help then I probably would have reluctantly agreed that it was appropriate action. I also would have been very skeptical that Bush would be eager to simply leave and hand the operations over to NATO.

The hypothetical and the response are both kinda broken. Also, I'm not sure you'd ever get the Arab League to request action against a Ba'athist leader for going on racist rampages and killing off Kurds, Persians, Jews, etc.

Google "Operation Provide Comfort" and "Operation Northern Watch" for a look at international reactions, agreements, and disagreements on intervention throughout the 1990s.

[Guest]

Quote

Quote

.....you going to comment on President Obama, Libya, American intervention into humanitarian crises, or how this is different?

I'm not a fan of our involvement in Libya but I certainly see it as very different from our involvement in Iraq. We were sold a bill of goods WRT Iraq. There is no hindsight involved because we had the information to prove that the crap we were sold was indeed crap. The national dialog just decided not to exclude most of it.

In contrast, the actions in Libya demanded quick attention to avoid additional slaughter. Obama also approached it pretty much as he promised he would handle his foreign policy. Instead of taking a unilateral approach and after a request for help by the Arab League he joined a coalition (note the word "joined" as opposed to buying off one member at a time). Also, his desire was to provide help and then hand off the operation to others. Whether that's actually possible is my biggest question.

So while I'm disappointed that we're involved I don't think it was necessarily the wrong thing to do. And I certainly don't agree that anyone can equate this action in Libya with our our multi-trillion dollar, trumped up "war of choice" in Iraq.

And for the record, if Bush had nixed the Iraq BS in favor of sending troops to Darfur in 2003 I wouldn't have had a problem with it.

What about Afghanistan, then? Libs were saying that Afghanistan was the "right" war, and Iraq was the "wrong" war. Now they appear to be saying Afghanistan is the "wrong" war. Does this mean Libya is the "right" war now? I'm so confused.

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

What about Afghanistan, then? Libs were saying that Afghanistan was the "right" war, and Iraq was the "wrong" war. Now they appear to be saying Afghanistan is the "wrong" war. Does this mean Libya is the "right" war now? I'm so confused.

A war is like houseguests who are like fish. After 3 days, they get a bit rank.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

.....you going to comment on President Obama, Libya, American intervention into humanitarian crises, or how this is different?

I'm not a fan of our involvement in Libya but I certainly see it as very different from our involvement in Iraq. We were sold a bill of goods WRT Iraq. There is no hindsight involved because we had the information to prove that the crap we were sold was indeed crap. The national dialog just decided not to exclude most of it.

In contrast, the actions in Libya demanded quick attention to avoid additional slaughter. Obama also approached it pretty much as he promised he would handle his foreign policy. Instead of taking a unilateral approach and after a request for help by the Arab League he joined a coalition (note the word "joined" as opposed to buying off one member at a time). Also, his desire was to provide help and then hand off the operation to others. Whether that's actually possible is my biggest question.

So while I'm disappointed that we're involved I don't think it was necessarily the wrong thing to do. And I certainly don't agree that anyone can equate this action in Libya with our our multi-trillion dollar, trumped up "war of choice" in Iraq.

And for the record, if Bush had nixed the Iraq BS in favor of sending troops to Darfur in 2003 I wouldn't have had a problem with it.

What about Afghanistan, then? Libs were saying that Afghanistan was the "right" war, and Iraq was the "wrong" war. Now they appear to be saying Afghanistan is the "wrong" war. Does this mean Libya is the "right" war now? I'm so confused.

mh
.

Of course you are confused... It was the right war.... had it actually been prosecuted back in 2002-2003. If we had not taken our people and gone off to Gearoge and Rummy's EXCELLENT adventure for fun an profit for the PNAC in Iraq,,,, perhaps we might have stood a chance of keeping the rest of the world on OUR side as they were after 9/11. The Conservatards took their eye off the big picture... and has cost a lot of lives squandered because THEY are not "important" enough to those who have little real respect for their fellow countrymen

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

What about Afghanistan, then? Libs were saying that Afghanistan was the "right" war, and Iraq was the "wrong" war. Now they appear to be saying Afghanistan is the "wrong" war. Does this mean Libya is the "right" war now? I'm so confused.

mh
.

Maybe you have forgotten what happened on Sept. 11, 2001.

You are only confused because you choose to be.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Didn't this whole US Military + NATO involvement start as a way to protect Libyan civilians from being murdered by Khadafi loyalists? Wasn't this the mission? To protect the civilians? Yet now we hear ... no it's about regime change ... no it's about removing Khadafi from power. Personally I think Muammar is a few birds short of being a sane person. Heck you can go back to the 1980s when Khadafi was acting like a loony bird. But you know damn well if the shoe was on the other foot, you know damn well that if an Elephant was in the White House instead of the present Donkey, certain people around here would be going absolutely ape shit about this new war the war mongers got the US into. But since it is a Donkey who has ordered cruise missiles to strike Libyan targets, since it is a Donkey who has ordered air strikes, since it is a Donkey who has ordered the CIA to enter Libya, all is well in the military industrial complex. Oh the irony ...

Question: Will Barack Obama win another Nobel Peace Prize for this new war of his? Will Barack Obama win another Nobel Peace Prize if he succeeds in assassinating Khadafi? As Robert stated the other day, no other Nobel Peace Prize winners (combined) have fired as many cruise missiles than Barack Obama has ordered fired. I wonder if the people in Norway who select these Nobel Peace Prize winners are now second guessing themselves.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[brenthutch 444]

The confusion with Libya is because it is nuanced it contains both elements of pragmatic US national interests (oil) and principled humanitarian considerations The right will employ US military might when our national self interest are at stake. The left will do so when our values are. This is not a slam on the left, I have some principled left wing friends that truly believe, using US military might for our selfish national interests is immoral, that the true high ground lies in helping others with no expectation of gain. I respect this point of view. Libya contains elements of both.
If a Republican were in office this would be easy; a few effigies of the president as Hitler and some "no blood for oil" posters. But because we have an anti war Nobel peace prize laureate in the Whitehouse it is more complicated. We don’t have a war we have a clear goaled, resolution enforcing, people protecting, humanitarian crisis averting, no flying, no boots on the ground kinetic military action. And hypocrisy on both sides is coming back to haunt.

[brenthutch 444]

Afghanistan is another example of this right vs. left reason for war. We went into Afghanistan because of 9/11 (right wing) but we are staying there because of the fear over the humanitarian repercussions if we left. (left wing)
The power move would have been to do nothing after 9/11.
The costs to the reaction to 9/11 are out of all per portions to the actual attack itself. It is interesting to note that the damage caused by the flu virus is caused by the body reaction to the virus and not to the virus its self.

America is by far the most powerful nation on earth. No country, ideology, economy or religion can destroy the United States. The only force capable of doing that, is the United States, and unfortunately we are doing an all to good job of doing so.

Disclaimer: Just had knee surgery and the wine and vicodins are responsible for any crazy ramblings.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Afghanistan is another example of this right vs. left reason for war. We went into Afghanistan because of 9/11 (right wing) but we are staying there because of the fear over the humanitarian repercussions if we left. (left wing)
The power move would have been to do nothing after 9/11.
The costs to the reaction to 9/11 are out of all per portions to the actual attack itself. It is interesting to note that the damage caused by the flu virus is caused by the body reaction to the virus and not to the virus its self.

America is by far the most powerful nation on earth. No country, ideology, economy or religion can destroy the United States. The only force capable of doing that, is the United States, and unfortunately we are doing an all to good job of doing so.

Disclaimer: Just had knee surgery and the wine and vicodins are responsible for any crazy ramblings.

That was excellent, one of the most lucid posts I've read here in a long time.

Wine and vicodin all around!!