ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Mar 17, 2011 22:24:24 GMT -5
And the UN has authorized force. We're going to war, everyone! At least there are marginally better odds of being "greeted as liberators" this time around... |
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Mar 18, 2011 7:45:20 GMT -5
Might be liberators in Benghazi but not so sure in Tripoli  I had thought that Japan pushing this off the front page and off the first 55 min of every hourly cable newscast might give Obama the cover to simply ignore this as he seemed so good at doing. And then get by without involvement and only a passing blow to his approval numbers. What I don't understand is taking all this time while the rebels were getting their ass beat and then at the last minute come in with a major involvement - potentially more than just a no fly zone - when there may not be that many rebels left to protect? I truly don't get the timing of this - either drive the no fly zone through the middle east countries early on or walk away. This muddling seems set up for a potential disaster and has a higher liklihood IMHO of actually requiring boots on the ground as things go south quickly. I hope not. Really weird process. |
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,458
|
Post by SSHoya on Mar 18, 2011 8:20:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Mar 18, 2011 9:33:22 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,458
|
Post by SSHoya on Mar 18, 2011 13:19:09 GMT -5
Time will tell but the Post reported its story at 1:44 pm EDT, Reuters at 9:50 EDT.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Mar 19, 2011 18:37:31 GMT -5
President Obama today launched an unprovoked attack on Libya with far fewer coalition nations than President Bush did in Iraq. Can we now start the "Obama lied and Americans died"? Or "Obama launched a unilateral pre-emptive strike on the people of Libya"? Or can we now compare Hillary Clinton to Don Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney? Or can we say Obama vacationed in Crawford Texas - I mean Rio - while he sent Americans into battle? Will the left mount anti-war demonstrations all over the country? Just askin'.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Mar 19, 2011 18:38:33 GMT -5
I didn't know Mr Cheney's first name was blanked out of posts.
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Mar 19, 2011 19:48:54 GMT -5
President Obama today launched an unprovoked attack on Libya with far fewer coalition nations than President Bush did in Iraq. Can we now start the "Obama lied and Americans died"? Or "Obama launched a unilateral pre-emptive strike on the people of Libya"? Or can we now compare Hillary Clinton to Don Rumsfeld or Edited Cheney? Or can we say Obama vacationed in Crawford Texas - I mean Rio - while he sent Americans into battle? Will the left mount anti-war demonstrations all over the country? Just askin'. I'm just happy this military action is based on evidence and facts, and not "evidence and facts". To be honest though, I am worried though about the lack of important coalitions nations like Moldova/Iceland/Armenia. I would trade them for France in a second. I'm also confused by this power sharing that the US has agreed to with UK/France, where other countries actually do some of the heavy lifting in terms of combat operations... |
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Mar 21, 2011 15:10:01 GMT -5
President Obama today launched an unprovoked attack on Libya with far fewer coalition nations than President Bush did in Iraq. Can we now start the "Obama lied and Americans died"? Or "Obama launched a unilateral pre-emptive strike on the people of Libya"? Or can we now compare Hillary Clinton to Don Rumsfeld or Edited Cheney? Or can we say Obama vacationed in Crawford Texas - I mean Rio - while he sent Americans into battle? Will the left mount anti-war demonstrations all over the country? Just askin'. You'll probably see some anti-war demonstrations, but this is a very different beast than Iraq 2003. Kosovo 1999 is the much better analogy. The reality though is that this will be about as effective as the Iraq NFZs. It makes for good TV, but it won't change the situation on the ground. What could change the situation on the ground, and what is rumored to already be underway, is steps to arm the rebels with better equipment. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Mar 21, 2011 16:13:45 GMT -5
What is the objective? Has anyone been able to figure that out? If the objective is to put an end to violence, which is the first point listed in the UN resolution, that will almost certainly fail. Is there any objective to change the leadership of the country? I don't think there is. At least I couldn't find that. I'm not griping at the President (I do have some gripes, but those can wait for a later time), I'm just not really understanding the point of this. I mean, I guess the point is the answer "yes" to the first question, I just don't see how that will be achieved through this UN resolution. There is plenty of griping on the left, BTW: www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.htmlI don't know if I would ever use the word "uproar" to describe anything about Dennis Kucinich, but still. There are also similar outrages from the likes of Michael Moore, Louis Farrakhan and Andrew Sullivan, but I don't consider any of those people to be serious voices of the left and I think the less attention people pay to them, the better. |
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Mar 21, 2011 17:36:35 GMT -5
I think the goal, at least from the US perspective, is to look like we're doing something and make ourselves feel good about it. I don't think that's a very good reason for this sort of action, although we're not exactly devoting a lot of resources to this.
The Europeans, especially the French, are more focused on regime change. They have a variety of reasons for seeking that goal, ranging from economic interests to stemming the flow of refugees that are coming out of Libya right now.
I'm certainly getting the sense that the Europeans are the ones leading the way on this. Obama seems like a reluctant partner at best. Let's face it, the US has bigger fish to fry right now. Libya is a humanitarian crisis, but it's not going to affect our national security.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Mar 21, 2011 18:41:31 GMT -5
Terrible mistake for us to be involved in Libya. We've lived with him for many years so why is it urgent to assist those who want to remove him? Would be nice if the administration would tell us why it is in our strategic interest to get involved in this type of unrest in a sovereign country. This is the type of action candidate Obama assured the American people he would not involve us.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,665
|
Post by guru on Mar 21, 2011 18:47:59 GMT -5
Terrible mistake for us to be involved in Libya. We've lived with him for many years so why is it urgent to assist those who want to remove him? Would be nice if the administration would tell us why it is in our strategic interest to get involved in this type of unrest in a sovereign country. This is the type of action candidate Obama assured the American people he would not involve us. Two words: Samantha Power. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Mar 21, 2011 20:37:16 GMT -5
Well, cable news sure is pretty interesting tonight.
I keep waiting for Bizarro Superman to show up on one of the panel discussions.
(yes, I know his name is Bizarro, not Bizarro Superman. Shut up.)
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Mar 22, 2011 11:11:10 GMT -5
Greatest. Sign. Ever. www.washingtonpost.com/world/yemens-leader-battens-down-the-hatches/2011/03/21/ABWfMb9_story.html?hpid=z3Another complicated little conundrum. I mean, it's not like Al Qaeda runs rampant in Yemen or anything. It's not like terrorist attacks originate out of there all the time. And Saleh seems to be about the only thing keeping Al Qaeda or their supporters from running the whole country. I have many problems with the inconsistent and seemingly disorganized way the administration is handling some of these Middle East situations (also not sure why we're encouraging Brazil to drill for oil and gas, but we shouldn't be doing that here). But I have to say, I really do not envy some of the choices that are having to be made right now. Most of them seem to be lose, lose and no third option. With that in mind, I think I am going to lay off and cut Obama a little slack on some of this stuff and hope for outcomes that aren't complete and total messes (not on the Brazil energy deal though; that's just insanely stupid). |
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Mar 24, 2011 22:24:47 GMT -5
President Obama today launched an unprovoked attack on Libya with far fewer coalition nations than President Bush did in Iraq. Can we now start the "Obama lied and Americans died"? Or "Obama launched a unilateral pre-emptive strike on the people of Libya"? Or can we now compare Hillary Clinton to Don Rumsfeld or Edited Cheney? Or can we say Obama vacationed in Crawford Texas - I mean Rio - while he sent Americans into battle? Will the left mount anti-war demonstrations all over the country? Just askin'. Wait, are you saying the criticism of Bush was justified or not? It seems like you want your cake and to eat it too, i.e., you want to say Bush was unjustly criticized for Iraq while attacking Obama for Libya. Which is it? |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Mar 25, 2011 8:05:58 GMT -5
President Obama today launched an unprovoked attack on Libya with far fewer coalition nations than President Bush did in Iraq. Can we now start the "Obama lied and Americans died"? Or "Obama launched a unilateral pre-emptive strike on the people of Libya"? Or can we now compare Hillary Clinton to Don Rumsfeld or Edited Cheney? Or can we say Obama vacationed in Crawford Texas - I mean Rio - while he sent Americans into battle? Will the left mount anti-war demonstrations all over the country? Just askin'. What I'm saying is I want to hear from all those who earlier criticized Bush now that Obama has launched his own war. Wait, are you saying the criticism of Bush was justified or not? It seems like you want your cake and to eat it too, i.e., you want to say Bush was unjustly criticized for Iraq while attacking Obama for Libya. Which is it? |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Mar 25, 2011 11:02:13 GMT -5
I have said I will cut the administration some slack here, and I will. Because I want the mission - whatever it is being defined as today, that is - to be successful. But for the love of God, someone please tell these people to get their heads out of their rectums with all of these ridiculous PR contortions. Kinetic military action? Who came up with that, Biden? If you believe in the mission, then freaking own it, dammit. But everyone seems more concerned with the perception issue than the actual success of what they're doing. Can you imagine the media feeding frenzy that would be going on right now if someone in the Bush administration had said this about Iraq or Afghanistan: “We didn’t want to get sucked into an operation with uncertainty at the end,” the senior administration official said. “In some ways, how it turns out is not on our shoulders.”(From this story: www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/world/africa/25policy.html?pagewanted=all)WTF?  ? That's just insane. Grow some balls, for crying out loud. I really hope whoever said that (I hate anonymous sources) does not have a job by the end of the day today. I disagree with this President on so many things, but I hope you can believe me when I say that, even though I did not think this was the right course of action, I want it to work. But based on the last few days, I really wonder whether some of the higher-ups in State and the White House feel the same way. |
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Mar 25, 2011 11:19:25 GMT -5
I have said I will cut the administration some slack here, and I will. Because I want the mission - whatever it is being defined as today, that is - to be successful. But for the love of God, someone please tell these people to get their heads out of their rectums with all of these ridiculous PR contortions. Kinetic military action? Who came up with that, Biden? If you believe in the mission, then freaking own it, dammit. But everyone seems more concerned with the perception issue than the actual success of what they're doing. Can you imagine the media feeding frenzy that would be going on right now if someone in the Bush administration had said this about Iraq or Afghanistan: “We didn’t want to get sucked into an operation with uncertainty at the end,” the senior administration official said. “In some ways, how it turns out is not on our shoulders.”(From this story: www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/world/africa/25policy.html?pagewanted=all)WTF? ? That's just insane. Grow some balls, for crying out loud. I really hope whoever said that (I hate anonymous sources) does not have a job by the end of the day today. I disagree with this President on so many things, but I hope you can believe me when I say that, even though I did not think this was the right course of action, I want it to work. But based on the last few days, I really wonder whether some of the higher-ups in State and the White House feel the same way. I'm with you Boz, though coming from the other side--I think they took to long to act. That being said, if we're going to act, we should own it, and not try all these PR games. Heck, if Obama is smart, he'll define and own the mission and stop worrying about perceptions, an easy lesson to learn the Bush Administration (see "Mission Accomplished"). Another lesson that he's hopefully learned is that if you're going to get involved in a war, do it right--don't change the mission b/c of PR (again, see some of the decisions about our strategy in Iraq, or Clinton's handling of Mogadishu). As cold as it sounds, casualties happen in war. While it's important to try and minimize casualties, the only way to prevent them completely is to not get involved. If you're going to get involved do it right. Also, I'm 99% sure that the word "military" isn't necessary in the phrase "Kinetic Military Action". "Kinetic Action" is military parlance for conflict. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Mar 25, 2011 16:09:18 GMT -5
I will admit some sympathy for the idea of getting the Europeans to carry more of their weight in world policing, but the execution of this so far in Libya reminds me why that is still a pipe dream. Germany withdraws from this action, France wants a political steering committee and no one can agree on what the mission really is - get rid of Khadafi or not? And that is even before the ludicrousness of the PR stuff Boz speaks to - Kinetic Military Action This is too important to "wing it" as one defense department mucky muck said. If you are going to do it, do it right and do it to win. I hope Obama does. |
|
? That's just insane. Grow some balls, for crying out loud. I really hope whoever said that (I hate anonymous sources) does not have a job by the end of the day today.