ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Mar 25, 2011 19:29:07 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. To be fair to Germany, they're sending 300 AWACS crew members to Afghanistan, which frees up other NATO countries to use their surveillance planes in Libya instead. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Mar 26, 2011 10:38:55 GMT -5
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Mar 26, 2011 12:50:30 GMT -5
You're right Ed. Because of the Al-Qaeda link for maybe 25 of the government opposition fighters, Obama, the U.N., and the Arab League all should have let Gaddafi slaughter civilians in the eastern cities of Benghazi and Misurata. I'm sure Gaddafi's forces would have distinguished the Al-Qaeda civilians from the innocent civilians too. In fact, Gaddafi's forces would have been "greeted as liberators." |
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Mar 26, 2011 12:50:33 GMT -5
Not a Bidenism, at least not directly anyway. The use of KMA in its present application as a euphemism for the bombing of Libya has been attributed to Ben Rhodes, the National Security Advisor's deputy for "Strategic Communications" ... aka, patently non-kinetic military action  As for EasyEd's attempts to goad the liberal-progressive wing of HoyaTalk into betraying their savior, at least one of my acquaintances has broken down this week and admitted that there's nothing Obama could do in the next year to cost him his vote in 2012. Personally, as much as I might disagree with Obama's motives, I think the presidency would be a poorer thing if the incumbent can't bomb a few third-worlders if and when he please. |
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Mar 26, 2011 12:55:16 GMT -5
Not a Bidenism, at least not directly anyway. The use of KMA in its present application as a euphemism for the bombing of Libya has been attributed to Ben Rhodes, the National Security Advisor's deputy for "Strategic Communications" ... aka, patently non-kinetic military action As for EasyEd's attempts to goad the liberal-progressive wing of HoyaTalk into betraying their savior, at least one of my acquaintances has broken down this week and admitted that there's nothing Obama could do in the next year to cost him his vote in 2012. Personally, as much as I might disagree with Obama's motives, I think the presidency would be a poorer thing if the incumbent can't bomb a few third-worlders if and when he please. Right rosslyn, the U.N. Security Council, including the conservative British government, and the Arab League supported military intervention (excuse me, "bombing third worlders") because they want Obama to get re-elected. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the innocent civilians that were about to be slaughtered by Gaddafi's forces. You're a brilliant person. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Mar 26, 2011 13:07:00 GMT -5
The U.S. is actively supporting those who would overthrow Ghaddafi but we have no way of knowing who or what might succeed him. It is entirely possible he will be succeeded by radical Muslims who will want to introduce an Iran-type or similar rule. Or he may be succeeded by someone or some group that is more democratic in nature or one friendlier to the U.S. We just don't know but we have chosen to support the rebels, casting our lot with an unknown. We are in an almost identical situation in Egypt though we did not actively and openly join the fight.
As for the question of whether we can stand by and watch a tyrant slaughter his own people, the answer is "yes"; that is, unless we are willing and able to do the same in the other areas of the world where the same thing is taking place. Selective application of this is one of the things that bothers me.
|
|
DoctorHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,544
|
Post by DoctorHoya on Mar 27, 2011 19:18:48 GMT -5
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Mar 28, 2011 7:56:58 GMT -5
As for the question of whether we can stand by and watch a tyrant slaughter his own people, the answer is "yes"; that is, unless we are willing and able to do the same in the other areas of the world where the same thing is taking place. Selective application of this is one of the things that bothers me. So we need to stop everything or nothing at all, is that really the logic you're using? Would you like your local police force to follow the same logic (we can't catch every rapist, so lets not try), or would you prefer they do what they can with the resources at their disposal? |
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Mar 28, 2011 8:25:15 GMT -5
to me the logic that says just because a government is killing its own people is enough to get us to intervene has a lot of holes in it. There has to be something else and that traditionally has been a vital national interest for us to risk our people and treasure. Otherwise you get the same situation in places as disparate as Syria, Iran, Congo and even China and don't do anything for various other reasons - even though these governments meet the same basic requirement of killing their own people.
The Secretary of Defense is on record as saying there is no vital national interest for the US. IMHO the Europeans see a vital interest because they are seeing waves of Libyan and other north African nationals washing up on their shores and they would like to stop that flow. Throw in the press coverage which was reasonably available in Libya as compared to say Syria and there is a lot of pressure on the US to act or follow along. It is in the "gray area" and more to the point is more doable than say a Syria.
But having said that, I do think it is incomprehensible that the speech from the Prez is coming 10 days after all this started. The vacuum he has left by doing this has harmed both himself and the country. In some ways it is almost like he wanted to vote present while Clinton ran with it.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Mar 28, 2011 8:45:00 GMT -5
What hoyawatcher said.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on Mar 28, 2011 11:26:42 GMT -5
As for the question of whether we can stand by and watch a tyrant slaughter his own people, the answer is "yes"; that is, unless we are willing and able to do the same in the other areas of the world where the same thing is taking place. Selective application of this is one of the things that bothers me. So we need to stop everything or nothing at all, is that really the logic you're using? Would you like your local police force to follow the same logic (we can't catch every rapist, so lets not try), or would you prefer they do what they can with the resources at their disposal? Below is one argument on the "we're doing it for Europe" that raises lots of questions - www.slate.com/id/2289568/But arguing the "everything or nothing" argument is strange. There are greater slaughters. There are more oppressive governments. Unless we were picking names out of a hat - or unless there was a motive besides humanitarian assistance - Libya doesn't make the most sense. What concerns me is the total ignorance of the Powell doctrine. In invading Iraq, Bush had a set of goals - eliminate the WMD threat, end Iraq as a regional irritant, and regime change. They may have been very hard to achieve, and blithely assumed that follow-on goals like establishing a democracy were going to be easy, but they existed. Obama's seem basic - stop slaughter, and that's it. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Mar 30, 2011 13:13:26 GMT -5
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on May 29, 2011 0:21:06 GMT -5
So, does anyone else have a problem w/ the fact that our involvement in Libya is now violating the deadlines of the War Powers Act? I'm not against us being in Libya, but I really don't like that we're 60+ days into a military action and Congress hasn't weighed in. And that's on Congress as much as it is on Obama (both are equally wrong). The President is Commander in Chief, but he doesn't get to declare war, and while the constitutionality of the War Powers Act is in question, we shouldn't be fighting for this long w/o some kind of Congressional authorization. And its on Congress too--either authorize the war or end it.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,458
|
Post by SSHoya on May 29, 2011 7:21:44 GMT -5
On deadline day, Prez last Friday sent a letter to Congress expressing support for a bipartisan resolution favoring military operations in Libya.
The Prez formally notified Congress about the mission in Libya with a letter on March 21, which made Friday the 60-day deadline. Prez sent another letter Friday to House Speaker John Boehner and three other congressional leaders in which he expressed support for the bipartisan resolution that he said is being drafted by senators John Kerry, John McCain, Carl Levin, Dianne Feinstein, Lindsey Graham and Joseph Lieberman.
The resolution would confirm congressional support for the U.S. mission in Libya etc. . .
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on May 29, 2011 8:20:16 GMT -5
On deadline day, Prez last Friday sent a letter to Congress expressing support for a bipartisan resolution favoring military operations in Libya. The Prez formally notified Congress about the mission in Libya with a letter on March 21, which made Friday the 60-day deadline. Prez sent another letter Friday to House Speaker John Boehner and three other congressional leaders in which he expressed support for the bipartisan resolution that he said is being drafted by senators John Kerry, John McCain, Carl Levin, Dianne Feinstein, Lindsey Graham and Joseph Lieberman. The resolution would confirm congressional support for the U.S. mission in Libya etc. . . Ok. So its on Congress to get its act together then. |
|
