- This topic has 8 voices and 29 replies.
-
Posts
-
Good one, One World Government Obama. While I dont agree with everything he says, this part struck me.
Now, I well know that in recent postwar conflicts, we don't have declarations of war. But we have Congressional debates. We have funding votes. We have a sense of the Congress or some kind of resolution.This time, zip. Nada. Nothing. Just France and the U.K. and Norway saying that it's time to go to war, and off America goes to war. And off Mr. and Mrs. Obama go to a South American "fact finding" trip for the POTUS and a fun sightseeing junket for the Obama girls.(I wonder if there has ever before in history been a national leader who sent his country to war -- and the same day went off on vacation. Has that ever happened before? )
My emphasis
This source is a conservative U.S. magazine reporting on political scandals, and a bit controversial http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/11/the-life-and-death-of-i-the-american-spectator-i/2343/ I'd like to understandWithout any offense to any personal opinion about the UN or Odyssey Dawn or any ethnic, religious or political beliefs, some reactions seem to be stances with suspiciousness, fearfulness, hostility, hypersensitivity, rigidity of conviction, and an exaggerated sense of self-reference!What are the reasons you can oppose to what is currently happening in Libya?
What are the reasons you can oppose to what is currently happening in Libya?
1) The U.S. military is already stretched too thin because of two wars.2) The U.S. can't afford another war.3) Everyone complains about Bush and Iraq, but at least he took some time and thought it out before invading. This campaign is the most convoluted and hastiest decision I've ever witnesed in my life. The UK and US don't even have the same goals.
I don't see the basis in traditional international law for the UN violating the sovereignty of Libya, I also don't see what strategic national interests are at stake for the US. At least with both Iraq and Afghanistan a plausible national interest was given for going to was given. It is irrelevant that the intelligence on Iraq was later proved to be false, at the time it was plausible if for no other reasons than Saddam's history. Why is the west getting involved in Libya? I have yet to hear a good rationale. I am surprised because I find myself in agreement with some Democrats in this one. I don't think that Obama ordering military strikes is unconstitutional, I just don't think he can justify intervention on any rational grounds other than some amorphous humanitarian ideal.
I really don't think anything good can come of this. But we're in it now. Funny how the Chinese are clamoring for us to get out of Libya, but they could have stopped it with a veto in the Security Council. Too many games being played here.
Funny how the Chinese are clamoring for us to get out of Libya, but they could have stopped it with a veto in the Security Council. Too many games being played here.
Both the Chinese and the Russians abstained from the vote. To me, that means they should shut up, they had their chance to block intervention and did not use it.
Funny how the Chinese are clamoring for us to get out of Libya, but they could have stopped it with a veto in the Security Council. Too many games being played here.
Both the Chinese and the Russians abstained from the vote. To me, that means they should shut up, they had their chance to block intervention and did not use it.
Yep. They like to play this game with us. They really want us to go in and do the dirty work while they play the charade that they were against it from the beginning. They can't have it both ways, but as long as they stay out of our way, who cares?
So far, the administration has went about this whole thing very amateurishly. I am somewhat curious to see how this will turn out. I would guess that nothing will be accomplished other than target practice and that Gaddafi will put down the rebellion and stay in power.
What are the reasons you can oppose to what is currently happening in Libya?
I think the better question is what are the reasons for the intervention.Libya was probably the only example amongst the recent upheaval in ME where the protestors actually resorted to violance. Admittedly they were probably expecting Kaddafi to go crazy unlike Mubarek or Bin Ali but as soon as you take up arms against the legitimate government of a country at best you become a belligerent entity at worst a terrorist organisation. Thus the rhetoric regarding rotecting civilians should be met with "which civilians"? The anti-kaddafi ones with guns or the pro kaddafi ones without guns?
Thus the rhetoric regarding protecting civilians should be met with "which civilians"? The anti-kaddafi ones with guns or the pro kaddafi ones without guns?
Excellent point, I wish I had thought of it. I have been too fixated on the fact that unprovoked attacks on Libya by France, Britain, and the US constitute an Act of War against Libya than on we are not protecting civilians but armed insurgents against properly constituted authority. I am waiting for someone to point that Gaddafi came to power in a coup and that makes him illegitimate. I will argue to that that 40+ years of authority make him legitimate, the ultimate test of political power and authority is the test of time and Gaddafi has passed that with flying colors so far.
. I am waiting for someone to point that Gaddafi came to power in a coup and that makes him illegitimate.
Maybe not, but it would be easy to classify him as a terrorist IF he is the one truly reponsible for Lockerbie.
But is his government illegitimate? It has represented Libya at all sorts of international bodies and the last time I checked had been recognized as such by just about every country in the world, including the US. We even have an embassy in Tripoli. Would Gaddafi be justified in kicking our diplomats out of the country in light of the Acts of War committed aginst his government?
But is his government illegitimate? It has represented Libya at all sorts of international bodies and the last time I checked had been recognized as such by just about every country in the world, including the US. We even have an embassy in Tripoli. Would Gaddafi be justified in kicking our diplomats out of the country in light of the Acts of War committed aginst his government?
I don't think anyone can claim illegitimacy of the Libyan government based neither on a 40 year old coup nor a 20 odd year old terrorist attack that has never been proven to be linked to him. I mean if anyone considered his government illegitimate there is one way of showing that; non-recognition. There must be something drastic to claim that a government that was considered to be legitimate last month is considered to be illegitimate this month. If he had ordered his army to kill unarmed civilians that might be considered as a point of losing legitimacy however I have seen nothing so far that suggests anything of that sort. In my opinion Bahrein's government is more illegitimate then Kaddafi's. It killed its own people and invited foreign troops into its territory all in an effort to keep an apartheid like system in place. I agree with Scout, France, the UK and the US have committed acts of war against a soverign nation and - I'm truly sorry and mean no offence but- I feel sorry for Americans for being led into such an exercise by a Commander in Chief that followed the French in this foolish exercise in futility for no real good reason (legitimate or otherwise). At least the Bush'es started wars for something, oil, strategic importance etc. You can debate whether he was morally right or legally obliged to do so or whether he went about it the right way. But this "l'operation" was a blunder far surpassing any done by Bush (either one) because even if the Americans win you don't win anything. And I realise the absurdity of the fact that Americans can't win because they have no stated goals except "protecting civilans" by shooting near them as was the case at Kaddafi's compound. I was actually hoping for an Obama victory in 08 - mostly because I was terrified of Palin almost as much as Ahmedinutjob - but now I see why my American republican friends are holding countdowns till the next elections. I just hope they stay away from Palin this time.
Well I don't think our official mission is regime change, but you know that's where it's going. Still, Gaddafi hadn't caused us any trouble for the last 20 years after Reagan put him in his place. He was even on board with the War on Terror (well he said he was). Libya had been pretty much a stable nation since he came to power too. I'm not a Gaddafi apologist by any stretch, but Libya is in a civil war now. Since half the nation still seems to support him, it's not unanimous who should rule Libya, and it's not our place to decide that. But I do hope Gaddafi fails in his bid to retain power.
Here is the perfect phrase for what we are doing in Libya “Humanitarian Imperialism”. I admit that I did not come up with it, I first read it in the Canadian paper The Globe and Mail. You could probably also say that to an extent that is what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan although I think the purely tradition goe-political reasons prevailed for those wars.
Two quotes sum it up for me… First is by Richard Luger (R-IN) - "Who has budgeted for Libya at all? I don't believe we should be engaged in a Libyan civil war. The fact is we don't have particular ties with anybody in the Libyan picture. It is not a vital interest to the United States."The second is by Secretary of Defense Gates when he said that Libya "was not a vital interest to the United States."I support our troops 110%. But this whole intervention is assinine. It makes no sense, it has and serves no clear purpose, extends the burden on the military, on the national debt and questions the legitimacy of the US foreign policy.King Obama once again has gone too far...
