Big can of whupass has just been opened on Ghadafi

[AZhitman]

Pray for our troops, and those of the coalition forces as they carry out the UN resolution.

[heliochrome85]

pressing the launch button is a very hazardous job.

[stebo0728]

Do you think we will really hand this over? And if we do, will it fare well? And will we really uphold the "no ground troops" mantra? All questions I look forward to seeing answers to in the days ahead. I hope this doesnt become Obama's Iraq. It currently doesnt appear to be, but it doesnt take long for that to change.

[AZhitman]

Very true.

I'm no military strategist, but I can't imagine a need for ground troops. The people of Libya had already successfully taken several key positions (and even whole cities) before the regime took things to the next level. I think they just needed some assurances that they wouldn't be pummeled by the Libyan air force and slaughtered with superior firepower. The UN is simply "leveling the playing field".

At this point, I'm warily optimistic that the Arab nations will finally take notice of something that seems to have eluded them: We don't give a damn about your stupid oil. If we wanted your damn oil, we'd have turned Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya into The Republic of East Texas by now. Your people want freedom a hell of a lot more than they want to hate America, and crackpot lunatic leaders can either heed the indomitable will of the people, or GTFO.

[IBCoupe]

I discussed this on Sunday, while I was on vacation. My dad was wary of getting involved with another Middle Eastern entanglement, but I'll explain my position to y'all as I did to him:

First, I should say that I do not give a rat's patoot about the Libyan people. I couldn't possibly care less about their despot of a leader. My primary concern is how this plays out for American foreign relations, and in that regard, I believe that we have to take part in the no-fly zone.

Imagine the benefits: we helped support the overthrow of an oppressive dictator. That will do us wonders with the average bloke in Riyadh. If we're the only western power sitting this one out, how do you think he'll feel about us, then?

On the other hand, what are the risks? A backlash against the imposition of western ideals? If the uprising is successful, there's a risk that there will be a perception of a puppet government, as Israel is often portrayed. But if we sit this one out, do any of us actually think that we're going to incur any less ire? Does the distinction between "The West" and "The Americans Who Didn't Actually Participate in Military Action in Libya" actually strike any of us as one that's going to be at all persuasive to the folks for whom it really needs to matter?

Again, it doesn't matter to me, either way, but it seems that by not participating we ONLY stand to lose, whereas by lobbing a few rockets, the only way we'd lose is the way where we lose no matter what.

[R/T Hemi]

If we send ground troops into Libya, we lose. Even if it's under the auspices of the UN. It's a civil war dammit. Are we backing the rebels because we believe in what they are seeking or are we backing them because we dislike Moamar? If it's the former, what is it they seek? What will we end up with when this is over?

The west is so quick to jump into the middle east and start swinging regardless of whether they understand the situation or have an a goal past removing a dictator. We lack foresight in these things, at least, that's been the case in the 21 century. I'm glad that the UN is involved, perhaps they are better at end game planning than the US is.

And the costs. I think the last score was US -100+ cruise missiles fired, UK - 2 cruise missiles fired. The news reported we had over $100,000,000 expended in ordinance so far, plus we lost an F-15 (apparently non-battle related). What are we defending? What's the budget? It's like owning a damn boat. Money money money.

I'm not against becoming involved, I'm just against becoming involved when we are not fully apprised of the situation and the desired outcome, and of course, what our ongoing responsibility be? It's time to stop and start getting answers before moving on in this.

Thank the lord it's Obama and not Bush leading this.

[stebo0728]

Well, we helped some rebels in Afganistan fight some Russians. I wonder if they would have ended up terrorists as Russians?

[IBCoupe]

R/T, I think we're getting ahead of ourselves by worrying about ground troops. No one, to my knowledge has put it on the table.

And though I don't see the point of d!ck-measuring in this situation, why not compare us to the French? From what I understand, they were pretty darned hung-ho.

[mattblancarte]

we're getting ahead of ourselves by worrying about ground troops. No one, to my knowledge has put it on the table.

Haven't seen a word about ground troops, either. Don't think it'll happen.

If anything, I'd be up to send in some gunships to help scatter (literally/figuratively) and demoralize the Col.'s forces. There's nothing on the battlefield quite like the Apache.

[heliochrome85]

I discussed this on Sunday, while I was on vacation. My dad was wary of getting involved with another Middle Eastern entanglement, but I'll explain my position to y'all as I did to him:

First, I should say that I do not give a rat's patoot about the Libyan people. I couldn't possibly care less about their despot of a leader. My primary concern is how this plays out for American foreign relations, and in that regard, I believe that we have to take part in the no-fly zone.

Imagine the benefits: we helped support the overthrow of an oppressive dictator. That will do us wonders with the average bloke in Riyadh. If we're the only western power sitting this one out, how do you think he'll feel about us, then?

On the other hand, what are the risks? A backlash against the imposition of western ideals? If the uprising is successful, there's a risk that there will be a perception of a puppet government, as Israel is often portrayed. But if we sit this one out, do any of us actually think that we're going to incur any less ire? Does the distinction between "The West" and "The Americans Who Didn't Actually Participate in Military Action in Libya" actually strike any of us as one that's going to be at all persuasive to the folks for whom it really needs to matter?

Again, it doesn't matter to me, either way, but it seems that by not participating we ONLY stand to lose, whereas by lobbing a few rockets, the only way we'd lose is the way where we lose no matter what.

win

[audtatious]

We should not be joining in on the bombing without Congressional approval. 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.

[szh]

Well, we helped some rebels in Afganistan fight some Russians.

Really the same? Did we send in cruise missiles and jets to bomb Russian army and air force elements?

Not a good analogy.

Z

[szh]

we're getting ahead of ourselves by worrying about ground troops. No one, to my knowledge has put it on the table.

Haven't seen a word about ground troops, either. Don't think it'll happen.

If anything, I'd be up to send in some gunships to help scatter (literally/figuratively) and demoralize the Col.'s forces. There's nothing on the battlefield quite like the Apache.

I was listening to a radio show where the discussion of ground troops came up ... looks like the discussion has started anyway.

Sad that we are in yet another war front (albeit not ground troops ... yet ...)

I have lots of concerns and questions ...

And, again, we are intervening in another country without a clue as to the specific outcome that should be best for the country.

Is it now the official policy of the US and the UN and Western countries that we should encourage and actively support rebels wherever we think the ruler is not right for that country? And take specific action against another sovereign nation? Violate their borders? Kill their current soldiers and air force (regardless of whether they obey a despot)?

Wrong era, I know, but should the French and British have actively intervened (militarily) against the Union during the American Civil War?

And, why did the US and the UN not bomb Iranian targets during last years "rebellion" over there?

Are we becoming a Western bully ... only targeting the weaker countries that we choose too?

Do we care about the Libyan population supposedly being hurt by Gaddhafi?

If so, why did not not intervene in the far-worse crackdown in Bahrain a few weeks ago? Was it because we don't think that the ruler there is not a despot? Wow!!

The ethics of our intervention and the absurd decision making here have me quite concerned ... not that I support Gaddhafi, but the thought process here smacks too much of a different kind of colonialism: "We know what is best for you: Democracy! And, by golly, we are going to shove it down your throat militarily whether you want it or not!"

Sigh ...

Z

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

It's almost become trendy to blow up a small part of Libya... even the Spanish airforce is in on it.

[themadscientist]

A jet went down, ostensively because of mechanical failure.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ma ... rash-libya

What is the President going to do when one gets shot down and coalition pilots are paraded around on Libya?

[audtatious]

What is Obama's time table? What are the US goals? How will we know when we have reached them? When will US troops stop attacking Libya and come home? What is our exit strategy for this mess?

I want to know.

[themadscientist]

Only George Bush has to answer those questions, silly.

I find the sudden enthusiasm for military action and regime change amongst Europe, France especially very intriguing.

[AZhitman]

After some reading, I'm pleased to say I've changed my position on this entire matter 180*.

In fact, I'll echo almost everything R/T stated in his post, except that incredibly stupid last line.

Rather than teeing off on that, I'll leave it to you to explain, however.

[stebo0728]

Only George Bush has to answer those questions, silly.

I find the sudden enthusiasm for military action and regime change amongst Europe, France especially very intriguing.

France is coming around, they elected a conservative, wait wut? Yes a conservative LEADER! Watch out, who knows, they may not even surrender this time.

[themadscientist]

It has little to do with that and everything to do with French interests in the Libyan oil fields. When was the last time you saw France attack anything? Exactly. People and governments don't do sudden about-faces for no reason.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... le1952608/

Even as the Libyan war just gets underway, the economic war over Libya’s treasures has already begun.

[AppleBonker]

What is Obama's time table? What are the US goals? How will we know when we have reached them? When will US troops stop attacking Libya and come home? What is our exit strategy for this mess?

We should not be joining in on the bombing without Congressional approval. 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.

Valid questions, sure. But I feel like this was reading the script from various Fox News programs. I'm fairly certain OReilly and Hannity both said that almost verbatim on Monday (maybe other days too, I just don't have time to watch them daily). Though I do love the quote I bolded above if only because of the source. I want to be the guy who goes around digging all these old quotes up just to throw them back in people's faces.

[Fenris]

To truly express my own feelings i must say that we should be out of Iraq tomorrow if not sooner, it was a huge waste of time and lives. I don't know if many of you have seen the movie 'Green Zone' but it seems pretty damn believable.

I think there is still a job to do in Afghanistan, and we did go there for the right reasons, but we did not go in prepared for the kind of war it would be.

Simply put, our armed forces are still geared to fight WWII, and not a war like Vietnam. If they don't line up their tanks on the opposite side of the field from us and have a shootout, we don't entirely know what to do.

With Libya, I am of mixed feelings. I think as long as our involvement goes no further, and NATO or the UN take over most of the workload, then its maybe not ok, but at least a step in the right direction.

As members of the UN we also must follow its resolutions. Including http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... ution_1674

"reaffirms the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity"

While it shouldn't be our job to police the world, we are still members of it, and must do our parts. But i don't want it to be done by tanks and aircraft with USA on the side, but rather NATO or UN.

-------------------------------------------------

And as to the "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." line.

Its not like it all happened over night. The UN has been discussing a no fly zone for a few weeks. At ANY point congress could have stepped up and said NO, not without our go ahead. Even now, they could demand the return of the Air Force/Navy personnel that are over there. They could demand that they cease all operations at once until it has been decided. But they have done none of these things.

The sad fact in America, is that a con is the opposite of a pro, and congress is the opposite of progress. Democrat or Republican it doesn't matter, they will only EVER do what it takes to get re-elected. That's all they care about. Why? Because as soon as you start to do your job, you might lose votes, or you might suddenly be part of a scandal and be forced to resign.

-------------
Someone above talked about costs involved in this whole event.

A Tomahawk cruise missile costs roughly $1,066,465. We fired roughly 120 of them, so that's about $127,975,800.00. In 2011 dollars the F15E that went down costs roughly $40,800,000.00. Never mind the cost of the other ordnance dropped in the area.

On the bright side, we have a stock pile of 3500+ Tomahawk missiles. So that's roughly $3,732,627,500.00 in assets just gathering dust until recently...

[audtatious]

What is Obama's time table? What are the US goals? How will we know when we have reached them? When will US troops stop attacking Libya and come home? What is our exit strategy for this mess?

We should not be joining in on the bombing without Congressional approval. 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.

Valid questions, sure. But I feel like this was reading the script from various Fox News programs. I'm fairly certain OReilly and Hannity both said that almost verbatim on Monday (maybe other days too, I just don't have time to watch them daily). Though I do love the quote I bolded above if only because of the source. I want to be the guy who goes around digging all these old quotes up just to throw them back in people's faces.

Nothing scripted from Fox. The top questions are all valid. In fact, they should be demanded of Obama. Hey, Bush was too stupid and his Administration didn't have those answers prior to Iraq. History being 20/20, and the fact that Obama himself slammed Bush for his "war" effort, Obama should be held to a higher standard. right?

As far as the bolded section, what is the problem with it? Seems it's OK for one side to slap the other with their words but taboo to happen the other way around. Sensitive folk being sensitive and all? Again, we were promised CHANGE. Why shouldn't they be held to the standards they set for others and promised of themselves before being elected?

[AppleBonker]

For the record, I'm not well versed on how we tie into UN determinations, so I don't have answers to those questions (though I did agree that they are, in fact, valid).

And, I didn't have a problem with the quote. I just love the people who dig through old clips to find quotes they can throw back in the face of the person who said them. I was not complaining about either of your posts.

[R/T Hemi]

In fact, I'll echo almost everything R/T stated in his post, except that incredibly stupid last line.

My good man, at the risk of hijacking this thread, I'll limit my comment to a short paragraph.

You appear to be a well educated individual who expresses himself in a competent, albeit blunt, manner. I challenge you to point to why the US is not in a far better position now, under the current administration, with respect to foreign policy, than it was in the past, under perhaps the worst administration the country has ever suffered. Obama appears to be quite reserved compared to Bush's policies of jumping and then checking and see if we'd brought a parachute.
/hijack.

In other news. We do agree that it is far better to look before leaping. I hope there is more looking and less leaping as this matter plays out.

[audtatious]

I just love the people who dig through old clips to find quotes they can throw back in the face of the person who said them. I was not complaining about either of your posts.

When someone states and was elected for "X" but does "C" then it's pretty easy to find quotes. But, It's Obama so I guess he should get a pass.

[AZhitman]

In fact, I'll echo almost everything R/T stated in his post, except that incredibly stupid last line.

My good man, at the risk of hijacking this thread, I'll limit my comment to a short paragraph.

You appear to be a well educated individual who expresses himself in a competent, albeit blunt, manner. I challenge you to point to why the US is not in a far better position now, under the current administration, with respect to foreign policy, than it was in the past, under perhaps the worst administration the country has ever suffered. Obama appears to be quite reserved compared to Bush's policies of jumping and then checking and see if we'd brought a parachute.
/hijack.

In other news. We do agree that it is far better to look before leaping. I hope there is more looking and less leaping as this matter plays out.

Thanks. The feeling is, in general, mutual.

I dismiss such broad generalizations as "worst administration" - that's subjective and opinionated - Put simply, it's a telco-ism, and it's beneath my intellect to respond to (and beneath yours to invoke).

So, let's compare the two - Who "leapt"? I'm not gonna argue Iraq, it's been done. Intel was credible at the time, and hindsight is 20/20.

So, ASSUMING Bush "leapt", and given the benefit of hindsight, and given that BHO harped incessantly on the so-called "leaping" of the "previous administration", then why the hell wouldn't he heed his own advice? What was the rush? Why Libya? Why not Sudan? Why not China? Why not India? Why not Venezuela, Egypt, or Mexico? Exit strategy? Those Tomahawks have an expiration date? Are we guaranteeing "no ground troops"? Do we even have a vested interest in Libya? I don't. Hell, he couldn't even fall back on the possibility that there might be WMD's - at least we had evidence of WMD's being used on Saddam's own people... Ghadafi's not even gone THAT far. So, how is our hit-and-run defensible? How can you say, "Get us outta Iraq" and support getting us INTO Libya (and don't say "we're not IN Libya", because we're just as IN Libya as we were IN Iraq at the beginning of the Gulf War).

NO plan. Which stems from no foreign policy experience. Which is what I was saying before the election.

How are we in a "better position"? We're in 3 wars. Campaign promises have gone unfulfilled. The economy is still in the tank. Jobs are scarce. Gitmo remains open. Our military remains under-funded and stretched thin. Our focus is on irrelevant matters that are none of our damn business, while Russia and China say, "IDGAF about Libya, they don't affect us directly."

[AZhitman]

I just love the people who dig through old clips to find quotes they can throw back in the face of the person who said them.

You should. If you live by the code of "Say what you mean, and mean what you say", then you know that words mean things - and if you expect your words to be taken seriously, then you need to treat them as such and be serious about their accurate and proper usage. Otherwise, credibility suffers.

[stebo0728]

I aluded to that bolded quote in another thread Apple, but my point was, sure you can argue about what Bush did, as Obama was doing in his quote, but then to be in the same shoes now, and do the same thing that you spoke out against, having once stated that you believe it to be unconstitutional to take such action, then do it a few years later, what does that say to how Obama considers his job? Is not his job to uphold the constitution? Or does this really speak to a disdain for the constitution that Obama holds, that we just havent been able to pinpoint yet?

[R/T Hemi]

Let me see if I can restate my concerns and balance them with the transgressions of the previous administration.

I don't argue that intelligence failed the US in Iraq. I don't fault then President Bush for believing his experts. Where, in my opinion, the faults lie is in his nearsightedness of removing a dictator without a plan for the day after. I'm pretty sure you and I would have yelled long and loud if we'd been told this was going to be a ten year commitment back in late 2001 when the Iraq problem started.

So the question is whether we're headed into another Iraq with Libya. My point is that I believe we cross that line the day we commit ground forces to the campaign. Let me go a step further. Does anyone know who the rebels are? What they stand for? What their eventual plans are? Who's financing them? Are we backing the "right" side here or merely backing that side due to a common enemy?

Therein lies my comment regarding why I believe we are better off with President Obama at the reins than we would be with the former president. I'm typically in favor of letting the command generals fight the wars, but letting the public dictate when we war. As you can see, there's not much room in my last statement for a commander in chief calling us to an undeclared war.