Secretary Gates On Why We Are Involved in Libya

[BigRob]

This is absurd.

“It was not -- it was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest and it was an interest for all of the reasons Secretary Clinton talked about. The engagement of the Arabs, the engagement of the Europeans, the general humanitarian question that was at stake,” he said.

Gates explained that there was more at stake, however. “There was another piece of this though, that certainly was a consideration. You've had revolutions on both the East and the West of Libya,” he said, emphasizing the potential wave of refugees from Libya could have destabilized Tunisia and Egypt.

According to the Secretary of Defense, we intervened in Libya not out of national interest of to stop a security threat, we intervened to "engage Arabs, and engage Europeans." That is absurd.

The whole rationale behind this intervention is absurd. It is just amazing that the Secretary of Defense would make the case of intervention based on some ridiculous concept of "engaging Arabs and Europeans." That is the new strategy?

The line of thinking behind this action opens the door for the United States to get involved wherever it pleases, with no real mission, just vague notions of "engagement" and "humanitarian" issues. Amazing.

 

[TruthSeeker]

This is absurd.

According to the Secretary of Defense, we intervened in Libya not out of national interest of to stop a security threat, we intervened to "engage Arabs, and engage Europeans." That is absurd.

The whole rationale behind this intervention is absurd. It is just amazing that the Secretary of Defense would make the case of intervention based on some ridiculous concept of "engaging Arabs and Europeans." That is the new strategy?

The line of thinking behind this action opens the door for the United States to get involved wherever it pleases, with no real mission, just vague notions of "engagement" and "humanitarian" issues. Amazing.

I fail to see how this little "military action" by the U.S. is any different than any other military action by the U.S. Maybe the reasons are murky. Maybe Obama isn't exactly General George Patton in his approach. Maybe Obama is simply in way over his head.

What bothers me is the crickets emanating from the Obama-loving leftist news media outlets. Minimal criticisms. Minimal analysis. Minimal second-guessing. And of course, the elephant in the room............no Congressional approval for this particular U.S. military action.

But, there are plenty of precedents for what Obama is doing. The fact that the Hannitys and the Limbaughs and the Becks and the O'Reillys of the world are having a hissy fit over this is a stunning example of classic hypocrisy from the right. It's embarrassing and ridiculous that these people would criticize Obama for the same thing that G.W. Bush or Bush '41 or Reagan would do or actually did.

Who would have ever thought that Obama would ever be called a "war monger" in some circles. Amazing.

 

[dogtowner]

This admission admits that Obama violated the war powers act. There is your high crime or misdemeanor.

 

[BigRob]

I fail to see how this little "military action" by the U.S. is any different than any other military action by the U.S. Maybe the reasons are murky. Maybe Obama isn't exactly General George Patton in his approach. Maybe Obama is simply in way over his head.

What bothers me is the crickets emanating from the Obama-loving leftist news media outlets. Minimal criticisms. Minimal analysis. Minimal second-guessing. And of course, the elephant in the room............no Congressional approval for this particular U.S. military action.

But, there are plenty of precedents for what Obama is doing. The fact that the Hannitys and the Limbaughs and the Becks and the O'Reillys of the world are having a hissy fit over this is a stunning example of classic hypocrisy from the right. It's embarrassing and ridiculous that these people would criticize Obama for the same thing that G.W. Bush or Bush '41 or Reagan would do or actually did.

Who would have ever thought that Obama would ever be called a "war monger" in some circles. Amazing.

Reagan intervention in Libya:
S.J.R. 159
September 29, 1983

Bush in Gulf War:
H.R.J. Res. 77
January 12, 1991.

Bush intervention in Afghanistan:
S.J. Res. 23
September 14, 2001

Bush intervention in Iraq:
H.J. Res. 114,
March 3, 2003


Which intervention specifically are you talking about? Not declaring war officially and not consulting Congress are different things.

 

[Hobo1]

I will let a man named Bluegrass on another forum give my response.

"Here we have a Saudi crackdown going on in Bahrain in which the US is fully complacent, and the White House went even so far as to state "This is not an invasion" on the day the Saudis invaded Bahrain. You don't have to be a linguistics professor to understand that the White House can call it an "un-invasion" because Bahrain's government supports it.

And since then, which was about a week ago, we don't hear about the US ally Saudi Arabia in Bahrain anymore. We hear about American Big Dick foreign policy - like giant explosions and Libyan air forces being wiped out of the sky. We hear about Gaddhafi the Tyrant, and how America and the allies are bringing him to justice, one fallen stronghold, one kill, one Amerigasm at a time." ​

Great name for our foreign policy. Probably named after Dick Cheney.

 

[BigRob]

I will let a man named Bluegrass on another forum give my response.

"Here we have a Saudi crackdown going on in Bahrain in which the US is fully complacent, and the White House went even so far as to state "This is not an invasion" on the day the Saudis invaded Bahrain. You don't have to be a linguistics professor to understand that the White House can call it an "un-invasion" because Bahrain's government supports it.

And since then, which was about a week ago, we don't hear about the US ally Saudi Arabia in Bahrain anymore. We hear about American Big Dick foreign policy - like giant explosions and Libyan air forces being wiped out of the sky. We hear about Gaddhafi the Tyrant, and how America and the allies are bringing him to justice, one fallen stronghold, one kill, one Amerigasm at a time." ​

Great name for our foreign policy. Probably named after Dick Cheney.

Much of what we seem to be doing lately can be wrapped up in a quote from an unlikely source.

"How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think" -- Adolf Hitler

 

[Rick]

Let's quit the crap here, folks. Obozo is a genuine exponent of the american leftwing, and the absofukinglutely LAST thing the american leftwing will do is operate in america's self interest. He took pity on the arabs being killed by kaddafy. It was basically an emotional response by the most incompetent presdient in US history.

 

[Hobo1]

Let's quit the crap here, folks. Obozo is a genuine exponent of the american leftwing, and the absofukinglutely LAST thing the american leftwing will do is operate in america's self interest. He took pity on the arabs being killed by kaddafy. It was basically an emotional response by the most incompetent presdient in US history.

Just think, Obama could be doing so many other good things around the world, or at home. If I were president, I would set aside a lot of time calling in experts and think tanks to give me some deeper perspective on the issues around the world. When situations like this come up, I want to have been given a deep background reports from the military, Africa experts, State department, all sorts of people who have different views on a situation.

The same thing is true about domestic issues, especially the Federal Debt, or what's the matter with our schools. In the last 2 weeks all we have seen in the news is Japan and recently Libya. This is an ideal time for the president to catch up and become knowledgeable about what is happening in the US - and maybe even make some policies.

But no, Obama has got to jump into the Libyan situation with both feet and it consumes his time. If it were me, I would wait and see what NATO wants to do to enforce the UN decision. By that time, I would be ready to spend a day seeing how we can help NATO... provided they can give me a real good reason why they can't hand this with European forces alone. We have no dog in this fight.

How can this dude make an intelligent decision if he doesn't study. Now it is "shoot, ready, aim". or "Act on my own gut reaction" like Bush.

Obama would have a hard time managing a McDonald's restaurant, much less be the Head of the Executive Branch whose job it is to manage the whole friggin' country.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Reagan intervention in Libya:
S.J.R. 159
September 29, 1983

Bush in Gulf War:
H.R.J. Res. 77
January 12, 1991.

Bush intervention in Afghanistan:
S.J. Res. 23
September 14, 2001

Bush intervention in Iraq:
H.J. Res. 114,
March 3, 2003

Which intervention specifically are you talking about? Not declaring war officially and not consulting Congress are different things.

Reagan and Grenada.

Reagan and Lebanon.

Reagan 1986 airstrike on Libya.

Clinton 1998 missile strikes on Al Qaeda base camps in Afghanistan.

Clinton airstrike on Libya during the Lewinsky scandal.

There are other examples, but you get the idea.

And then there are those two pesky undeclared wars that we all wish would have never happened..........Korea and Vietnam.

Read the War Powers Act of 1973, which requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Reagan and Grenada.

Reagan and Lebanon.

Reagan 1986 airstrike on Libya.

Clinton 1998 missile strikes on Al Qaeda base camps in Afghanistan.

Clinton airstrike on Libya during the Lewinsky scandal.

There are other examples, but you get the idea.

And then there are those two pesky undeclared wars that we all wish would have never happened..........Korea and Vietnam.

Read the War Powers Act of 1973, which requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

I think you ment Clinton airstrike on Sudan not Libya if you ment same time air-strikes as the Afgan ones you said before that...

 

[TruthSeeker]

I think you ment Clinton airstrike on Sudan not Libya if you ment same time air-strikes as the Afgan ones you said before that...

I was listing this stuff from memory, but didn't Clinton order the bombing of what turned out to be an aspirin factory in Libya?

 

[Hobo1]

I was listing this stuff from memory, but didn't Clinton order the bombing of what turned out to be an aspirin factory in Libya?

That is my recollection too. I think Clinton hit one site in Afghanistan, and the other in Libya at the same time - and it turned out to be an aspirin factory!

Just another example of Presidents using the military as a knee jerk reaction, not having the foggiest idea of what and why they are doing it. It is as if the lives of the people who die in these raids are meaningless.

Same exact thing is happening in Libya today. Obama is bombing but has no idea who the rebels are, or what they stand for. Not one rebel leader has spoken out about the purpose and goals of their revolution. He has no idea what he is doing.

I will gladly admit I am no scholar on world affairs; and Obama is just about as knowledgeable as I am. The difference is I would have brought in some experts to Camp David for a week and crammed all the history and knowledge I could into my brain so I could make an informed decision. Obama has no analytical ability and that is sad.

 

[TruthSeeker]

That is my recollection too. I think Clinton hit one site in Afghanistan, and the other in Libya at the same time - and it turned out to be an aspirin factory!

Just another example of Presidents using the military as a knee jerk reaction, not having the foggiest idea of what and why they are doing it. It is as if the lives of the people who die in these raids are meaningless.

Same exact thing is happening in Libya today. Obama is bombing but has no idea who the rebels are, or what they stand for. Not one rebel leader has spoken out about the purpose and goals of their revolution. He has no idea what he is doing.

I will gladly admit I am no scholar on world affairs; and Obama is just about as knowledgeable as I am. The difference is I would have brought in some experts to Camp David for a week and crammed all the history and knowledge I could into my brain so I could make an informed decision. Obama has no analytical ability and that is sad.

Hobo, you make a great point. We really don't know what the end game of the rebels is. Are they radical Islamo extremists? Are they freedom fighters? Are they people who want to establish a Democracy? Does anybody really know?

Is Obama aiding and abetting the spread of Islamo-terrorism by supporting the rebels in Egypt, the rebels in Libya, and the other rebellions that are going on in the middle east?