obozo's new war

[Hobo1]

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?

Excellent points. Notice the similarity with The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States:

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

Ignoring this advice could likely take us down a slippery slope to a place where this nation is not going to want to go. Remember the US involvement in Vietnam was started by sending over military advisers, a seemingly safe strategy.

This country has a history of cautiously and naively walking into quagmires one small step at a time.

 

[Dr.Who]

Will removing Clown-Boy from leadership in Libya make Arabs mad? Well, the Arab League approves of the military action in Libya.

Given that we have no idea what the outcome of removing Clown-Boy will be we should ask ourselves why the Arab League approves. With their approval we may not look like imperialists but the next regime may be far more in favor of Sharia Law.

 

[Apathy]

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!

argumentum tu quoque

 

[dogtowner]

Will removing Clown-Boy from leadership in Libya make Arabs mad? Well, the Arab League approves of the military action in Libya.

Given that we have no idea what the outcome of removing Clown-Boy will be we should ask ourselves why the Arab League approves. With their approval we may not look like imperialists but the next regime may be far more in favor of Sharia Law.

They do not want to remove him or they would have started this long ago. They just want him to stop blowing people up and go back to speepy ole Libya regulasrly pumping oil for Europe.

 

[Pidgey]

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

...makes absolutely no sense - speak English.

Makes perfect sense if you understand contract law, especially as applied to international trade. Geopolitics IS economics, not ideologies. If that's simply too succinct, then try asking for clarification without expressing attitude next time.

The worst part of what it meant was that Libya was quite obviously going to stop shipping oil, and quite a bit of it to its customers. This would be oil right now, today--not futures contracts--so the squeeze comes too fast for the customer countries to do anything about it easily and certainly not cheaply. A very great deal of the oil used today was contracted for quite awhile ago (years, for instance). Being stuck with suddenly needing to make up a substantial shortage for an indefinite period on short notice would be a real bummer. Info on where Libya's oil goes and how much oil is used by country:

http://www.channel4.com/news/articl...tics/libyan+oil+where+does+it+go/3719882.html

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption

We're talking a substantial loss for Italy, France

The world has been in quite a supply crunch since Regular Conventional Oil (RCO) reached its production peak in 2005. Since then, it's been downhill for the actual net-delivered per capita energy as far as liquid fuels are concerned. Sure... "all liquids" have appeared to rise, but that still doesn't mean that you're delivering more on a net basis.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

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.

Aside from say the 90s when we enforced a no fly zone, bombed targets to save civilan lives....who happen to be Muslim...being attacked by others...In Bosnia?

And yes we do seem to attack Muslim nations quite often vs others...but lets be real...what other nations have we had reason ( and that are not huge risks to attack...aka no we are not going to war with China or Russia ..not because they are Muslim ...but because we have no reason and they could actly fight back well)

 

[pocketfullofshells]

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?

If it was about Oil...we would have done nothing...or acted sooner to make sure the Rebals won quickly...the US gets almost Zero Oil from Lybia..and thats not likey to change.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Interesting article in the Washington Examiner:

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





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?

1. Our stated goal is protect civilans with Air Power and not ground troops...that however is not the Goal listed by the UN that is more braud and more actions more likey will be taken by the French and British....

2. Then we fly a no fly zone for a while and make sure he stays that way and no actions are needed?

3. what happens if pink unicorns invade? its about as likey.

4. Actions taken where to prevent a attack on civilians and Kadfi had basically implied could be a massacre... Possibly within hours of when the attack started...congress would have debated for a month and it would have been done. If anything, if they where going to take this action they should have acted sooner not waited. More then likey the US main part of this action will be done with before congress would have even agreed to when to talk about it.

 

[Pidgey]

If it was about Oil...we would have done nothing...or acted sooner to make sure the Rebals won quickly...the US gets almost Zero Oil from Lybia..and thats not likey to change.

You seem to think that the US ONLY acts in its own interests... ever heard of "globalists" and "globalism"? In today's world, a huge portion of it is connected. It's literally possible for something "over there" to collapse and then cause a cascade failure to "here".

I grant you that it would be much nicer to be essentially self-contained but, alas, it just isn't so.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

You seem to think that the US ONLY acts in its own interests... ever heard of "globalists" and "globalism"? In today's world, a huge portion of it is connected. It's literally possible for something "over there" to collapse and then cause a cascade failure to "here".

I grant you that it would be much nicer to be essentially self-contained but, alas, it just isn't so.

For the most part yes, the US has always and will keep doing so...acting in its own interests. Does not mean I agree always, but fact is we do.

 

[BigRob]

1. Our stated goal is protect civilans with Air Power and not ground troops...that however is not the Goal listed by the UN that is more braud and more actions more likey will be taken by the French and British....

What? The stated goals in UNSC Resolution 1973 are to establish a no-fly zone, keep up the arms embargo, protect civilians, and freeze the assets of some certain people.

How is that more broad than what we are doing? The establishment of the no-fly zone will protect the civilians, and the Resolution explicitly disallows the use of ground troops to accomplish this.

All of that aside, you are telling me you support the idea of getting involved in civil wars from a humanitarian perspective? Under that reasoning, we can be involved anywhere in the world we want, whenever we want, for as long as we want.

2. Then we fly a no fly zone for a while and make sure he stays that way and no actions are needed?

We "fly a no fly zone for awhile"....sounds like we are going to be in Libya for the next few decades then.

3. what happens if pink unicorns invade? its about as likey.

What happens when we don't plan through scenarios?

4. Actions taken where to prevent a attack on civilians and Kadfi had basically implied could be a massacre... Possibly within hours of when the attack started...congress would have debated for a month and it would have been done. If anything, if they where going to take this action they should have acted sooner not waited. More then likey the US main part of this action will be done with before congress would have even agreed to when to talk about it.

"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." - Barack Obama

How is a massacre in Libya an imminent threat to our nation? If this was truly all about saving lives, we would have acted much quicker than we did.

 

[Rick]

The "all about oil" theory is as unconvincing as it was with iraq. When saddam was in power, iraq oil production was at its peak, and he was happy to sell oil to the US, and did. He needed money for his palaces and weapons programs. Then the US largely engineered the UN boycott, with only a little oil sold to provide food for iraqi children, which of course went to the weapons programs instead. Why would it do that, if it's "all about oil"? In the aftermath of the iraq war, oil production was wayyyyy down and still is. Further, the oil contracts let by the new iraq democratic government all went to non-US companies.

So the "all about oil" theory doesn't stand the test of the known facts.

 

[BigRob]

Good article in the Washington Post:

Some key points:

-America has intervened in a civil war in a tribal society, the dynamics of which America does not understand

-Many in the media call Moammar Gaddafi’s opponents “freedom fighters,” and perhaps they are, but no one calling them that really knows how the insurgents regard one another, or understand freedom, or if freedom, however understood, is their priority.

-In Libya, mission creep began before the mission did. A no-fly zone would not accomplish what Barack Obama calls “a well-defined goal,” the “protection of civilians.” So the no-fly zone immediately became protection for aircraft conducting combat operations against Gaddafi’s ground forces.

-America’s war aim is inseparable from — indeed, obviously is — destruction of that regime. So our purpose is to create a political vacuum, into which we hope — this is the “audacity of hope” as foreign policy — good things will spontaneously flow

-If Gaddafi cannot be beaten by the rebels, are we prepared to supply their military deficiencies? And if the decapitation of his regime produces what the removal of Saddam Hussein did — bloody chaos — what then are our responsibilities regarding the tribal vendettas we may have unleashed? How long are we prepared to police the partitioning of Libya?

-Explaining his decision to wage war, Obama said Gaddafi has “lost the confidence of his own people and the legitimacy to lead.” Such meretricious boilerplate seems designed to anesthetize thought. When did Gaddafi lose his people’s confidence? When did he have legitimacy? American doctrine — check the Declaration of Independence — is that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. So there are always many illegitimate governments. When is it America’s duty to scrub away these blemishes on the planet? Is there a limiting principle of humanitarian interventionism? If so, would Obama take a stab at stating it?

 

[Pidgey]

The "all about oil" theory is as unconvincing as it was with iraq. When saddam was in power, iraq oil production was at its peak, and he was happy to sell oil to the US, and did. He needed money for his palaces and weapons programs. Then the US largely engineered the UN boycott, with only a little oil sold to provide food for iraqi children, which of course went to the weapons programs instead. Why would it do that, if it's "all about oil"? In the aftermath of the iraq war, oil production was wayyyyy down and still is. Further, the oil contracts let by the new iraq democratic government all went to non-US companies.

So the "all about oil" theory doesn't stand the test of the known facts.

It does from a globalist's viewpoint. Saddam wasn't "getting it done". The plan for Iraq is to bring its oil production up to ~10 million barrels a day production in a few years, AND... at a lower input cost per barrel than other places that are currently being explored. Iraq has some of the last cheap and easy oil to get--bigger & shallower wells. Beats the living H*ll out of drilling down ~20,000 feet on an ocean floor that's over a mile down--those suckers are EXPENSIVE and they don't last as long per well.

 

[Rick]

You seem to think that the US ONLY acts in its own interests... ever heard of "globalists" and "globalism"? In today's world, a huge portion of it is connected. It's literally possible for something "over there" to collapse and then cause a cascade failure to "here".

I grant you that it would be much nicer to be essentially self-contained but, alas, it just isn't so.

Hogwash. A leftwinger like obozo acts against the US interest at every turn.