obozo's new war

[Rick]

obozo has the US Navy lobbing cruise missiles into Libya, taking sides in a civil war. Now, where's the peace creep brigade with their eternal "we shouldn't meddle in the internal affairs of other countries" mantra? Cat got their tongues?? Oh, no wait - I GET IT - we shouldn't meddle in the internal affairs of other countries WHEN A REPUBLICAN IS PRESIDENT - YAAA, THAT'S IT!

 

[pocketfullofshells]

once again someone who can't figure out difference between proving support for a no fly zone to protect civilians...and a full out invasion based on...at best wrong info...at worse lies.

 

[Dr.Who]

once again someone who can't figure out difference between proving support for a no fly zone to protect civilians...and a full out invasion based on...at best wrong info...at worse lies.

Both are acts of war. One difference is one of magnitude.

The attack on Iraq was at best based on wrong info (or info since hidden) or worse lies, but the purpose of the attack was to protect the US from a crazy but powerful leader who seemed to have weapons of mass destruction and wanted to harm us. In Libya they have a crazy impotent leader who poses no real threat to us.

The difference is a misunderstood or wrongly understood constitutional authority to attack versus one in which there is a completely understood lack of constitutional authority for the attack.

 

[Hobo1]

I spend a lot of time in Indonesia, a predominantly Muslim country. After a while it becomes painfully clear that US military actions around the world appear to be a concentrated effort against Muslims.

Shooting over 100 cruise missiles (at over a $.6 million each) into Libya is clearly an act of war. The reason for this action was to spare civilian lives. This is a pretty flimsy excuse - and the first time I have heard that excuse as a reason to go to war. Whatever happened to "Clear and present danger"? Or "Grave and growing danger"?

These were not ordinary citizens, many of them are rebel fighters fighting to overthrow the government. So there is at least a reasonable justification for Gaddafi to be fighting a no-holes-bared war against the civilians/rebels. The US doesn't have as good a reason to be killing civilians in Afghanistan.

Of course, an American President always makes sure there is a UN resolution and joint NATO partners to sort of share the blame. But on a worldwide scale the US is looking increasingly bellicose. And we are looking increasingly focused on killing Muslims.

Even if you are an intellect who understands all of the justifications for Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya, most of the population around the world does not. The US looks like it is still taking revenge against Muslims for the 9/11 attack. There really is no other easily understandable reason why we are using our incredible military strength against relatively defenseless Muslim countries.

It time we return to the "clear and present danger" criteria before we go to war. It is also time we return to the Constitution which says that only Congress can declare war. That means we stay at home and mind our own business. And if innocent civilians are dying in Libya, well they are also dying in Sudan and other parts of Africa. Until the world becomes more advanced, a more civilized, no one is ready for global governance and no one wants the US to be judge, jury and policemen of other countries around the world.

No one likes a bully. Many Muslims around the world had high hopes that Obama would change American foreign police from "shot, ready, aim" to a more patient, measured, and peaceful policy. Remember every Muslim we kill makes another Muslim family bitterly angry at the US. It is time we polish our image abroad if we want to play the role of gentle giant. We really are the only country on Earth that starts wars against other countries. And that is just plain un-American to the core.

 

[Rick]

once again someone who can't figure out difference between proving support for a no fly zone to protect civilians...and a full out invasion based on...at best wrong info...at worse lies.

Yet another dimbulb comment from our resident one-watt leftwinger. The US and others launching widespread air and naval bombing attacks on Libyan military assets in the midst of an armed revolt is CLEARLY taking sides.

 

[BigRob]

I spend a lot of time in Indonesia, a predominantly Muslim country. After a while it becomes painfully clear that US military actions around the world appear to be a concentrated effort against Muslims.

Shooting over 100 cruise missiles (at over a $.6 million each) into Libya is clearly an act of war. The reason for this action was to spare civilian lives. This is a pretty flimsy excuse - and the first time I have heard that excuse as a reason to go to war. Whatever happened to "Clear and present danger"? Or "Grave and growing danger"?

These were not ordinary citizens, many of them are rebel fighters fighting to overthrow the government. So there is at least a reasonable justification for Gaddafi to be fighting a no-holes-bared war against the civilians/rebels. The US doesn't have as good a reason to be killing civilians in Afghanistan.

Of course, an American President always makes sure there is a UN resolution and joint NATO partners to sort of share the blame. But on a worldwide scale the US is looking increasingly bellicose. And we are looking increasingly focused on killing Muslims.

Even if you are an intellect who understands all of the justifications for Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya, most of the population around the world does not. The US looks like it is still taking revenge against Muslims for the 9/11 attack. There really is no other easily understandable reason why we are using our incredible military strength against relatively defenseless Muslim countries.

It time we return to the "clear and present danger" criteria before we go to
war. It is also time we return to the Constitution which says that only Congress can declare war. That means we stay at home and mind our own business. And if innocent civilians are dying in Libya, well they are also dying in Sudan and other parts of Africa. Until the world becomes more advanced, a more civilized, no one is ready for global governance and no one wants the US to be judge, jury and policemen of other countries around the world.

No one likes a bully. Many Muslims around the world had high hopes that
Obama would change American foreign police from "shot, ready, aim" to a more patient, measured, and peaceful policy. Remember every Muslim we kill makes another Muslim family bitterly angry at the US. It is time we polish our image abroad if we want to play the role of gentle giant. We really are the only country on Earth that starts wars against other countries. And that is just plain un-American to the core.

At issue too seems to be that anywhere we look in the world we can argue we must intervene to save civilians. It is a bad road to continue down.

For example, are we now going to intervene in Bahrain or Yemen in an effort to "protect the civilians?"

 

[Rick]

I spend a lot of time in Indonesia, a predominantly Muslim country. After a while it becomes painfully clear that US military actions around the world appear to be a concentrated effort against Muslims.

Shooting over 100 cruise missiles (at over a $.6 million each) into Libya is clearly an act of war. The reason for this action was to spare civilian lives. This is a pretty flimsy excuse - and the first time I have heard that excuse as a reason to go to war. Whatever happened to "Clear and present danger"? Or "Grave and growing danger"?

These were not ordinary citizens, many of them are rebel fighters fighting to overthrow the government. So there is at least a reasonable justification for Gaddafi to be fighting a no-holes-bared war against the civilians/rebels. The US doesn't have as good a reason to be killing civilians in Afghanistan.

Of course, an American President always makes sure there is a UN resolution and joint NATO partners to sort of share the blame. But on a worldwide scale the US is looking increasingly bellicose. And we are looking increasingly focused on killing Muslims.

Even if you are an intellect who understands all of the justifications for Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya, most of the population around the world does not. The US looks like it is still taking revenge against Muslims for the 9/11 attack. There really is no other easily understandable reason why we are using our incredible military strength against relatively defenseless Muslim countries.

It time we return to the "clear and present danger" criteria before we go to war. It is also time we return to the Constitution which says that only Congress can declare war. That means we stay at home and mind our own business. And if innocent civilians are dying in Libya, well they are also dying in Sudan and other parts of Africa. Until the world becomes more advanced, a more civilized, no one is ready for global governance and no one wants the US to be judge, jury and policemen of other countries around the world.

No one likes a bully. Many Muslims around the world had high hopes that Obama would change American foreign police from "shot, ready, aim" to a more patient, measured, and peaceful policy. Remember every Muslim we kill makes another Muslim family bitterly angry at the US. It is time we polish our image abroad if we want to play the role of gentle giant. We really are the only country on Earth that starts wars against other countries. And that is just plain un-American to the core.

Although I have no sympathy for islamofascists and don't buy the "war on muslims" theory, you are absolutely correct that this is an act of war, and I also agree with the idea that wars must be declared by congress. Also, regarding the usual leftwing hypocrisy, think what would happen if a republican president took these actions - the leftwing media would be falling over each other to say such as "it will just make arabs madder" and "it will cause more 9-11s in the US" and "it's all about oil" etc etc etc - of course since it's OBOZO doing it, they are as usal completely silent.

 

[Hobo1]

Although I have no sympathy for islamofascists and don't buy the "war on muslims" theory, you are absolutely correct that this is an act of war, and I also agree with the idea that wars must be declared by congress. Also, regarding the usual leftwing hypocrisy, think what would happen if a republican president took these actions - the leftwing media would be falling over each other to say such as "it will just make arabs madder" and "it will cause more 9-11s in the US" and "it's all about oil" etc etc etc - of course since it's OBOZO doing it, they are as usal completely silent.

Perhaps I should have more clearly stated that I do not think it is a war on Muslims either. I don't think believe either Bush or Obama had a hidden agenda to weaken or destroy Muslim countries for some ideological reason.

However, appearances are vitally important in the world of international politics. When we ask Saudi Arabia to allow us to keep a military base on their soil, or anytime SOS Clinton talks to a Muslim country, the chances of getting cooperation depends upon Arabic public opinion of America.

That's the point. Obama should be asking himself whether saving Libyan civilians outweigh the loss of political capital his action will cause. Not only are Muslim countries (and their population) looking at the US as a bellicose country, but people all over the world truly fear and dislike the US. To the uneducated farmer who doesn't read the news on the internet, the US looks like a loose cannon. The US doesn't want to conquer territory (like empire builders of the past), yet we seem to use our military on an impulsive, inexplicable whim. You can bet many people who live in a East or South Mediterranean country are really worried they may be the next victim of a US military missile attack. And their leaders will be very hesitant to cooperate with the US on, say, a new peace plan for Israel. That is a heavy price to pay for the sake of restoring human rights in Libya.

 

[steveox]

Can we protest in front of the white house? I wonder if the Left wing media will show war protests against Obama admin? And someone should shout when congress resumes

NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!

 

[Rick]

Perhaps I should have more clearly stated that I do not think it is a war on Muslims either. I don't think believe either Bush or Obama had a hidden agenda to weaken or destroy Muslim countries for some ideological reason.

However, appearances are vitally important in the world of international politics. When we ask Saudi Arabia to allow us to keep a military base on their soil, or anytime SOS Clinton talks to a Muslim country, the chances of getting cooperation depends upon Arabic public opinion of America.

That's the point. Obama should be asking himself whether saving Libyan civilians outweigh the loss of political capital his action will cause. Not only are Muslim countries (and their population) looking at the US as a bellicose country, but people all over the world truly fear and dislike the US. To the uneducated farmer who doesn't read the news on the internet, the US looks like a loose cannon. The US doesn't want to conquer territory (like empire builders of the past), yet we seem to use our military on an impulsive, inexplicable whim. You can bet many people who live in a East or South Mediterranean country are really worried they may be the next victim of a US military missile attack. And their leaders will be very hesitant to cooperate with the US on, say, a new peace plan for Israel. That is a heavy price to pay for the sake of restoring human rights in Libya.

Let me clarify my own thoughts. First Kaddafy (or however you want to spell his name) would be a laughable character, except that he kills people. I of course DO have sympathy for innocent citizens getting killed anywhere, but I don't like the false claim that that's all that is happening here. Further, I might even AGREE with the US supporting armed resistance against that dictatorship, but it should be identified for what it is.

As for the world's muslims getting paranoid about us, there's a limit to how far US foreign policy should be determined by other peoples' delusions - once you go down that path, there's no telling where you will end up. As for the US using military on an inexplicable whim - that's going too far. Was striking back at al qaeda in their afghan homebase, after 9-11, an inexplicable whim? C'monnnnnnnn.

 

[Pidgey]

Afghanistan's about minerals. Iraq was about oil. Libya's about oil, too. When Libya declared Force Majeure on ~1.5 million barrels a day export (mostly to Europe) it became a VERY serious matter. Serious enough to go to war? You betcha'.

You guys don't really STILL think that wars occur for ideological reasons, do you?

 

[Rick]

Afghanistan's about minerals. Iraq was about oil. Libya's about oil, too. When Libya declared Force Majeure on ~1.5 million barrels a day export (mostly to Europe) it became a VERY serious matter. Serious enough to go to war? You betcha'.

You guys don't really STILL think that wars occur for ideological reasons, do you?

Proof? Facts? Evidence?

And you need to look up the definition of force majeure.

 

[Pidgey]

Definition of "Force Majeure" from the Internet:

"Force majeure: A contract clause that protects a party from being held liable for a breach of contract that was caused by unavoidable events beyond the party’s control, such as natural disasters or wars."

...which is exactly what I meant. Your point?

As to proof, facts and evidence: Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem.

 

[Rick]

Definition of "Force Majeure" from the Internet:

"Force majeure: A contract clause that protects a party from being held liable for a breach of contract that was caused by unavoidable events beyond the party’s control, such as natural disasters or wars."

...which is exactly what I meant. Your point?

"When Libya declared Force Majeure on ~1.5 million barrels a day export (mostly to Europe)"

...makes absolutely no sense - speak English.

 

[BigRob]

Interesting article in the Washington Examiner:

With no debate and no objective, Obama enters a war:

"Today, I authorized the armed forces of the United States to begin a limited military action in Libya," the president said. For him it was self-evident he had such authority. He gave no hint he would seek even ex post facto congressional approval. In fact, he never once mentioned Congress.

And, once more, the president's actions belie his words on the campaign trail. In late 2007, candidate Obama told the Boston Globe, "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."

Obama will portray the U.S. role as simply supporting the European powers or "setting the stage," but, again, he has a history of playing word games when it comes to military conflicts. For instance, although it has been eight months since Obama declared "the end of combat operations" in Iraq, American soldiers are still being killed in combat. Americans can put little stake in what Obama says today about what the U.S. is actually doing in Libya, and no one should count on straight answers in the future.

Finally, the White House hasn't spelled out the objectives of this military campaign. The U.N. resolution is purportedly about a bringing about a cease-fire, but if Gadhafi does stop shooting, will the rebels stop? Would the U.S. and its allies really leave Gadhafi in charge? Would they partition Libya?

Or, more likely, is this about regime change? And if Gadhafi is deposed, can the U.S. really walk away -- or will this mean more nation-building in the Muslim world?

The author makes some good points:

1) What are our objectives in Libya? The UN Resolution allows for the use of force only to protect civilians. Does that include removing Gadhafi?

2) What happens if Gadhafi stops fighting?

3) What happens in Gadhafi stops fighting and the rebels do not?

4) Why was Congress not even consulted?