US Attacks Libya

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Obama's entire campaign was based on Bush being wrong and now he attacks a country that didn't attack us, keeps the Bush tax cuts, does a surge in Afghanistan, signs an executive order to keep Guantanimo open, extends the patriot act, keeps an occupying force of 50000 troops in Iraq. He is admitting that Bush was right about EVERYTHING. He knows the policies he campaigned on are STUPID and he is STUPID with a lousy thought process and that Bush is SMART on the things that count.

OR most policies have very little to do with who is president at the time, especially policies that are very constrained, such as 'anyone president during 911 had do kick someone's ass'; and policies that take decades to evolve, such as energy and health policies.

[Anonymous]

Liberals lie. Especially when campaigning. Democrats wanted Bush to withdraw and "lose" the war. This is because they knew he was doing the right thing and they didn't want to have to be the ones to prove it by continuing and expanding all of his policies and ideas. Now we are in 3 wars LOL.

[Anonymous]

I am so pissed and disgusted with this. There is no legitimate reason for us to spend money getting involved in this situation when our budget is in the state of crisis that it is in. There are tons of countries where there are humanitarian problems (Sudan, Myanmar) where the US does not get involved. We should just stay out of this one as well.

[Anonymous]

3 wars and the military doesn't particularly like Obama. He doesn't really support them or stand for the type of brave and competent people who populate the armed forces. Now they half heartedly participate and look to preserve their own lives. Good for them. I hope Obama gets humiliated after attacking Bush and the troops so visciously.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Liberals lie. Especially when campaigning. Democrats wanted Bush to withdraw and "lose" the war. This is because they knew he was doing the right thing and they didn't want to have to be the ones to prove it by continuing and expanding all of his policies and ideas. Now we are in 3 wars LOL.

It's interesting that you find people being killed a laughing matter. But, I guess as long as you are not one of those at risk, you can afford to laugh. I see you fit proudly in the tradition of Republican chickenhawks like your hero Dick "10 Deferments" Cheney. Now, why don't you go back to telling us how the country is bankrupt (while laughing at the $600,000 a piece missiles we are firing).

[Anonymous]

I'm laughing at liberal non-sense. I agree with Bushes and Obamas wars. I just always knew Obama and liberals lie reflexively and its funny to see them twist and turn trying to reconcile reality with their childish minds.

[Anonymous]

What about Mugabe?

[Anonymous]

Crap. Three wars and a terrible economy. Crap. Crap. Crap. That is all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess we were attacked by Libya unless liberals are totally full of crap they will go nuts over this. I got to admit even I didnt realize how appropriate every single thing Bush did was the right thing.

You really have to make everything about you and your self-pity and anger over the fact that liberals disagree with you, don't you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hussien gassed his own people and mass murdered citizens and buried them in mass graves. He also violated the terms of surrender of the 1st gulf war and broke all UN directives. additionally he had an assassination plan for gw bush. Much more reason to attack than this BS.

He gassed his own people in the 80's when Reagan was in power and wanted to keep him as our friend. Take that up with the Gipper.

Yep, Saddam had the full support of the United States for oppressing his own people at that time, just like the Shah of Iran in his day, just like the royal family in Saudi Arabia now.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Before the invasion of Iraq, the US, Britain, and France maintained a no fly zone over northern and southern Iraq. That effort had little effect and Saddam remained a thorn in the Western side for more than a decade. To finally get rid of Saddam, the US launched an invasion that required the subsequent occupation that continues until today -- 8 years later.

So, what happens if this no fly zone fails to result in Qadafi's overthrow? Do we continue it for the next ten years? Do we launch a ground invasion? Do we occupy Libya for years to come?

Don't think for a minute that this attack has anything to do with democracy. There are currently strong opposition movements in Yemen and Bahrain. In both countries, the government has reacted violently to the peaceful protests. But, those governments -- which serve US interests -- don't have to worry about no-fly zones. To the contrary, the US Fifth Fleet is already harbored in Bahrain and standing by peacefully while Saudi troops have entered Bahrain to put down the protests. The so-called opposition leader in Libya is Qadafi's former Minister of Justice. Does anyone seriously believe that guy has an honest commitment to democracy? This war is about one thing: putting a more dependable dictator in power in Libya. Qadhafi is too erratic. His oil is too important. So, he will be replaced. The Bahraini King and the Yemeni President can go on killing their own people. They are dependable.

Does Obama's imitation of Bush mean that Bush was right? No. Bush was wrong and Obama is wrong. If anything, Obama is worse. Bush was too stupid to realize his error. Obama is smart enough to know better.

Thanks for your comments on this, Jeff. I am very undecided over this. People from Libya were calling desperately for help. It was amazing to watch the celebrations in Libya on Al Jazeera after the UN passed the resolution. At the same time, everything you say is true. My question is -- what was the alternative to establishing a no fly zone? Were there other ways to help the opposition in Libya without resorting to military action? If I had a sense of an actual workable alternative I could get behind, that would help a lot!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Before the invasion of Iraq, the US, Britain, and France maintained a no fly zone over northern and southern Iraq. That effort had little effect and Saddam remained a thorn in the Western side for more than a decade. To finally get rid of Saddam, the US launched an invasion that required the subsequent occupation that continues until today -- 8 years later.

So, what happens if this no fly zone fails to result in Qadafi's overthrow? Do we continue it for the next ten years? Do we launch a ground invasion? Do we occupy Libya for years to come?

Don't think for a minute that this attack has anything to do with democracy. There are currently strong opposition movements in Yemen and Bahrain. In both countries, the government has reacted violently to the peaceful protests. But, those governments -- which serve US interests -- don't have to worry about no-fly zones. To the contrary, the US Fifth Fleet is already harbored in Bahrain and standing by peacefully while Saudi troops have entered Bahrain to put down the protests. The so-called opposition leader in Libya is Qadafi's former Minister of Justice. Does anyone seriously believe that guy has an honest commitment to democracy? This war is about one thing: putting a more dependable dictator in power in Libya. Qadhafi is too erratic. His oil is too important. So, he will be replaced. The Bahraini King and the Yemeni President can go on killing their own people. They are dependable.

Does Obama's imitation of Bush mean that Bush was right? No. Bush was wrong and Obama is wrong. If anything, Obama is worse. Bush was too stupid to realize his error. Obama is smart enough to know better.

I hear you loud and clear. This very quick way into which we have become embroiled in Libya is unsettling. At least in the case of Iraq II there was a very lengthy dialogue in this country, and however flawed that dialogue was, we got to beat the crap out of the issue. This time the war is on and we haven't even noticed it between updates from Japan. That is just plain crazy!

What I find most interesting is that France was very lukewarm about getting involved in Iraq because they did not need Iraqi oil as much as we do, but in this case Libya's oil is a cornerstone of France's economic security and they have gone 'all in' before the word 'go' was uttered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Crap. Three wars and a terrible economy. Crap. Crap. Crap. That is all.

Ditto! We are screwed.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for your comments on this, Jeff. I am very undecided over this. People from Libya were calling desperately for help. It was amazing to watch the celebrations in Libya on Al Jazeera after the UN passed the resolution. At the same time, everything you say is true. My question is -- what was the alternative to establishing a no fly zone? Were there other ways to help the opposition in Libya without resorting to military action? If I had a sense of an actual workable alternative I could get behind, that would help a lot!

First, it is important to remove emotion from this. There is a lot of sympathy for the Libyan opposition because you see and hear them on television. Meanwhile, the opposition protesters in Bahrain and Yemen are being killed without the benefit of television. Not long ago, there were very large-scale protests in Thailand. Similarly, because the protests did not get widespread media coverage, there was no demand for Western action. While abandoning the Libyan opposition would not be an uplifting experience, it is important to acknowledge that we routinely abandon opposition movements and are doing exactly that right now.

Nick Kristof actually left Bahrain to go to Libya. Why was Libya more important for him to cover? One reason is that because the opposition took over large parts of the country, there looked like there might be a greater chance of success. While that is true, it also means that the World is turning its back on peaceful protesters in favor of those waging violent opposition. Is that really the message that we want to send?

I think the notion that we are acting to assist the Libyan people is mistaken. To the extent that we are aiding the "opposition", we are furthering the ambitions of former regime figures. At best, we will replace one dictatorship with another. The opposition has already committed its share of atrocities. But, since they are the "good guys", those are overlooked.

Steps that could have been taken include imposing freezes on the personal financial assets of the Libyan leadership (not just Qadafi and sons) and encouraging defections among Libyan pilots and sailers by offering protection outside of Libyan waters and air. We should also be doing the same in Bahrain and Yemen. But, let's say that I had no suggestions for what to do. What suggestions are there for the case in which the no-fly zone fails? Won't we be right back where we are now? We will be deciding whether to abandon the Libyan opposition or get involved further. Meanwhile, the US is further cementing its ties to Arab autocrats. Indeed, two of those unelected anti-democratic leaders are providing military assets to participate in Libya. Those leaders can be sure that they will have no worry about protesters in their own countries.

[Anonymous]

I would like to see issues of who to go to war with discussed in real political terms instead of the way we often discuss them: democracy, freedom, etc. The fact is that countries go to war over resources and the case for them going to war for the abstract issues of freedom and democracy seems like a stretch.