Libya

[guido911]

For someone with big hate you come off very small.

And there is the response.

[we vs us]

And there is the response.

I can't remember what you were expecting my reach-arounder response to be, but I don't think anyone really ever thought that Libya was an immediate threat to the US.  Did you?  

EDIT:  And I don't think Obama's ever asserted they are an immediate threat to Americans, either.

[Gaspar]

I can't remember what you were expecting my reach-arounder response to be, but I don't think anyone really ever thought that Libya was an immediate threat to the US.  Did you?  

EDIT:  And I don't think Obama's ever asserted they are an immediate threat to Americans, either.

Does this mean he's going to move to impeach himself?

[guido911]

I can't remember what you were expecting my reach-arounder response to be, but I don't think anyone really ever thought that Libya was an immediate threat to the US.  Did you?  

EDIT:  And I don't think Obama's ever asserted they are an immediate threat to Americans, either.

I am not sure whether he said it or not. Fact is in 2007 he was quite specific in saying the following:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/

He did unilaterally authorize a military attack in a case where there was no "actual or imminent threat" to us; didn't he? How can he (or you) reconcile this glaring 180 degree flip?

[Gaspar]

I am not sure whether he said it or not. Fact is in 2007 he was quite specific in saying the following:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/

He did unilaterally authorize a military attack in a case where there was no "actual or imminent threat" to us; didn't he? How can he (or you) reconcile this glaring 180 degree flip?

Guid. . .there was clearly no attack here, no war.  This was simply a kinetic military activity.  An aggressive aircraft exhibition resulting in the expedited entropy of foreign military concerns.

[Conan71]

Guid. . .there was clearly no attack here, no war.  This was simply a kinetic military activity.  An aggressive aircraft exhibition resulting in the expedited entropy of foreign military concerns.

That settles it.  I feel much better now.

[we vs us]

I am not sure whether he said it or not. Fact is in 2007 he was quite specific in saying the following:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/

He did unilaterally authorize a military attack in a case where there was no "actual or imminent threat" to us; didn't he? How can he (or you) reconcile this glaring 180 degree flip?

I can't.  

Welcome to the real world, where Presidents have to act fast, unilaterally, and with clouded intelligence about the facts on the ground.  I think we've all agreed at one time or another that Obama's made some changes to his worldview since taking office.  I would put this decision squarely in that category.  You'll notice that this is isn't sitting too well with his base, but then a lot of things he's done in the last couple of years hasn't sat too well.  

He's put a lot of stock in governing from a pragmatic position, rather than from ideology.  And he gets a lot of grief from the lefty ideologists for compromising this or that lefty tenet in the name of pragmatism, which he seems to do distressingly often. On a personal level I can see both sides, and understand that the world doesn't always square with your ideology, even though I wish I had a president who could ideologically push back against the conservative slant the country's taken in the last decade.

In any event, I think the similarities between the Libya intervention and Iraq are mostly surface, and a lot of the underlying facts are quite different.  

[Conan71]

I can't.  

Welcome to the real world, where Presidents have to act fast, unilaterally, and with clouded intelligence about the facts on the ground.  I think we've all agreed at one time or another that Obama's made some changes to his worldview since taking office.  I would put this decision squarely in that category.  You'll notice that this is isn't sitting too well with his base, but then a lot of things he's done in the last couple of years hasn't sat too well.  

He's put a lot of stock in governing from a pragmatic position, rather than from ideology.  And he gets a lot of grief from the lefty ideologists for compromising this or that lefty tenet in the name of pragmatism, which he seems to do distressingly often. On a personal level I can see both sides, and understand that the world doesn't always square with your ideology, even though I wish I had a president who could ideologically push back against the conservative slant the country's taken in the last decade.

In any event, I think the similarities between the Libya intervention and Iraq are mostly surface, and a lot of the underlying facts are quite different.  

There was no need for the President to act fast in this case.  Since when did the United States become the referee in every little civil uprising around the globe?  

President Bush was vilified as a liar acting on much less "clouded" intelligence which was the same intel former President Clinton as well as Congress believed to have been true.

[Cats Cats Cats]

There was no need for the President to act fast in this case.  Since when did the United States become the referee in every little civil uprising around the globe? 

Yes there was a need to act fast.  McCain says he didn't act fast enough and I tend to agree.  We let the rebels keep fighting until they were basically going to be wiped out.  Then we started bombing.  We probably should have started lobbing some missles earlier.  Though the view that this was not necessary to our security any more so than Iraq is correct.  So any complaints anybody had about bombing Iraq would be the same as Libya.  Now, if you are comparing occupying a country for 10 years to bombing targets and having NATO takeover.  That isn't exactly the same thing.

[Gaspar]

Welcome to the real world, where Presidents have to act fast, unilaterally, and with clouded intelligence about the facts on the ground.  I think we've all agreed at one time or another that Obama's made some changes to his worldview since taking office.  I would put this decision squarely in that category.  You'll notice that this is isn't sitting too well with his base, but then a lot of things he's done in the last couple of years hasn't sat too well.  

. . .

In any event, I think the similarities between the Libya intervention and Iraq are mostly surface, and a lot of the underlying facts are quite different.  

That first paragraph is interesting on many levels.  Lets break it down.

Presidents have to act fast

Not even worth addressing, just Bahahahahah!  Took 31 days (could have consulted some folks in that time. Aye?).

. . .have to act fast, unilaterally, and with clouded intelligence about the facts on the ground.

Uh, I agree, but there was this other guy. . .never mind.

I think we've all agreed at one time or another that Obama's made some changes to his worldview since taking office.

Yes, as I've stated before this has been a wonderful personal journey for him.  He's learning.  Someday I'm sure he will make a great leader.

You'll notice that this is isn't sitting too well with his base, but then a lot of things he's done in the last couple of years hasn't sat too well.

Just chalk it up to experience.

In any event, I think the similarities between the Libya intervention and Iraq are mostly surface, and a lot of the underlying facts are quite different.

Hey Guid, reach-around initiated.

[Cats Cats Cats]

In any event, I think the similarities between the Libya intervention and Iraq are mostly surface, and a lot of the underlying facts are quite different.  

Like an actual armed rebellion.

[Gaspar]

Like an actual armed rebellion.

You're right.  The Kurds weren't armed, they were gassed.

[Cats Cats Cats]

You're right.  The Kurds weren't armed, they were gassed.

Objection! Relevance

[Conan71]

You're right.  The Kurds weren't armed, they were gassed.

Yeah, but the dead Kurds are like the Holocaust and Rwanda...never happened.

And along the lines of Iraq, did we not learn our lesson?  We kept Hussein on a short leash from 1991 until we invaded again in 2002.  We've kept Gadaffi on a short leash since 1986.  Again why the sudden rush for a regime change?  As if there's going to be any quicker stability in Libya if there's a sudden vacuum of power?

Quite possible for us to wind up with another long-term occupation in Libya as well Trog, unless we just want to go in and destabilize the entire Middle East.  Iraq was initially a NATO mission as well.  As we can see, it all eventually wound up in our lap.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Yeah, but the dead Kurds are like the Holocaust and Rwanda...never happened.

And along the lines of Iraq, did we not learn our lesson?  We kept Hussein on a short leash from 1991 until we invaded again in 2002.  We've kept Gadaffi on a short leash since 1986.  Again why the sudden rush for a regime change?  As if there's going to be any quicker stability in Libya if there's a sudden vacuum of power?

Quite possible for us to wind up with another long-term occupation in Libya as well Trog, unless we just want to go in and destabilize the entire Middle East.  Iraq was initially a NATO mission as well.  As we can see, it all eventually wound up in our lap.

Has anybody actually been paying attention to anything about Libya?

First, has Obama said we will lead in the coalition to invade Libya with our ground troops?  No he said he wouldn't send them in. 
"should Iraqi President Saddam Hussein choose not to disarm, the United States will lead a coalition of the willing to disarm him."  -GWB


Does overthrowing a government lead to a power vacuum?  Yes absolutely.  But it sounds like you think we should bomb the rebels so that the country would be more stable.  The only reason why we bombed or did anything in Libya is because they have an active rebellion.  You know... They held actual cities.  Had military defectors.  The reason for bombing was to give them time to organize and to help with their superior firepower (but calling it protecting civilians of course).

Among the rebels, as well, there was a realization that fighting could be drawn out. Mohammed Abdul-Mullah, a 38-year-old civil engineer from Benghazi who was fighting with the rebel force, said government troops stopped all resistance after the international campaign began.

"The balance has changed a lot," he said. "But pro-Gadhafi forces are still strong. They are a professional military and they have good equipment. Ninety percent of us rebels are civilians, while Gadhafi's people are professional fighters."

http://www.northjersey.com/news/international/032111_Pentagon_Gadhafi_forces_in_disarray_after_assault.html