114 replies to this topic

[TAP]

Saw reports of planes flying from UK on missions, but now relocating to Italy. Can understand not wanting to stand by while people slaughtered, but kind of think it will all end in bigger disaster than is being solved. Agree with your last sentence, this is being done with support of countries who are doing same thing to their people, LIbya/Gadaffi is an easier target for support I guess.

[TAP]

http://www.guardian....ly-zone-gaddafi

[TAP]

Fox manages to make the story about Fox....
http://www.realclear...ield_story.html

[Jill]

Fox manages to make the story about Fox....
http://www.realclear...ield_story.html

Hi-Fucking-Larious!

Fox news journalists are such PUSSIES that they hid in their hotel and sent a grunt with a camera to the Gaddafi compound. And then they LIE about what those journalists were actually doing there, without even having been there to witness it first-hand. IOW, they just made shit up. As. Usual. They're a disgrace.

[Zimbochick]

You know what I'm sick of.....

Oh my god Obama's not doing anything. It must be because he doesn't want to upset his fellow Muslim and friend Gadaffi. People are getting murdered....it's genocide.....Obama do something......

Oh my god Obama is a war monger....who does he think he is going in to other countries and trying to fix their problems..........take away his Nobel Peace Prize.........Impeach Obama.

Blah, blah, blah, blah.....

[Mr. Roboto]

Well he's a crazy fundie black Christian who hates whitey...and he's also a Mooslim from Kenya. You can say whatever you want, regardless of how much it contradicts itself.

[Timothy]

The Anti-Christ !!

[wedjat]

I found this hilarious & the height of contradiction. This morning on NPR they spoke w/Richard Haass who had the gall to suggest that Obama should be trying to negotiate w/Ghaddafi instead of doing this no-fly zone. He also claims we have no special interest in Libya so why are we getting in the middle. I find it funny because these are the same people who pshaw at the notion of negotiating w/anyone, let alone a person such as Ghaddafi. But hey, whatever Obama does, criticize it & suggest the exact opposite. You know damn well if Obama were to go into negotiations w/Libya, his ass would be reamed by these very same people. I can't stand them.

[PERM BANNED]

"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." Senator Barack Obama - December 20, 2007

[TAP]

"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." Senator Barack Obama - December 20, 2007

US involvement in this is quite weird - seems like they could have been far less involved but still involved 'behind the scenes', if you see what I mean, but instead chose to lob millions of dollars worth of cruise missiles into Libya when domestic concern is about spending cuts. Why front and center, when other countries seem prepared to take lead - and where is this heading? Doesn't seem well thought out to me at all.

[PERM BANNED]

I don't understand it at all. A lot of the momentum that got President Obama elected was that many people were unhappy with the way Bush evolved the Iraq war into a nation building exercise to install democracy. No one signed off on that mission, but as we were there and the cause of the instability, it made sense. While the intel on Iraq turned out to be garbage, at least under that belief congress consented to an invasion after months of debate at the domestic and global level. Afghanistan was a whole other monster, providing asylum and support to Bin Laden who launched a direct assualt on a civilian population in the US. Again, Bush acted after getting congressional approval. In either situation, you had a (supposed) tangible threat to US security. With Libya there is none of that. It truly is a war for oil, unfortunately we don't/won't reap those benefits. I don't care what Europe does in this situation. I'm not going to pretend to be on some virtuous pedestal. But the so called rebels were not peaceful protestors as some would try to portray them. They were enemy combatants to a recoginzed authroity in Libya. I don't like Gaddafi and couldn't care less if someone (other than the US) takes him out. But as a recognized leader, he has every right to remove segments in his nation that are openly hostile and violent, just as Obama would have such authority if a bunch of tea partiers started shooting up DC and trying to seize power. I don't see how internal affairs in Libya have any bearing on the US or its security. The only way this violence has had any affect on the US was through the increased speculation on the cost of oil. If you supported our behavior in Iraq and Afghanistan, I guess I could manage to understand why you would support our actions in Libya. But if you opposed them, I can't understand any support. As I've said many times, I was against the actions in Iraq and had mixed feelings on Afghanistan. Bin Laden needed to be killed and I'd do the deed myself if presented the opportunity, but even when Sadam supposedly had WMDs, my argument was as a soverign nation, he had that right to own them. We're facing record debt an unemployment and we're wasting millions on missles to try and alter the result in Libya and to what purpose? Removing Gaddafi isn't even an acknowledged agenda in this. It truly baffles me that the US is involved in this. I'm not privy to top secret security briefings that the President receives, so in the end I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. But if our sole reason for intervening is entirely based on humanitarian principles, I disagree with it. US military didn't signup to be nation builders and humanitarians. No where in the enlistment contract or an officer's oath does it allude to any such thing. The Constitution doesn't outline humanitarian military involvement, and to my knowledge, neither does the War Powers Act. So if anyone has an insight on this that may help me better understand, I'd be much appreciative.

[TAP]

I would love to disagree with you on principal but I don't As someone else pointed out this week to me, Obama is a neocon - it makes no sense, the right have demonized him for two years, why has he moved to the right? It's bizarre.

[Jill]

Maybe my expectations of President Obama's supporters was too high, but I really thought we were capable of recognizing that he is a man of nuance, intelligence and thoughtfulness. I get why Bush lovers think Obama's actions look just like Bush's -- they're mentally incapable of scratching below the surface of any issue. But Obama supporters? We're smarter than that. We're capable of comprehending the rather critical differences between Bush's actions, particularly with regard to Iraq, and Obama's actions regarding Libya. And they are significantly different.

One of the things we all expected of President Obama, was that he would help us heal our terrible image among the Arab nations. Not an easy thing to accomplish, as we've spent years, decades even, building up a bad reputation there with our interventionist actions that seemed nothing more than self-serving. But in a strange stroke of circumstances, this time, we really are being asked to help, and we really are being greeted as the "liberators" that Bush spent years lying to us that we were in Iraq.

And one of the reasons we have this opportunity, is the enormous difference between dealing with a rogue bully like Bush and a sincere partner, like Obama. That's why the Arab League voted unanimously to condemn Bush's actions in Iraq, and nearly unanimously (20 of 22 nations) to support Obama's actions in Libya.

Go deeper guys. I know you can. And you should. Because the distinctions are vast and meaningful.

[PERM BANNED]

I get why Bush lovers think Obama's actions look just like Bush's -- they're mentally incapable of scratching below the surface of any issue. But Obama supporters? We're smarter than that......

Really? This is how you want to frame the situation. Obama supporters are more intelligent than Bush supporters. A study came out last week based on census data that showed that the distritcts that vote for a republican president are more educated than democrats. I thought it was stupid and made no difference in terms of whom voted for who with regard to intellect, but you went there. What Obama did was arguably unconstiutional and certainly not in line with the transparent and democratic ambitions his strongest supporters championed.

Are those supporting this really looking beneath the surface? We're supporting a group of people who are not friendly to the US. Who may or not be the same people who openly attacked American Soldiers in other Arab nations. You said we've built up decades of reputation of being interventionists in the middle east, yet somehow this time it's different? What are the values of the people we're supporting? How will they be different from Gaddafi? Are we going to assist them in moving from a dictatorship to a Theocracy?

It would seem to me that some people are using their intelligence to support Obama's decision out of blind loyalty using fuzzy logic and distortions to justify it. But either way, I'd be willing to wager there is no significant difference in the average IQ of a McCain or Obama supporter from 2008.

[cousin it]

And one of the reasons we have this opportunity, is the enormous difference between dealing with a rogue bully like Bush and a sincere partner, like Obama. That's why the Arab League voted unanimously to condemn Bush's actions in Iraq, and nearly unanimously (20 of 22 nations) to support Obama's actions in Libya.

Go deeper guys. I know you can. And you should. Because the distinctions are vast and meaningful.

Surely, you jest. Obama and Bush are two sides of the same coin- they are both neocons that invaded a sovereign state without provocation. And the reason for the invasions was simply oil. We can fool ourselves into thinking that the invasions are for some noble intent, but it is greed and geopolitics- pure and simple.

Have you ever wondered why we haven't invaded the Ivory Coast? Ponder that.