U.S. launches airstrikes on Libya

[Jenksismyhero]

Your perception is noticeably divorced from reality.

 

Oreally? Link me the vid of Obama asking other nations to step in. Hell, link me the video of Obama talking about this issue at all in the days after MG went after his people. From what I saw the French and British were the first to call for UN involvement.

[NorthSideSox72]

Oreally? Link me the vid of Obama asking other nations to step in. Hell, link me the video of Obama talking about this issue at all in the days after MG went after his people. From what I saw the French and British were the first to call for UN involvement.

So what you really wanted was for Obama to talk about it more, addressing the country. I actually agree there.

 

[Controlled Chaos]

 

Obama is cool and awesome.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Controlled Chaos

[Y2HH]

 

Obama is cool and awesome.

 

Hahahah, this is awesome.

[Soxbadger]

Yay for webanimation that tries to make a factual point ridiculous!

 

Its as if the person who wrote the script for the girl in red, actually doesnt believe that position and was trying to purposefully look stupid!

 

If you cant see the difference between Iraq (unilateral action) and UN (international action), it just isnt worth discussing.

 

Once again, I think if you looked at Iraq in terms of "ends justifying the means" then its one thing, but to argue that you couldnt be against Iraq because it was based on misleading or blatantly false evidence because you support international action in Libya, is preposterous.

 

In fact the reason that person made a webanimation instead of debating is that hed get rocked:

 

Did you know that there were 17 UN resolutions?

 

Yes

 

Did any UN resolution authorize what is commonly known as a NFZ?

 

No

 

Was the US acting within the scope of the UN resolutions during Iraq?

 

No

 

This isnt about Obama, because well, it was the French and British who asked the UN to intervene. This isnt about Iraq, because well, the UN never authorized the type of force used by the US.

 

The difference is so apparent, that anyone who acts like its similar is either a) completely disingenuous to attack Obama or B ) has no clue about Iraq or Libya.

 

Iraq- US action that went beyond the scope of the UN mandate, based on faulty logic and bad intelligence. Saddam was a bad guy, no one denies that, but the main argument for war was that Iraq posed a legitimate threat against the US.

 

Libya- US action is limited to UN mandate, based on UN security council resolution. No argument being made about US national security or that Libya poses any significant threat to the US.

 

 

Its almost like arguing that if I like White Sox, I must like the Red Sox because they both have "Sox" in the name and play baseball. Unfortunately the facts would show that the Red Sox are a bunch of tools and the White Sox rule.

 

That we can all agree on.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Soxbadger

[Y2HH]

Yay for webanimation that tries to make a factual point ridiculous!

 

Its as if the person who wrote the script for the girl in red, actually doesnt believe that position and was trying to purposefully look stupid!

 

If you cant see the difference between Iraq (unilateral action) and UN (international action), it just isnt worth discussing.

 

Once again, I think if you looked at Iraq in terms of "ends justifying the means" then its one thing, but to argue that you couldnt be against Iraq because it was based on misleading or blatantly false evidence because you support international action in Libya, is preposterous.

 

In fact the reason that person made a webanimation instead of debating is that hed get rocked:

 

Did you know that there were 17 UN resolutions?

 

Yes

 

Did any UN resolution authorize what is commonly known as a NFZ?

 

No

 

Was the US acting within the scope of the UN resolutions during Iraq?

 

No

 

This isnt about Obama, because well, it was the French and British who asked the UN to intervene. This isnt about Iraq, because well, the UN never authorized the type of force used by the US.

 

The difference is so apparent, that anyone who acts like its similar is either a) completely disingenuous to attack Obama or B ) has no clue about Iraq or Libya.

 

Iraq- US action that went beyond the scope of the UN mandate, based on faulty logic and bad intelligence. Saddam was a bad guy, no one denies that, but the main argument for war was that Iraq posed a legitimate threat against the US.

 

Libya- US action is limited to UN mandate, based on UN security council resolution. No argument being made about US national security or that Libya poses any significant threat to the US.

 

 

Its almost like arguing that if I like White Sox, I must like the Red Sox because they both have "Sox" in the name and play baseball. Unfortunately the facts would show that the Red Sox are a bunch of tools and the White Sox rule.

 

That we can all agree on.

 

That's the only thing we can agree on.

 

Taking that cartoon seriously is akin to taking TDS as "news", a joke in the cartoon itself, which was funny.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Y2HH

[Soxbadger]

Unfortunately there are people who are actually using that line of argument.

[Balta1701]

Let's be clear though...the No-Fly zones over Iraq were established by the U.S. while citing U.N. resolution 668, which condemned Iraqi violence against the Kurds. It did not explicitly authorize no-fly zones, but it was taken to do so by the U.S. and allies when they decided to establish the NFZ's.

 

it's more complicated than just saying "no".

[StrangeSox]

Unfortunately there are people who are actually using that line of argument.

 

Those are just the people who still have a mountain of crow to eat after their rabid support of invading Iraq. It's a convenient way to defend supporting Iraq and attack Obama.

[Soxbadger]

The US can say anything that it wants, but the UN never approved a NFZ.

 

Now I purposefully asked the question to elicit the answer I wanted.

 

I could have asked the question, another way:

 

Did the US believe that the UN authorized a NFZ?

 

Yes

 

In the end I do not think its that complicated. UN approved a NFZ in Libya, NFZ was a gray area not explicitly approved, while at the same time seemingly not condemned.

 

 

[Chet Lemon]

“The American people need to hear the president outline a clear explanation of the scope and goal of our mission in Libya, the role America and our allies will play, and what he regards as benchmarks for success,” Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said on Monday.

 

http://www.nationaljournal.com/what-congre...-obama-20110328

[bmags]

I get both sides of this particular argument. But this particular argument I find beside the point.

 

What's the end game here? There's like, one road to east libya, they could easily protect that. And I guess that's a victory. But there's limitations to airpower.

 

Nonviolent democratic movements the past 25 years have had a much much much bigger chance of creating an actual stable gov't than any violent overtakings. That's why Tunisia and egypt were important. But some of these were not going to be completed. Intervening won't create stability. And if all the sudden a ceasefire is taken...this is just a punt until some warhawk wants to finish the job vs. gaddafi.

 

We just had to stay out. Many would have died, and it would have been terrible to watch. But many also die of malaria, as has often been said, why don't we just fight malaria?

[NorthSideSox72]

So far, my only criticism of ObamaCo on this Libya thing is that, at least until last night, they failed horribly and stating and describing a clear picture to the American people of what they were doing. I mean, for those of us who pay deeper attention to what is going on, we figured it out. But for most people, he needed to get out there in a prime time speech BEFORE this occurred, explaining what the plan of action was based on Qaddafi's future actions, why we were doing it, what the end goal was, etc. He's done that now, but he let things fester too long.

 

This is odd because, going into his Presidency, I figured Obama would actually be good at this communication and connection thing. Apparently not so much.

 

As far as how he has actually handled the situation from a policy, plan and action perspective, I think they've done superbly well. The goal was to destroy Qaddafi's air and air defense capabilities, take out as much heavy armor as possible, help transport people out of the country, and set the table for the populace to take control of the government. So far, it's moving in exactly that direction. I'm guessing that if (more likely when) Qaddafi's government falls, the coalition forces will also jump in to help get basic services back up and running, provide humanitarian aid, etc.

 

And really, this has next to nothing in common with Iraq. The similarities begin an end with: US military involved in campaign in EMEA country run by a bad man. Everything else is night and day. So please, stop with the comparisons.

 

This is how you handle this sort of situation from a foreign policy perspective. Unfortunately, he screwed the pooch on the domestic side of it.

 

[Balta1701]

And really, this has next to nothing in common with Iraq. The similarities begin an end with: US military involved in campaign in EMEA country run by a bad man. Everything else is night and day. So please, stop with the comparisons.

Except for the large, noteworthy fact that neither one of those campaigns would have existed without black gold.

 

(And anyway, there's still a lot more valid comparisons. Lack of exit strategy. Lack of planning for things going wrong.)_

[NorthSideSox72]

Except for the large, noteworthy fact that neither one of those campaigns would have existed without black gold.

 

(And anyway, there's still a lot more valid comparisons. Lack of exit strategy. Lack of planning for things going wrong.)_

That's true on the oil part, no doubt. I should have mentioned that.

 

But I have no idea where you are getting the idea on the other stuff. Exit strategy? We haven't entered, for one thing. For another, the goal itself tells you the exit strategy: pressure continues to mount on Qaddafi until his administration breaks (which it is already doing). Then the air raids stop. The obvious step after that will be the humanitarian aspect, which they have stated as well (though perhaps not as clearly as they should have).

 

As for planning for things going wrong, what exactly do you mean? If by going wrong you mean Qaddafi somehow overcomes this and then starts taking back more areas by force (which is pretty unlikely), then you have to address that situation as it comes.

 

Now ask yourself the same questions about Iraq, since you so enjoy making that very loose comparison. Lack of exit strategy? Certainly, they not only didn't have one, but hell they didn't even have a middle strategy for taking control of the country. And as far as things going wrong, it wasn't that they needed specific plans for every possible outcome, because that's not practical. The problem was that they assumed everything would go perfectly, even when most of the international community was sure it wouldn't.

 

Here, I see no such assumptions, but more importantly, even if it does go wrong, the consequences are much, much less severe than in Iraq because we didn't invade.

 

[Y2HH]

Except for the large, noteworthy fact that neither one of those campaigns would have existed without black gold.

 

(And anyway, there's still a lot more valid comparisons. Lack of exit strategy. Lack of planning for things going wrong.)_

 

What are you talking about, Obama has a clear exit strategy from Iraq and Afghanistan -- he said so throughout his campaign. I think we've been out of Iraq/Afg since 2009.

 

Wait, we aren't still there, are we? We can't be!

[Balta1701]

That's true on the oil part, no doubt. I should have mentioned that.

 

But I have no idea where you are getting the idea on the other stuff. Exit strategy? We haven't entered, for one thing. For another, the goal itself tells you the exit strategy: pressure continues to mount on Qaddafi until his administration breaks (which it is already doing). Then the air raids stop. The obvious step after that will be the humanitarian aspect, which they have stated as well (though perhaps not as clearly as they should have).

 

As for planning for things going wrong, what exactly do you mean? If by going wrong you mean Qaddafi somehow overcomes this and then starts taking back more areas by force (which is pretty unlikely), then you have to address that situation as it comes.

 

Now ask yourself the same questions about Iraq, since you so enjoy making that very loose comparison. Lack of exit strategy? Certainly, they not only didn't have one, but hell they didn't even have a middle strategy for taking control of the country. And as far as things going wrong, it wasn't that they needed specific plans for every possible outcome, because that's not practical. The problem was that they assumed everything would go perfectly, even when most of the international community was sure it wouldn't.

 

Here, I see no such assumptions, but more importantly, even if it does go wrong, the consequences are much, much less severe than in Iraq because we didn't invade.

If we were willing to begin launching air raids in Libya (which we wouldn't be doing if it wasn't for their oil supplies, even you admit that)...

 

Do you really think we'll allow that country to endure a period like what Egypt is going through right now...constant riots, no recognizable government, fairly violent debate over the direction of the country? Esp. if it disrupts the oil exports?

 

Anyway...it's interesting how "breaking Qadaffi's military" became the goal of this humanitarian operation almost immediately, and how the army is providing the rebels with close air support while denying that it's providing close air support.

 

It's also interesting that people, including you, continue to say that the goal is to remove Quadaffi, but that is exactly my point about the lack of an exit strategy.

[Jenksismyhero]

If we were willing to begin launching air raids in Libya (which we wouldn't be doing if it wasn't for their oil supplies, even you admit that)...

 

Do you really think we'll allow that country to endure a period like what Egypt is going through right now...constant riots, no recognizable government, fairly violent debate over the direction of the country? Esp. if it disrupts the oil exports?

 

Anyway...it's interesting how "breaking Qadaffi's military" became the goal of this humanitarian operation almost immediately, and how the army is providing the rebels with close air support while denying that it's providing close air support.

 

It's also interesting that people, including you, continue to say that the goal is to remove Quadaffi, but that is exactly my point about the lack of an exit strategy.

 

Balta, we don't agree on much, but i'm with you 100% here. As soon as we dropped the first bomb we were invested in this thing and are now stuck to see it through.

 

And NSS, how is this situation not comparable to Iraq? Obviously they were two totally different wars brought about by different scenarios, but look at it a little more broadly. We're using multiple justifications here for military action despite none of them being the true reason (oil). It's humanitarian mission....it's to get rid of a bad leader....it's instilling a stable government in Libya.... We started a military action without knowing how it's going to play out.

 

Obama's speech was exactly what I thought it would be: hit all the positive talking points for military action, ignore all the negatives, promise we won't get TOO involved (as if that means anything since we already are), and say god bless america. The Great Communicator has been pretty s***ty so far in communicating.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

It's not comparable to Iraq because the size, scope, reasons, costs, lives lost, or any other possible quantitative measure shows that it's a s*** comparison that people who were gullible enough to support the Iraq war are trying to use to bolster their failed positions.

[NorthSideSox72]

It's not comparable to Iraq because the size, scope, reasons, costs, lives lost, or any other possible quantitative measure shows that it's a s*** comparison that people who were gullible enough to support the Iraq war are trying to use to bolster their failed positions.

Thank you.

 

[Y2HH]

It's not comparable to Iraq because the size, scope, reasons, costs, lives lost, or any other possible quantitative measure shows that it's a s*** comparison that people who were gullible enough to support the Iraq war are trying to use to bolster their failed positions.

 

Apparently Obama is among those that supports the Iraq war, too...since were still there and all.

[Jenksismyhero]

It's not comparable to Iraq because the size, scope, reasons, costs, lives lost, or any other possible quantitative measure shows that it's a s*** comparison that people who were gullible enough to support the Iraq war are trying to use to bolster their failed positions.

 

Oh bulls***. No one is claiming it's Iraq 2. But continue to ignore the obvious similarities.

 

Also, I'm still waiting on your links to show that the US/Obama was leading the charge on this from day one.

[Jenksismyhero]

Pretty good article about Obama's statements during his speech, this one is pretty telling:

 

OBAMA: "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."

 

THE FACTS: Mass violence against civilians has also been escalating elsewhere, without any U.S. military intervention anticipated.

 

More than 1 million people have fled the Ivory Coast, where the U.N. says forces loyal to the incumbent leader, Laurent Gbagbo, have used heavy weapons against the population and more than 460 killings have been confirmed of supporters of the internationally recognized president, Alassane Ouattara.

 

The Obama administration says Gbagbo and Gadhafi have both lost their legitimacy to rule. But only one is under attack from the U.S.

 

Presidents typically pick their fights according to the crisis and circumstances at hand, not any consistent doctrine about when to use force in one place and not another. They have been criticized for doing so — by Obama himself.

 

In his pre-presidential book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama said the U.S. will lack international legitimacy if it intervenes militarily "without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands."

 

He questioned: "Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?"

 

Now, such questions are coming at him.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[Steve9347]

Obama is cool and awesome.

That was hilarious.

[Steve9347]

Taking that cartoon seriously is akin to taking TDS as "news", a joke in the cartoon itself, which was funny.

This. It doesn't make it any less funny.