US Attacks Libya

[Anonymous]

If we break it did we buy it? Why are we inserting ourselves in a civil war? When is mission accomplished? If the dictator stays do we lose? Are we responsible to help clean up whatever we break? Did congress authorize this act of war? Is this blood for oil? Are we still using haliburton or blackwater in any of our 3 wars?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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.

PP here. Thanks - That's somewhat helpful. Yes, it's been really upsetting that the US is willing to support military action in Libya while not confronting the Saudis about sending troops to help shut down the Bahrain opposition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the democrats still interested in photographing all the coffins coming back from over seas. Or are they no longer interested in hamstringing the war effort?

Why are you repeatedly trying to disrupt this discussion. Do you have anything to say about the attack on Libya? Do you really need to ruin every thread with your blithering? It gets really old.

Actually, this is a comment on the attack. It is a very good test of the democrats character to prove whether they were principled or treasonous in their call for o returning body-bags. I'm sure they are not such miserable sacks of crap not to call for it immediately after 2 years of democrat run wars and now a 3rd.

You're really just a troll trying to get attention. The wonder is that you spend so much time on this ridiculous quest. What do you get out of it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I knew Bush was right. Than you Obama for attacking a country that didn't attack us...just like Bush. Using a surge ....just like Bush. Keeping guantanimo open...just like Bush. Keeping 50000 forces in Iraq...just like Bush. Calling for more oil drilling and admitting global warming is not a dire threat and probably doesn't exist. Keeping the Bush tax cuts that you said ruined the economy. Can we bring back Bush, he can talk without a teleprompter and doesn't attract flies.

I love it. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Obama should call Bush for more advice on having the exact same policies. Yes we can!

I call B.S. on this reasoning. This is humanitarian intervention against somebody attacking and brutally killing his own people! Bush went into Iraq supposedly because they attacked us and had weapons of mass destruction (don't forget we were told they were part of 9/11 and had stockades of earth shattering weapons). Libya has nothing to do with the Bush Doctrine.

Why haven't we intervened the same way in China, Saudi Arabia, Russia? Another checkmark for the vainglorious Obama.

[Anonymous]

So about the Arab League. First they practically beg us and the other countries to do this no fly zone. Then they come out against it after some civilians are killed. WTF did they think a no fly zone was about. You ust don't fly your jets over a country and shoot down enemy jets. You actually have to take out defensive positions first so they don't shoot down your planes. You have to go in and bomb this shite out of a place in order to make that no fly zone work.

Did the Arab League actually think that would all be accomplished without some civilian casualties, especially if he actually is using human shields?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Obama should call Bush for more advice on having the exact same policies. Yes we can!

I call B.S. on this reasoning. This is humanitarian intervention against somebody attacking and brutally killing his own people! Bush went into Iraq supposedly because they attacked us and had weapons of mass destruction (don't forget we were told they were part of 9/11 and had stockades of earth shattering weapons). Libya has nothing to do with the Bush Doctrine.

Why haven't we intervened the same way in China, Saudi Arabia, Russia? Another checkmark for the vainglorious Obama.

Yes, Obama is flawed because he has not attempted to overthrow China. Good one there. At least he wasn't Bush, kissing (literally) Saudi Royals.

[Anonymous]

Why didn't he help the Iran uprising? because being a muslim, he NEVER goes after muslim theocracies. He only goes after the secular leaders and undermines our jewish allies.

[Anonymous]

Man just turn fox off for a little bit. You need to think. I know that is not allowed in conservative circles, but try!

[Anonymous]

Everything he does advances the cause of islam. Egypt and Lybia are secular now. They will be Islamic within 5 years. Israel will be in horrible shape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why didn't he help the Iran uprising? because being a muslim, he NEVER goes after muslim theocracies. He only goes after the secular leaders and undermines our jewish allies.

Maybe he was just following in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why didn't he help the Iran uprising? because being a muslim, he NEVER goes after muslim theocracies. He only goes after the secular leaders and undermines our jewish allies.

Are you kidding? Don't you know Jews control the White House? I have that on the authority of one of our most famous journalists, Helen Thomas: http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/helen-thomas-jews-white/2011/03/18/id/390000.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everything he does advances the cause of islam. Egypt and Lybia are secular now. They will be Islamic within 5 years. Israel will be in horrible shape.

I didn't know Glenn Beck posts here when he gets high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everything he does advances the cause of islam. Egypt and Lybia are secular now. They will be Islamic within 5 years. Israel will be in horrible shape.

The second article in the Egyptian Constitution has been that Sharia law is the principal source of all legislation. It's been that way for over 30 years. Don't fool yourself that Egypt's ever been secular.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FDR knew how to win a war. Unlike todays liberals. He also forbidded government unions.

"Forbidded"? A new word, you should go on Court TV.