Political & Elections

FFF · Veteran Member

Peggy Noonan's op-ed

Bogney · Senior Member

No, because WWII was a world war, and there were compelling reasons for the U.S. to be fighting in that war - Pearl Harbor, attempted genocide, and the near defeat of Eurpean allies by Hitler, an aggressor trying to overrun Europe, the USSR, and Africa.

Similar factors were not in play in Vietnam, a civil war that we chose to meddle in for faulty geopolitical reasons based on cold war paranoia - a war that we should never have been involved in, fought in a country no one in the U.S. cared about, or had any close ties to, before Kennedy decided to heat up the cold war there. North Vietnam was trying to overrun a colonial government, and then a puppet government, in South Vietnam to unify the country.

Nixon's actions in expanding the war to Cambodia and Laos are not comparable to FDR's efforts against Germany or Japan during WWII. I am surprised to learn that Nixon brought down troop levels while the war was expanded geographically (I am taking your word for that). However, even if true, that can be very misleading if overall troop levels decreased while fighting increased - that would still be an escalation. Moreover, I suspect that under Nixon the amount of bombing increased. However, it is possible that facts might interfere with my recollection - I hate it when that happens. bleh

FFF · Veteran Member

john doe wrote:
Did you get drafted and fight in the war after Nixon was elected??

How does one's draft status impact the FACT that Nixon started to scale down US troop levels almost immediately after he came into office? Short of a Dunkirk-style retreat (which certainly no one who voted for "Peace with Honor" wanted), he scaled back as rapidly as feasible.

Bogney, while you claim that Nixon broadened the scope of the war, this was a) done with fewer US troops and b) in a way that is consistent with traditional military strategy for the conduct of war - go where your enemy is and cut off his supply lines. Can you imagine FDR taking heat for "broadening the scope of WWII" because he invaded Africa rather than confine his attack on Germany proper?

john doe · Guru

Did you get drafted and fight in the war after Nixon was elected??

Bogney · Senior Member

I recollect that democrats were cold warriors starting with Truman and Korea. Kennedy and Johnson made Vietnam a democratic war. Nixon was clearly a Hawk as well and he expanded the fighting in Vietnam - nobody wanted to be the president to lose that war, an unfortunate reason to keep fighting. Reagan spoke like a hawk, and invaded Grenada, armed the Contras, and armed the Afghan tribes against the USSR, but no major wars occurred on his watch. He armed other groups to fight causes he sympathized with.

The Bushes were the republicans who really started using American military power broadly after the end of the cold war. The democratic administrations were aggressive against communist expansion to keep the USSR in check, probably overreacting to anti-communist hysteria of the right and distancing themselves from the radical left. The republican administrations have been more militaristic since the end of the cold war.

Both republicans and democrats have been responsible for the wars since WWII. It seems to me that more democrats tend to dissent against wars than republicans, but that may be a subjective impression not supported by reality. The democrats were doves during / after Johnson, which is why Nixon takes most of the blame for a war he inherited. However, he deserved a lot of the blame because he expanded the fighting before finally ending it after the peace movement exposed the lies propping up the war.

-- Edited by Bogney on Saturday 2nd of April 2011 06:15:00 PM

FFF · Veteran Member

Too bad your understanding of history is so distorted. A simple check of facts would show that Nixon started serious withdrawals of troops within months of his innauguration which continued in a serious fashion until all were gone. Your implication that they were there until 1973 and that peace talks were not started until then couldn't be more false or misleading.

john doe · Guru

Yeah - he ran in '68, saying he had a plan to get us out "peace with honor" When were the Paris Peace Accords? 1973?? His plan worked out real well especially if you were one of those who was unlucky enough to have a low draft number.

BigG · Guru

He did finally manage to extricate us from Vietnam.

A trick more modern Presidents, Democrat or Republican, seem unable to apply to their own wars.

I never though I would wax nostaligic for President Nixon. But Watergate seems like a faux paus compared with the stuff going on now.

-- Edited by BigG on Friday 1st of April 2011 08:13:28 PM

john doe · Guru

Well said! Tricky Dick was a real peacenik

BigG · Guru

Back before Reagan the Republicans were the peace party. The Democrats used to have the reputation of being the "war party".

FFF · Veteran Member

longprime wrote:
my disdain to the R's and to W almost has no bounds.
I'm almost to the place to where USA deserves its place in rank and wealth. Until the R's, W, and other blowhard politicians admit to the US and the World that they were wrong in leading the World to places that are Abysses.

Sorry, but I think your partisanship is showing. Only in revisionist history are the calls for (and votes for) war from the Democratic leadership, including their presumptive President, ignored.

Bogney · Senior Member

I think that this is one of those times when is sucks to be president. Whatever you do, or don't do, something truly awful is likely to happen including deaths of many innocents along with combatants. I think our presidents need to start being able to "just say no" to military intervention absent direct military threats to the U.S. If the military remains a major part of our foreign policy, a very muscular diplomacy, presidents will remain tempted to "fix" things with it. The military should not be our tool for "fixing" other countries, except in the sense of neutering immediate threats. This is an off shoot of interventionism - the Bush doctrine. Obama has taken that big stride across that line as well, but every administration will be tempted to do so when it appears that force can change things that they want to change. We have such an exceptional military that the temptation to use it is too great.

Where is Hillary on this supposedly? I understand that she was pushing for it which suggests that if she were in Obama's place, we would be doing the same thing. Have any politicians on the left come out against it on the basis that we should not be fighting other people's wars, and should be getting out of those that we are already in? Being against it because of a lack of clear mission, etc., seems like quibbling, not principle, to me; sort of saying that it might be okay if carried out better.

soccerguy315 · Guru

Bogney - I agree the success issue is very problematic. Obama and Clinton have repeatedly said that Qaddafi must go. Well... how are we going to make him go? If we leave before he goes, then we did not accomplish the goal.

The rebels are in no position to defeat Qaddafi's army unless the US basically does all the work. But, we are not supposed to be aggressively attacking Qaddafi according to the resolution.

If there is a stalemate between the rebels and Qaddafi, how long do we stay?

If we can pull the right diplomatic strings and Qaddafi actually leaves, there is still no guarantee that the new Libya will be any better than it was under Qaddafi.

Honestly, I am not even sure what outcome the US should be aiming for, much less sure of what steps should be taken to get to any of the outcomes I mentioned.

poetgrl · Senior Member

Yes, I feel the problem is systemic.

But, I feel that once a democrat goes in for "humanitarian" reasons, we are lost. Kind of like the republicans must have felt when they realized that Bush was running up the debt at record rates.

How do we say "no war" when we say, "war?"

Forget about all the places where the "need" us other than Lybia, heartbreaking places, much more heartbreaking to me than Lybia, where the standard of living for the average person is really quite high. Okay. I wont ramble. I just think we've now crossed a really murky line I deeply wish we hadn't walked over.

Bogney · Senior Member

Poetgrl: I agree with you that we cannot afford to keep being the world's policeman. However, the change does not mean abandoning Libyan freedom fighters when we are already in the vicinity and helping costs us little extra. The change means pulling out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. By itself, Libya is not costing much more than we are already spending. The article indicates that maintaining the military apparatus at a level where it can deal with international hotspots at a moments notice is too costly. Perhaps for you, Libya is the last straw so to speak, but pulling out of Libya will mean nothng economically without adjusting our role in international affairs. Again, I don't see the problem being Libya, the problem is systemic.

We laughed when Soviet Union bankrupted itself with its military adventurism. How do the politician not see the wheel turning to roll over us for similar reasons? Obama's mistakes include still being in the middle east so that Libya was an easy opportunity. Iraq and Afghanistan are quagmires, and some politician has to have the guts to say that enough is enough - we have achieved as much as we can afford to achieve, and if that is not enough, too bad, we're leaving.

Obama certainly has not brought the change he promised. He became too cautious and pragmatic and concerned about reelection. He refused to take stands on polarizing issues. It is bizarre that he has been successfully labelled radical left. He is very centrist, which might actually get him reelected depending upon who the teaparty / republicans / libertarians put up against him.

-- Edited by Bogney on Thursday 31st of March 2011 09:49:25 PM

longprime · Guru

my disdain to the R's and to W almost has no bounds.

I'm almost to the place to where USA deserves its place in rank and wealth. Until the R's, W, and other blowhard politicians admit to the US and the World that they were wrong in leading the World to places that are Abysses.

poetgrl · Senior Member

Bogney, if you read the link I posted, you will see my sentiments on the cost of this war.

The bottom line is that we can either be the military police for the world or we can arrive at some prosperity in our country, again. One of the points which is made in the article is that until the cold war, the US didn't spend like this on the military. Another point is that when we first began to spend like this on the military, we were responsible for a tremendous amount of prosperity and were the wealthiest country in the world. We are now #12. The country that is #12 and sinking can't afford to spend 100 million-300 million per day on higly questionable military actions, all of which are taken largely for the benefit of others, who spend nearly nothing on defending themselves.

It's just preposterous, from an economic standpoint. As for the "define success" thing? Obama isn't going to get to define his own sucess anymore than any other president gets to define success.

When I think about the last presidential election, and the talking points of the Obama campaign? Nothing remains. I will be really, really interested to see how he defends his integrity in the next election. Frankly, I wish we could have a recall like in Canada, since I believe he ought to have to defend it now.

-- Edited by poetgrl on Thursday 31st of March 2011 03:26:34 PM

Bogney · Senior Member

Defining success is the key. Of course, that is a very political problem. Success might be defined as the prevention of an imminent slaughter with the loss of few American lives. Defining success that way, the action has already succeeded, though the victory might be pyrrhic if the rebelsa and their families are systematicaly rounded up and killed after we leave. I believe that you are probably right that Obama only jumped in because we were already there and could prevent a slaughter. Should that not have been done? To me, this action is closer in kind to decisions to bomb potential terrorist strongholds than to Iraq or Vietnam - a specific situation that the administration could not ignore leading to a brief military intervention.

However, you may well be right that this action will inevitaby lead to a third large scale military entanglement that the U.S. cannot afford. I don't deny that is the possible outcome, but we are all guessing.

Obama has gone out on a limb politically because the left will certainly be loath to support military intervention, and the right has a vested interest in portraying the action as negatively as possible. Sometimes situations arise quickly that require a swift action with an uncertain outcome. The right would have castigated Obama as gutless and cruel had a slaughter occurred "around the block" from our military forces already in Iraq, etc. The dead would have been eulogized as struggling democratic patriots - the possible founding fathers of a free Libya - left to die by a weak president. I suspect that Obama calculated that the U.S. could prevent a massacre with few U.S. losses by providing air support, and the administration has been winging it since then. The initial decision was not necessarily a bad one. It could turn out very badly, but so could have the decision to simply watch what happened next.

If you define success as full and final alleviation of all of the problems of Libya, we cannot afford to be there long enough for that to happen even if we could conceivably make that happen militarily. The right seems to be on a campaign to frame the narrative that way and box Obama into that framework - onethat will inevitably lead to failure. I presume that the administration is trying to calculate the maximum impact for the minimum exposure in terms of how to proceed and what might ultimately be accomplished. That depends on a lot of factors not yet known.

busdriver11 · Guru

Certainly more forethought was given to all of those wars, though not perfectly or perhaps even well planned.....than Libya. Only reason we were able to be part of the action is because we happened to have assets right there and were ready on a moment's notice to jump into another Middle Eastern conflict. Think Libya was even on the president's mind a month ago, as a random thought? I wonder if we have ever entered a conflict so quickly, in the course of history.

"Also, Poetgrl, there is a huge difference between the present military action and a full scale war in terms of degree of military and financial committment and the length of those committments. If this turns into a full scale war, then the critics will have been proven right. We are not there yet."

So will this military action be considered a success if we manage to get out without another decades long entanglement? It will be interesting as to what a declaration of "success" will entail. It seems that nothing less than getting Gaddafi and his bad boys out, and the new administration being pro-western, with an improvement of freedoms, with minimal loss of life to our soldiers and civilians would be good enough. Plus us not having to pay the huge bills for rebuilding what we destroy. If we remove one corrupt, violent and restrictive government to replace it with just another, or support Al Qaeda in their goals, the critics will have also been proven right. Whether this turns into a full scale war is not the only measure of whether this was a huge error or not.

Bogney · Senior Member

Busdriver:

Vietnam was planned? It evolved from president to president, and one of the main criticisms was that there was no clear end game. The Vietnam vets common complaint and one of the major stressors was the inability to tell who was on their side, and who was the enemy. The scary thing is how easily this could turn into Vietnam, but it has not yet.

The "planning" for Iraq and Afghanistan was pathetic - we did not bother to have body armor or humvee armor and declared victory way prematurely without any understanding of what lay ahead. Bad planning is not necessarily better than no plan and responding ad hoc as the situation develops. I would agree that a good plan is the best option, but when does that ever happen in war? Plans tend to go out the window once the fighting starts since no one can consistently predict how particular battles will turn out and how the general population will respond to the combatants.

Also, Poetgrl, there is a huge difference between the present military action and a full scale war in terms of degree of military and financial committment and the length of those committments. If this turns into a full scale war, then the critics will have been proven right. We are not there yet.

poetgrl · Senior Member

Wasn't Johnson the last President to get us into an undeclared war?

I think I may be misguided when I think of the Democrats as the party that doesnt want a war. Maybe we are the "party that doesn't want to admit we have just entered a war."

busdriver11 · Guru

"However, events must play out further before I can condemn the action as the equivalent of those debacles."

As poorly as those debacles have or may turn out, at least they were initiated with a modicum of planning and an idea of what we were facing and whom. If Libya goes poorly, and it is obvious to everyone that we rushed into YET ANOTHER WAR when very probably the other two were costly and bad ideas.....and we didn't know what the crap we were doing, whom we were fighting with and end up giving Al Qaeda more weapons to use against us in Afghanistan?? I sure don't know what happens then.

Looking at the bright side, at least these ideologues get to learn that campaigning is alot easier than actually governing. Wonder how long that lesson will last, at the taxpayers and soldiers expense.

poetgrl · Senior Member

Putting aside any ideological arguments against the war in Lybia, of which there are many, let's just focus on the classic Econ 101 argument. Guns v. Butter.

The rest of the world gets the butter while we provide the guns. It's not a wise trade off.

http://blogs.forbes.com/beltway/2011/03/28/the-real-cost-of-u-s-in-libya-two-billion-dollars-per-day/

From the article:

There is good reason to believe that posture is no longer affordable — or more precisely, that the public is no longer willing to afford it. When the new millennium began barely ten years ago, the United States was generating roughly a third of global economic output and also sustaining about a third of worldwide military spending. Since that time, though, the two measures of power have diverged dramatically, and so today America only produces about a quarter of output while trying to sustain nearly half of military spending (over $700 billion in a global total of $1.6 trillion). In other words, five percent of the world’s population is trying to cover fifty percent of the world’s military bills with only a quarter of the world’s wealth. That’s the sort of equation that might make sense in a national emergency, but it looks untenable as a long-term proposition. Yet Pentagon policymakers say they can’t make ends meet for much less money, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates asserted last year that when it comes to deficit reduction, “we are not the problem” — even though his department consumes a fifth of the federal budget and has seen its buying power grow by three-quarters over the past ten years.

I want to emphasize this: "In other words, fiver percent of the world's population is trying to cover fifty percent of the world's military bill with only a quarter of the world's weath."

AND you want health care? Sorry. You must choose. Guns or butter.

-- Edited by poetgrl on Wednesday 30th of March 2011 10:19:16 PM

-- Edited by poetgrl on Wednesday 30th of March 2011 10:21:52 PM

Bogney · Senior Member

Let me start by saying that I am not “for” the action in Libya. My default position is against military action except in cases of pure self-defense, which has not been the case in any war since WWII. I cannot think of a single war fought by the U.S. since then that has improved the country or the world, or even has been the lesser of two evils - maybe the Korean conflict.

In addition, my euphoria over Obama’s election is now far removed. While I still prefer him to McCain and prefer Biden to Palin, the honeymoon is over in light of his handling of the economy by handing the reigns back over to the Wall St. players who wrecked it in the first place – see the documentary, “Inside Job.”

However, I am not convinced that the action in Libya was wrong. I am on the fence. There is strong sentiment out there that the humanitarian angle is complete b.s. The argument goes along the lines of, “if this were truly a humanitarian mission, then why haven’t we intervened elsewhere?” However, the decision to intervene in a humanitarian crisis involves at least two important factors: a crisis and some ability to do something about it. The ability to do something about involves weighing the costs. If the costs involve total military commitment, then we clearly cannot do that everywhere there is a humanitarian crisis in the world. If the cost involves limited use of our vastly superior air power and missiles, then in places where that limited use is possible, intervention might be possible. Libya appears to be a place where such limited intervention is possible. If we have the ability to intervene without bankrupting ourselves or losing many of our military personnel, should we do so in those limited cases?

That probably depends upon how severe the humanitarian crisis is. Were government forces about to wipe out a popular rebellion in Libya due to vastly superior weaponry possessed by a crazy dictator? If so, that would seem on its face to be a potential humanitarian crisis. Because some of the rebels might also oppose U.S. policies in the region, do we turn away?

I think that an argument for pragmatic intervention where the consequences to the U.S. are minimal, and the benefit to an oppressed people is substantial, is not difficult to make. We are not the world’s police force, but we will act when and where we can do so with limited risk to our forces and our economy – is that an evil policy? This seems consistent with a will to do the “right thing” constrained by pragmatic considerations.

Poetgrl, I agree that there is serious question whether intervening militarily in the Middle East can ever be the “right thing” to do. Humanitarian war seems like an oxymoron. However, reasonable arguments have been made for fighting the “good fight” in some contexts, like the Spanish Civil War. Some people would argue that we should have entered WWII earlier for humanitarian reasons given the conduct of Germany and Japan even prior to Pearl Harbor. The U.S. is not ready to elect a pacifist as president. Assuming that a humanitarian military action is possible, then it is possible that this action might fall within those parameters.

Is the notion that refugees would destabilize the region further completely fictitious? If so, I would appreciate an explanation of why that is so. Refugees create huge burdens on border countries and generally remain incarcerated under horrible conditions facing death from an unfriendly host country lacking resources to deal with them humanely, from the country they tried to flee, or disease and starvation.

Assuming that control over oil also played a role in the decision to intervene in Libya, does that necessarily negate the humanitarian rationales that have been offered? I don’t think that a practical benefit to the U.S. by helping the common people of a foreign country necessarily negates a moral basis for the decision to stop a slaughter.

As for the notion that U.S. forces are on the ground being a harbinger of greater involvement, given our history in other places I suppose that is possible, but it does not necessarily follow. Presumably, forces on the ground aiding with intelligence benefit our forces in the air. Gathering intelligence is an essential part of military actions, and forces are presumably on the ground to aid in obtaining information that is as accurate as possible. I understand that our forces on the ground are not engaged in ground battles. Do we know of any casualties to our armed forces as a result of the Libyan operation yet? I assume that there have been some, but not many.

The fact that some of the rebels, even some of the leaders, are our enemies in other contexts is a concern, but does not necessarily mean that the populace opposed to the current regime should have been left to slaughter. Certainly, one way to show that the U.S. is not the great Satan would be to support the people rather than corrupt regimes in the region.

On the other hand, if this turns into a full scale ground war with deep U.S. military involvement, then Obama will have to answer for it as Bush has had to answer for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon have had to answer for Vietnam. However, events must play out further before I can condemn the action as the equivalent of those debacles.

soccerguy315 · Guru

busdriver11 wrote:
"The US claims "there are no boots on the ground" but I would bet all my money that there are special forces and CIA personnel on the ground, likely marking up targets to be bombed and providing other support. Probably modeled after the Jawbreaker missions in Afghanistan during Sept/Oct/Nov/Dec 2001."

Soccerguy wrote this three days ago. Now we're finding out that the president authorized covert operations sometime in the last few weeks, and yes, we do have "boots on the ground."

You sure won that bet, soccerguy. Don't you wish you'd really bet all your money and it wasn't just a figure of speech??

haha yeaaa... I wonder if Vegas has a current events market that I could gamble in, lol. I suppose the commodity market is kind of like a current events market.

soccerguy315 · Guru

john doe wrote:
"We would have to be in Darfur, the Ivory Coast, to name a couple of ones similar to the ones he named in the speeches and debates he did while a candidate."

You listened to this speech - really?? Do you think it is as easy to bomb from the air Darfur and the Ivory Coast as it is tanks etc sitting out in the open desert? Do you think we could just bomb in those areas and affect the outcome without sending in troops?

we already have troops on the ground in Libya. Must have missed the memo (I called it a few days ago, and now it is public knowledge).

catahoula · Guru

You're more than welcome, tom, and they're influential because they export it.

Its a little misleading, but I couldn't find anything on exports that didn't include refined products, which skews the numbers.

busdriver11 · Guru

"The US claims "there are no boots on the ground" but I would bet all my money that there are special forces and CIA personnel on the ground, likely marking up targets to be bombed and providing other support. Probably modeled after the Jawbreaker missions in Afghanistan during Sept/Oct/Nov/Dec 2001."

Soccerguy wrote this three days ago. Now we're finding out that the president authorized covert operations sometime in the last few weeks, and yes, we do have "boots on the ground."

You sure won that bet, soccerguy. Don't you wish you'd really bet all your money and it wasn't just a figure of speech??

Tom1944 · Senior Member

poet- I agree with you. It seems to me we got involved in the middle of a Libyan civil war with bad guys on both sides.

catahoula- thanks for the chart. It makes me wonder why the Middle East has so much power. It seems oil production is not exclusive to those areas. I had no idea Russia had so much production or that the US was third.

poetgrl · Senior Member

I asked you. I didn't put any words in your mouth.

I asked a question. You answered. Note the question marks.

I've just noticed many who disagreed with Iraq and Afghanistan are all about how this war is okay, which I find preposterous.

I guess I ought to just vote my checkbook from now on. I don't know why I want to pay higher taxes AND have this kind of ideology in power.

-- Edited by poetgrl on Wednesday 30th of March 2011 11:09:52 AM

john doe · Guru

The only fools are those who think that anything will ever change. It never will. This will go on forever as it already has regardless of who is president. Obama isn't going to behave any differently than anybody before him and those who follow him will do exactly the same things. Those of you who voted for him assuming anything else were and are incredibly naive. Nobody is saying anything about a democracy - I doubt that Obama thinks that such a form of government will work under these circumstances. From your post, you appear to be proficient at putting words in the mouths of others. I certainly never said that I agree with our policies in Iraq or Afghanistan.

poetgrl · Senior Member

Do you seriously believe this war, which we were told originally would last days not weeks, and I quote, is a good idea?

Did you believe the war in Iraq was a good idea? Afghanistan?

Do you believe the rebels we are supporing in Lybia are innocents who have never participated in a Jihad or a war in another country? Or do you believe it is a war of mercenaries, including our own military, fighting to get control of an oil rich nation?

If you believe this is a war to protect the innocents, then I envy you. Perhaps you still believe in war. I do not. Nor do I believe in using our military in this way.

I may be the last liberal in the world willing to say, Obama is f.ing wrong. Hillary is wrong. But, there you have it. I do not believe military action in the mideast is a good idea. I do not believe we are 'helping' a group of humanitarians take control of an oil rich nation. Maybe it's because I am a woman? But I do not believe a democracy in a tribal muslim nation will produce tolerance, peace, love and understanding.

Maybe you do. Good for you. You are a fool.

ETA: Just so you do not misunderstand me. I am not pro-kadafi, or whatever. I'm sure a democracy in any country is better than a despot. HOWEVER, I do not believe we should be sending in military support JUST BECAUSE it is a democracy. That is not a reason. Sending ouir men and women into harms way in order to assist people whose ideological bents are completely bigotted and beholden to those who abhor true freedom is a crime.

-- Edited by poetgrl on Wednesday 30th of March 2011 08:56:57 AM

john doe · Guru

"We would have to be in Darfur, the Ivory Coast, to name a couple of ones similar to the ones he named in the speeches and debates he did while a candidate."

You listened to this speech - really?? Do you think it is as easy to bomb from the air Darfur and the Ivory Coast as it is tanks etc sitting out in the open desert? Do you think we could just bomb in those areas and affect the outcome without sending in troops?

CelticClan07 · Senior Member

Hindoo wrote:
Well, he finally spoke tonight on Libya, and I thought it was a great speech. He needs to do more of that.

More of what? This? http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/echoes-of-bush-in-obamas-libya-speech/ Then yes, I agree. PBO needs to emulate a real leader.

Woodwork · Senior Member

Poetsheart wrote:
Perhaps we should have told France that it was their turn to police this part of the world, since they were the ones angsting the most over it. I agree that we've neither the cash nor the personel to go charging into every political hotspot on the globe. This whole thing has me quite anxious, truth-be-told.

Couldn't agree more. And as for the "opposition" in Libya, they remind me more of the opposition in 1979 Iran than 1776 America. Someone is going to wake up with flees.

As for the speech: a day late and a dollar short.

poetgrl · Senior Member

I watched the speech.

When Obama was running for president, I watched the speeches with my now sophomore in high school, and I told her, "That is one helluva speaker. Watch this." It felt good to watch those speeches.

I watched this speech without my now sophomore daughter. I said, "You are so full of blank," and I turned off the TV. Really? I mean seriously? Humanitarian.

We would have to be in Darfur, the Ivory Coast, to name a couple of ones similar to the ones he named in the speeches and debates he did while a candidate.

This war is to humanitarian as skittles are to food. evileye

soccerguy315 · Guru

I missed the speech.

Did he explain why we are assisting rebels that have ties to Al Qaeda? I'm sure the American people would be interested in his reasoning.

IMO, if you think we are intervening for humanitarian reasons, you are on crack. There are countless other places where we could do the same thing, yet do not. Why?

-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Tuesday 29th of March 2011 07:34:42 PM

catahoula · Guru

I must have missed it, because I was sure he was going to fess up and admit that 5-6 dollar a gallon gasoline wasn't in his strategic interests. He did manage, along with the paens to "humanitarian efforts" and "stabilization" to find time to whack Bill and Hill with this, though:

Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.

(Pretty meager reward for the Secretary's efforts, I'm afraid, but it says a good bit about her boss.)

For those betting where the next "humanitarian crisis" that might merit our involvement is going to occur, here's a tip sheet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production

john doe · Guru

Great speech!! He hit it out of the park!

Hindoo · Senior Member

Well, he finally spoke tonight on Libya, and I thought it was a great speech. He needs to do more of that.

BigG · Guru

OK. Now we are committed to regime change or Gaddafi's Libya will be a safe haven for terrorism.

Of course if the rebels take over, Libya will be a safe haven for terrorists. al-Queda is very much a part of the rebel effort.

Our security is best served by a stalemate with al-Queda pinned down fighting the government forces in Libya.

The best thing we could have done was nothing. But it is too late for that.

Welcome to chapter three of the Great Unending and Permanent Middle Eastern War.

The US is using close combat support aircraft in Libya.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us_deploys_low_flying_attack_planes_in_libya/2011/03/26/AF9grPqB_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage

-- Edited by BigG on Monday 28th of March 2011 03:55:24 PM

poetgrl · Senior Member

Perhaps we should have told France that it was their turn to police this part of the world, since they were the ones angsting the most over it.

I agree.

And the reason they were ansting over it has to do with oil, not human rights, and that is what it is, but for once they ought to just come out and say the truth.

300 Million dollars a day we are spending over there on this not-war. How much is France spending? The Arab League?

There are some compelling arguments being made, right now, saying that we are "currying good will of the people" but, what nobody says, is this is only in Lybia. Joe Leiberman now thinks that we ought to go into other countries in that region if their dictators attack their citizens. Egad!

-- Edited by poetgrl on Monday 28th of March 2011 05:27:16 AM

Poetsheart · Senior Member

Excellent questions, poetgrl. I feel like I am hearing so much spin-cycle noise in the middle of this whole Libya controversy, that I don't know entirely what to believe. Perhaps we should have told France that it was their turn to police this part of the world, since they were the ones angsting the most over it. I agree that we've neither the cash nor the personel to go charging into every political hotspot on the globe. This whole thing has me quite anxious, truth-be-told. cry

poetgrl · Senior Member

Poetsheart, I believe that they are fighting to create their own countries and perhaps democracies, though I wouldn't hold my breath on women getting the vote in those democracies. I believe they will want to create a society of their choosing and so they should fight for that for themselves.

But, it's more than that:

Where are we on the Ivory Coast, right now? What about Darfur?

Do you not believe the people in THOSE countries are fighting for their freedoms? Good. Because they are fighting for their lives.

There is no way we can go into every area and defend the innocent from their rulers, and so.....WHY LYBIA? Why not the Ivory Coast?

BigG · Guru

I will butt in and say that people in that part of the world have NO interest in "freedom of religion". None , nada , zip, zilch, etc.

They are probably interested in economic opportunity.

Islam is not a religion that places much value on Western style "freedom".

They regard themselves as the "slaves of Allah", not His children.

The secular element to Middle Eastern society is negligible.

If they get to vote, they will vote to whack Israel.

-- Edited by BigG on Sunday 27th of March 2011 10:40:22 PM

Poetsheart · Senior Member

So, do you believe, poetgrl, that none of the current uprisings by peoples in that part of the world are based on a genuine desire for democratic freedoms and economic opportunities?

poetgrl · Senior Member

I know. That seems to be the party line, that it was Hillary's push.

If so, I'm deeply disappointed. I would not have damned the president for "passing" on military action, at this point in time, in that region of the world. But, yeah, that's just me.

BigG · Guru

It is almost as if none of them like us....

Bogney had the part about President O. being "damed if he did, damed if he didn't" right.

I still think he dawdled when he should have decided and done nothing or asked for Congressional approval.

It is as if Secretary Clinton bullied him into acting.

poetgrl · Senior Member

At this point the military leader of the rebels has openly admitted 1. to having fought with al queda in Afghanistan. 2. Having hired al queda members to fight with them.

He has openly stated that al queda are not terrorists but good muslims and patriots.

How many more times do we need to arm one group to fight against another group, only to have our men and women in the military to later find themselves on the muzzle end of one of our guns?

At the very least, time should have been taken to get a clear understanding of who the "rebels" are. Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is also my enemy. Which is why I just don't support our being involved in military actions in that region of the world. we just keep leaving weapons behind for them to use against us later.

because, ultimately, even in saudi arabia, they hate us more than they will ever hate each other. And these people can HATE. For centuries. Like a true reason for living.

Bogney · Senior Member

Obama should make a speech. It will not satisfy anyone, but he should make the effort. As commander in chief, he does not have to wait for congress to declare war in order take military action. That would be a ridiculous proposition since Congress is not in session at all times. The Commander in Chief may take military action unilaterally at a moment's notice if, in his judgment, the circumstances warrant such action. There are political consequences for so doing if the unilateral action is unwise, but to do so is not unconstitutional. Limited military action is not a war. There is fighting going on, but we are not at war with Libya yet. We may be soon. I hope not.

If the notion of protecting the rebels from being crushed by a far superior military loyal to a corrupt dictator is one of the primary reasons for the action, then quick action was necessary. Delay in order gain support, and it may be too late. Delay in a situation where prompt action is required is a decision not to act.

If Obama did not act, the right would have been calling him Neville Chamberlain, an indecisve and ineffectual leader lacking the spine, or other anatomical requirements, to deal with international crises. This was a lose / lose situation for the president because there was no course of action that would not have been second-guessed. Correct or not, it took some political courage to take unilateral action for which there will be no political cover in having bamboozled congress to go along with it. Presumably, therefore, Obama believed it was important to bring this limited military action, and I agree that he should tell us why.

I don't know who Peggy Noonan is. I am curious as to how she views the Iraq war where the military was fully engaged on a clearly misguided mission of regime change. Here, we have what appears to be to be limited military action to prevent a corrupt dictator from routing the opposition that has sprouted up against him. It stll appears that the rebels and government forces will duke it out for the most part. The outcome is uncertain. If certainty were required, few foreign policy decisions could be justified, military or otherwise.

This appears to be a calculated risk of limited military involvement with an uncertain outcome. Doing nothing, it appeared all but certain that the rebels would be crushed. Is the former clearly worse than the latter? If you think so, please explain. I really do not know, or have a strong opinion at this point because there are so many uncertainties.

This could turn into Vietnam. This could turn into Iraq. This could turn into a completely unique foreign policy disaster that will tarnish Obama's legacy. However, those possible futures have not yet arrived. The action may have been enough to ultimately topple a corrupt dictator and allow some degree of self-determination with limited risk to American forces.