So, we are keeping all options open (per Obama administration) to deal with whats happening in Libya. I wonder how many of you Bush-Bashers will show consistency and accuse this president of involving us in an illegal military action for no other reason than oil. My money is on none of you. Will wait and see.
Lets see if he involves us in such an action first.
Are there people who still feel we were involved in those wars for reasons other than oil?
??? So the invasion of Kuwait had nothing to do with it? We should have allowed the Middle-East to fall under the control of Hussein's Iraq?
What IS worth fighting for? President Obama said in his campaign that the Afghanistan war was "justified". Is he right? ...or wrong? Is it worth it to engage the Somolian pirates? At sea? On the ground in Somolia? What if NK invades the South? Is every situation a negotiation?
And yes, there are people who feel that our involvment was not about "oil", whatever that means.
Oh wait, thats right, he is too busy restarting the gitmo terrorist trials back up to get involved in Libya for the time being. Damn, thats funny, he is finally doing something right. Really must gall alot of you that he is restarting these trials after promising to close club gitmo. BTW, lets see, how many democrat presidencies did Qudafi live through?
I concede that I was wrong and snide. I disagree with the invasion of Irag but I believe there were good and bad reasons. I should have said oil was a reason in both of those wars.
I wish the best for the Libian people..they've put up with an asshole for too many years...i know if i had to put up with george bush for that long i'd be doing the same as they....they deserve a new fresh fair start.
Quote from: Garden guy on March 07, 2011, 09:04:40 PM
I wish the best for the Libian people..they've put up with an asshole for too many years...i know if i had to put up with george bush for that long i'd be doing the same as they....they deserve a new fresh fair start.
Well you had him for 8 years. What did you do about it? Did you take to arms and protest in the streets? Funny tough guy. Get ready for Jeb in a few years. The trifecta will be complete.
Quote from: stephendare on March 07, 2011, 08:14:27 PM
Well I would not be for any military action in Libya. Its something that the UN can do without us mucking about over there. Ghadafi was supported by Bush, incidentally.
He is a monster, but he is the problem of the Libyan people. We should be standing ready to aid prodemocracy groups, but we should not be invading a sovereign country in the middle of a revolution.
Lets see if Obama makes up lies about Ghadafi possessing the Qbomb or working with offworld ETs to rain down destruction on the US. Maybe he can trick Robert Gates into lying about it at the UN. Maybe it will turn out that his dad is actually on the board of directors for Ghadafi's oil cartel.
Maybe he will out a deep undercover CIA operative in order to cover up his lies and get her entire network of informants liquidated as a result. Maybe Biden's chief of Staff will get blamed for it and get a wrist slapped.
That would make it a lot more like Bush.
Stephen just out of interest what do you think that the UN will do about it. That would require security council approval, do you really think that will happen?
Seriously? The UN do anything militarily without the US? Come on dude. Its the friggin UN.
Quote from: RMHoward on March 07, 2011, 09:11:20 PM
Quote from: Garden guy on March 07, 2011, 09:04:40 PM
I wish the best for the Libian people..they've put up with an asshole for too many years...i know if i had to put up with george bush for that long i'd be doing the same as they....they deserve a new fresh fair start.
Well you had him for 8 years. What did you do about it? Did you take to arms and protest in the streets? Funny tough guy. Get ready for Jeb in a few years. The trifecta will be complete.
I did'nt have anything mister...i've been busting my ass over the years dealing with the ideaocy of the right wing concervative attack on america...they are a country and there are processes to deal with all of this and i'm sure it'll work it self out....
You can definitely believe I will be screaming long before a decade that sees eight year olds grow up to be sent to the middle east to die for a war any president starts. I will be screaming long before we borrow and spend 3 trillion dollars blowing things up and rebuilding them in the mideast while claiming we do not have money to build things here. I will be screaming long before the defense secretary admits their reason for going to war didn't pan out.
We are not against the war in Iraq because it is partisan but because it is a stupid net waste.
QuoteWell I would not be for any military action in Libya. Its something that the UN can do without us mucking about over there. Ghadafi was supported by Bush, incidentally.
Hmmm... Reagan tried to take gaddaffi out... and President Obama has been a supporter of gaddaffi since he was elected. W only lifted sanctions after Crazy G agreed to stop pursuing WMD.
QuoteUS sanctions:
1981 President Ronald Reagan invalidates use of US passports for travel to Libya.
1982 The US bans imports of Libyan oil and a number of exports to Libya, following a deterioration of relations.
1986 Berlin disco bombing leads to sanctions being widened to include a total ban on direct import and export trade, commercial contracts and travel-related activities.
1996 The Iran-Libya Sanctions Act is passed.
2001 The Act is amended to allow the US president to punish non-US firms investing more than $20 million annually in the energy sectors in Libya or Iran.
2003 Washington says it will not oppose the lifting of UN sanctions, but maintains its own.
2004 The US lifts many economic sanctions and restores diplomatic ties after Libya publicly turns its back on weapons of mass destruction. However, the country remains on Washington's list of state sponsors of terror, so arms exports are still banned, as is the export of so-called "dual-use" items.
I initially heard very little from the Commander in Chief regarding the US taking military action in Libya.
I liked it.
Now I hear he is letting France and Britain take the lead.
I like it.
If he refuses to put troops on the ground, I'll like it.
I'm still hoping he doesn't send air power as well.
Let the peoples of Africa, Asia and Europe deal with their neighbors. I'm not convinced that they have a role to play, but considering the legacies and consequences of colonialism, there is a case to be made for it.
So far, President Obama gets an attaboy from BH on his handling of Libya.
Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something. (read: health insurance reform bill)
Quote from: stephendare on March 19, 2011, 01:46:26 PM
A French military spokesman says it has destroyed its first target in Libya, according to Reuters:
FRENCH AIRCRAFT HAVE DESTROYED THEIR FIRST TARGET IN LIBYA -MILITARY SPOKESMA
Could you replace 'in Libya with 'since WWI' and still be correct?
MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...
MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f134/grumpy32421/m_4ef915267ae846eb86f4f61addeeb4e9.jpg)
Ah well. A girl can dream...
I very much respect Dennis Kucinich. His intentions and convictions certainly cannot be questioned.
However, I must fervently disagree with him on this issue. The mission in Libya is much different than Iraq (which was an unnecessary quagmire). It seems like we have borderline genocide in Libya with indiscriminate shelling and shooting of civilians by a rogue regime. What makes our country great is the fact that we have enough heart and courage to step in and help those in dire situations. We also have international cooperation and support from several countries (including the Arab League). War is never an easy subject, but seems necessary at this time.
I feel we should have done this in Sudan years ago as well. It may have saved millions of innocent lives.
Our intervention worked in Germany (WWII) and Bosnia as well.
Please do not confuse humanitarian missions with the Iraq war. I only worry is to not get dragged back into nation-building here.
??? chip ??? Your logic seems amiss. Between Iraq and Libya, which crazy dictator do you think killed more of his own people? What do you think the purpose of the Iraq invasion was? What do you think is the purpose of intervening in Libya? Ding, ding, ding if you said regime change.
My argument for Iraq is its strategic importance to the US. Libya has no such importance.
"Humanitarian" reasons is a pretty broad reason for military conflict. It can get us involved in much more than we are capable of handling, and such values differ among the worlds cultures. I would repeat my argument that we should only employ military power when vital national interests are imperiled, and it is a last resort.
Quote from: chipwich on March 21, 2011, 06:42:18 PM
I very much respect Dennis Kucinich. His intentions and convictions certainly cannot be questioned.
He did cave to pressure on the health insurance reform bill.
Nevertheless, he deserves credit for criticizing each administration that attacks a foreign nation that did not attack us.
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/03/201132017312717811.html
QuoteFraming the narrative of Libya
Despite all the rhetoric, the Gaddafis bear the responsibility for the ills and misfortunes of their country.
As soon as the UN-mandated international protection of the Libyan people got under way, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has rushed to condemn the new "Crusaders'" war against Islam and rally national sentiment against the "Western-led military assault".
These words might ring hollow today, but as he continues to prolong and escalate the war, Gaddafi hopes to turn his attempt to preserve a brutal regime into a national anti-colonial struggle.
Symbolism aside, how the battle over Libya is framed is paramount for the future of the revolution in the country and the Arab world beyond.
Since the first hours of the uprising in the eastern parts of the country, Gaddafi has tried to frame it as a criminal activity carried by hallucinating drug addicts and their pushers.
But as soon as the desire for change turned into a reality and the revolutionaries swept through a number of cities and took over state institutions, Gaddafi began to speak of serious offense against the republic by thugs and rats that must be crushed.
Later, he threatened to punish these foreign-instigated ''armed gangs'' for holding people hostage and threatening the security of the country.
And when finally Libya caught international attention beyond the dramatic changes in Tunisia and Egypt, the Libyan dictator changed his tune once again.
Bearing in mind Western public opinion, Gaddafi then advanced the ''war-on-terror'' framework where his regime is confronted by Al Qaeda and its Islamist affiliates.
As more and more officials, diplomats and military personnel began to defect in favour of the revolution Gaddafi warned against betrayal of traitors and of Libyan fifth column.
The regime's failure to stem the defiance of Libyans and their aspiration for change, prompted "Gaddafi junior" to threaten a civil war and "rivers of bold".
Anticipating Arab condemnation of the regime's use of excessive force against civilians, the Gaddafis took the righteous path, boasting of their ''great republic'' fight against reactionary Arabs whom they cursed and mocked at their [Arab] League.
And when, finally, the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1973 that authorised the use of force and Western powers began to implement it, Gaddafi reverted to his favourite framework and preached a populist nationalist/Muslim struggle against Western/Christian colonial powers!
Make no mistake about it, the battle over Libya did take a turn for the worse with the international intervention to protect the Libyan people and impose no-fly zone among other measures.
The ongoing bombardment is and will remain a controversial subject that has already been criticised by the Arab league. Further escalation could lead to a backlash.
So who bears the responsibility for turning Libya into a war zone and an object of an international military intervention?
Could it be those who confronted a peaceful civil uprising for freedom with lethal force, and when it escalated into a full-fledged revolt, used aerial bombardments, heavy artillery to quell it?
Libya could have and should have gone Tunisia or Egypt's path of change. But while their militaries conceded the need for regime change, in Libya the family-led powerful militias, financed and groomed to defend the regime's "country estate", sided with their pay masters.
While the Gaddafis continue to show images of pro-Gaddafi demonstrators in Tripoli to offset the images of widespread anti-Gaddafi/pro-change, in reality, Libya is not divided between two visions for their country.
Rather between a majority that seeks free and prosperous Libya, and a mostly small heavily-armed minority that runs or benefits from a corrupt rule.
Alas, even the worse regimes in history have had following among their subjects that had a stake in the system.
Needless to say, Libyans in general deserve better than to see their country ruled like a ''family farm''. That''s why they insist on taking down the regime. But the Gaddafi dynasty would not have it, threatening to take the country down with them.
That is why despite all the inflamed rhetoric and populist propaganda, when all is said and done, it is the Gaddafis who bear the responsibility for the ills and misfortunes of their country.
There's no such thing as a 'humanitarian mission' within the framework of United States foreign policy. 'States' are not moral actors, just like corporations are not moral actors. For a corporation, the bottom line is profit. For a state, the bottom line is strategic development.
No war, from the American Revolution to the Civil War, WWI & WWII, Iraq I & II, Afghanistan, etc, have been for 'moral' or 'humanitarian' reasons...
QuoteThere's no such thing as a 'humanitarian mission' within the framework of United States foreign policy.
Really? Wow! ::)
Does it bother anyone else here that Obama moved forward after the UN said ok, but didn't bother to run it by Congress?
It seems relevant, but is it unconstitutional?
War has not been declared, to my knowledge.
Here's a quote from Obama the constitutional scholar/candidate:
On the campaign trail in late 2007, he told reporter Charlie Savage that the president lacks the constitutional power "to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
Here's the rest of the article:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/03/what-authority-has-obama-gone-war-libya (http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/03/what-authority-has-obama-gone-war-libya)
My concern is that Obama is showing more deference to the UN Security Council than he's giving to the US Congress and the Constitution.
Quite frankly, Obama reminds me of George W. Bush more and more each day.
W consulted with congress every time.
Quote from: stephendare on March 07, 2011, 09:22:32 PM
Bosnia and Herzegovina Ivan Barbalić
Brazil Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti
Gabon, Africa Emmanuel Issoze-Ngondet
Lebanon Nawaf Salam
Nigeria Joy Ogwu
Colombia Néstor Osorio Londoño
Germany Peter Wittig
India Hardeep Singh Puri
Portugal José Filipe Moraes Cabral
South Africa Baso Sangqu
Of course you already know who the permanent members are, the above are this years rotating members.
None of them are real oil exporters, and are therefore just as dependent as the Permanent members on oil prices being stable.
Actually Stephen, two of these country's are in the top 15 world oil exporters. The numbers represent thousands of barrels daily toward the end of 2009. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
CANADA 1,943
MEXICO 1,092
SAUDI ARABIA 980
NIGERIA 776
VENEZUELA 951
IRAQ 336 449
ANGOLA 448
BRAZIL 295
ALGERIA 281
COLOMBIA 251
ECUADOR 181
RUSSIA 230
KUWAIT 180
UNITED KINGDOM 103
ARGENTINA 53
OCKLAWAHA
nm
(http://blog.seattlepi.com/davidhorsey/files/2011/03/Libya-GOP-3-31-11-color-640x493.jpg)
Seems there should be a donkey standing next to the elephant... ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDVt_hSo_EU&feature=player_embedded
Oh Schnapps!
Now don't unclick when you see the title flash across the youtube window.
Tough it out. Hear the man.
CIA doesn't want any of Libya? I figured they were the ones begging/forcing Obama to go in.
Quote from: buckethead on April 07, 2011, 09:47:59 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDVt_hSo_EU&feature=player_embedded
Oh Schnapps!
Now don't unclick when you see the title flash across the youtube window.
Tough it out. Hear the man.
CIA doesn't want any of Libya? I figured they were the ones begging/forcing Obama to go in.
Nah... it was Hillary
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 22, 2011, 06:24:26 PM
W consulted with congress every time.
Your W lied like a fat dog in the sand...that man lied everday he had washington....
Sure thing GG... ::) ;)
To W's credit... At least congress debated the issue.
http://www.youtube.com/v/DkS9y5t0tR0
Nope... just Hillary debating the issue...