Thoughts on the new rush to war:
Just pointing out the obvious –
Like the comments in the BBC news section right now where you’d think no one had ever tried to put together a coalition of western democracies to depose an Arab tyrant who was abusing his population. And this one hasn’t even bothered to invade anyone recently.
From those comments one thing is clear – that was one well deserved Peace Prize!
Did these people never hear of Saddam gassing the Kurds, running over Shia with tanks to quell their uprising, or throwing his opponents in chippers?
Guess not.
I suppose that means my support for getting Saddam was “blood for oil” but my support for “Lyberation” is virtuous.
I just can’t figure myself out sometimes.
They told me if I voted for John McCain, we’d be bombing Arab countries while the supporters of the bombing promised that we’d be greeted as liberators. And they were right!
Yup.
First you’re upset he’s not bombing everybody, now it’s a “rush to war.”
Admit it – the man could walk across the Potomac carrying the cure to cancer and you’d find something to bitch about.
I see you’re as competely irony challenged as ever, Chris. I should have put the phrase in quotes for people like you.
Wow, didn’t expect Gerrib to be the first defending Obama’s War for Oil. Then again, Gerrib hasn’t said much about Obama’s detention of US citizens at Gitmo. Nor has Gerrib said much about Union supporters making death threats against Republican legislators. Well, I guess honor is something that Illinois bankers don’t need. Pretty much explains why the whole state is about to go bankrupt.
Obama asked for authorization from the U.N., like Bush, which he has now received, like Bush. Obama, unlike Bush, has not asked for authorization from Congress. Does that make this an ‘illegal’ war?
Hmm – we’re rather overextended at the moment, but if we can get away with tipping things in the rebel’s favor by dropping bombs and blasting his aircraft, I’m for it. It might be too late for that though – he’s already mass murdering his people.
The big “is it worth it” question for me is – what is the disposition of the rebels? Are they potentially supportive of democracy? Are they trying to defend their homes against aggression? Or are they Islamic nutcases like the agitators that took over Egypt?
PPS – the left’s complete about face doesn’t surprise me. They simply have no principles other than tribal in-group out-group dominance ploys. That should have been clear to anyone who was paying attention over the last few years.
My principle is this: We should take every reasonably convenient opportunity to kill dictators. Situations where we don’t have to be on the ground are ideal – I’d prefer to bomb them from orbit, but we should spray for them every other decade or so until they’re all gone.
Gates seems to think that a no fly zone is an act of war. We were enforcing a no fly zone in Iraq for how many years before the year 2003?
Will be interesting to see how this Libya no fly zone shakes out. It looked rather open ended and it doesn’t appear as if any country is in charge of coordination. Not sure if it will help but I hope it is a pain in the butt for Gaddafi.
It would be a shame if a stray bomb landed on al-Megrahi.
Gates seems to think that a no fly zone is an act of war. We were enforcing a no fly zone in Iraq for how many years before the year 2003?
Ever hear of Persian Gulf War? If not, you may want to look it up as I believe it had something to with the no-fly zone over Northern and Southern Iraq.
If Obama starts shooting down Libyan planes, it will be sadly cynical. He’ll have bukkaked his disciples as bad as Clinton ever did.
Looks like German bonds might replace US bonds in the near future as the “safe haven” investment. The current bout of Fed quantitative easing ends in June. Some seem to think that’ll be a moment of truth for the US.
According to the headlines this morning, the Libyan Foreign Minister has called for a cease fire less than 2 hours after Cameron declares the RAF is heading South.
Amazing what just the threat of a no-fly zone will do.
How many lives would have been saved, how much suffering could have been averted if this was done near the beginning, when it was looking bad for Col. Whatshisname? Lots.
One article says there will be a no drive zone as well as a no-fly zone so that tanks, APC’s, etc will be zapped.
Cameron and Sarko were right.
Naturally we have to be watchful for Daffy to use the time for pre-positioning and maneuver. And also this is a way for Daffy to hold off the attack.
But we should not hold off. the No-fly/No-drive zone should be imposed and anyone inside of it who should be there should be eliminated.
Glad the Big O came around. No doubt it will be considered by some that it was a Master Stroke that he waited until he got UN approval as well as Arab League approval thereby a proof of the glories of multi-lateralism.
I expect the survivors of the dead rebels and the wounded rebels might think differently.
As do I.
I’m not sure what the big concern regarding getting sucked in to further action (i.e. boots on the ground) is. We managed to avoid that during the Kosovo/Bosnia NFZ, as well as 12 years of NFZ over Iraq.
Also not sure why some complained we are overstretched as it is.
Lastly, will we hear “NO blood for oil!” rants?
I doubt it.
I’m really liking this ams guy. Can’t find anything I disagree. He may not know the history of Gerrib, but if I didn’t know Gerrib’s history; I’d ignored him and wrote what ams did (if not as eloquently).
I have no issues with a fight against Colonel qkathisname. If the troops aren’t game, then I rather not add a task. I still don’t know if the rebels are friend or foe, but they’ll be less foe if we help them.
My biggest concern will be any nation building. Here, I want to give credit to Obama (plus Clinton and Gates). I do think he is trying a minimalist approach, so as to avoid breaking anything we might have to fix later.
I read the stuff Gregg notes. Maybe the threat of retaliation has caused the Colonel to back down. If so, this may be the end. If it isn’t, is it too soon to ask for an “exit strategy”?
I’m actually not in favor of intervening in Libya. I see no vital American interest there, and no reason for any American soldier to die there.
Leland – I’ve been against Gitmo for years, and have discussed that.
Rand – my comment still stands. Now Obama does what you want him to do, and his reward is a ration of “ironic” crap from you. He could walk across the Potomac carrying the cure for cancer and you’d “ironically” wonder why it took him so long.
Gerrib may be the last drone on Earth still comparing O’Bama to Jesus Christ.
Yo, Poppin’-fresh, didn’t you get the memo? That is so 2008…
You remain clueless about my point, Chris. I’m not surprised.
ams Says:
“The big “is it worth it” question for me is – what is the disposition of the rebels? Are they potentially supportive of democracy? Are they trying to defend their homes against aggression? Or are they Islamic nutcases like the agitators that took over Egypt?”
There really is no way to predict. What they say when their backs are to the wall, and what they might say if they take over can be two entirely different things. Or even who emerges as the leader if Daffy is deposed is unpredictable. The present day rebels might meaningfully swear total allegiance to the US but if they lose out in the apres-rebellion power struggle, then it doesn’t buy us much.
The fact that we saved thousands of Muslim lives in Kosovo/Bosnia, while Europe stood back, bought us nothing.
It’s possible that we are seeing a new wave of thought in the region – people fed up with glutinous royalty, overdressed barbaric autocrats, as well as wahhabist lunatics. If that’s the case then helping now might buy us some good will 20-30-40 years from now. Maybe.
But THAT is what you sign up for when you run for Prez. You make your decisions and take the inevitable flak. What Gerrib doesn’t grok is that the true leader will decide quickly what is to be done and balances violence death and destruction now to what it might be if you do the same thing later.
What the leader doesn’t do is balance violence death and destruction against how this will “look”; or whether it interferes with the Final Four picks, or whether or not he can return to the Tiergarten and get the same adulation as before.
And if doing it now means less death and destruction, you do it now and suck it up when the rest of the world – outwardly – castigates you, while inwardly breathing a sigh of relief. Dithering, waiting to get approval from Papa and Mamma, or, as in this case, being dragged up to the plate by the French, does not mark a leader. Gerrib must be deaf to the revelation of the true thoughts of the rest of the world. All we’ve been hearing lately is “Where is the US?” This from nations who previously castigated us for being bullies, cowboys, unilateralists.
There are 2400 Marines and a bunch of helicopters sitting on the USS Kearsarge just off shore of Tripoli, ready to ensure peace and tranquility in Libya. They are just part of a small U.S. armada, currently waiting for some kind of orders from the WH…er, Air Force 1…er, Brazil….aw hell…WHEREVER Mr. Obama is currently playing golf.
Der Schtumpy Says:
“There are 2400 Marines and a bunch of helicopters sitting on the USS Kearsarge just off shore of Tripoli, ready to ensure peace and tranquility in Libya.”
They, or some other US ship(s), should have been there a long time ago. The Chinese sent a warship up the Suez and got on station rapidly. That sends a message..not that the Chinese were going to swarm ashore…but that Daffy now has to factor the presence of that ship in. Causes complications in his thinking.
So lets see, Gerrib doesn’t agree with US action in Libya. What to do… what to do… Ah! Blame
BushRand!How did I “blame” Rand?
“I’m actually not in favor of intervening in Libya. I see no vital American interest there, and no reason for any American soldier to die there.”
I think this is the second time I agree with Chris.
Qa-Daffy isn’t a threat to us, and he isn’t a threat to our friends. Let him go to hell in his own way.
mpthompson Says:
March 17th, 2011 at 10:51 pm
“Ever hear of Persian Gulf War? If not, you may want to look it up as I believe it had something to with the no-fly zone over Northern and Southern Iraq.”
I am not sure you understood what I was getting at but thanks for pointing out we were in a state of war with Iraq even longer than I was alluding to.
Gerrib: How did I “blame” Rand?
Gerrib: Now Obama does what you want him to do, and his reward is a ration of “ironic” crap from you.
Gerrib has not one complaint about Obama, but if Rand points out contradictions between Obama’s campaign promises and hopes of Obama’s supporters… well, Gerrib can’t have that.
Gregg
they’ve been there for 2 weeks, tomorrow.