Some Questions about our involvement in Libya

#76
#76
droski said:
i'm waiting to see the antiobama antiwar protests. so far the only onece since the libya action have been protesting the anniversary of the iraq war.
Click to expand...

I'm waiting for it too. The justifications of war are quite identical.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#77
#77
Why don't you ever answer the questions posed to you?




QUOTE=lawgator1;4822328]bham, as I review this thread it sure seems like this is more about another round of Obama bashing than anything else.

But assuming there is some actual interest in your question beyond a launching pad for knee-jerk attack on Obama, here is an interesting article describing the debate within the administration on Libya. A lot of good detail about why we are doing what we are doing.

Why the U.S. Went to War: Inside the White House Debate on Libya - Swampland - TIME.com


I think it very hard, and maybe even a little bit foolish, to paint Obama's decision here as rushed or not very well thought through. Please drop the partisan attacks on him for just a moment and consider what the article has to say about this.[/QUOTE]
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#78
#78
IPorange said:
I'm waiting for it too. The justifications of war are quite identical.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


Similar, I would agree.

I doubt you will see much unless and until we either incur some significant loss or it looks like there might be some modification to the "no boots on the ground" claims.
 
#80
#80
Vols520 said:
Why don't you ever answer the questions posed to you?




QUOTE=lawgator1;4822328]bham, as I review this thread it sure seems like this is more about another round of Obama bashing than anything else.

But assuming there is some actual interest in your question beyond a launching pad for knee-jerk attack on Obama, here is an interesting article describing the debate within the administration on Libya. A lot of good detail about why we are doing what we are doing.

Why the U.S. Went to War: Inside the White House Debate on Libya - Swampland - TIME.com


I think it very hard, and maybe even a little bit foolish, to paint Obama's decision here as rushed or not very well thought through. Please drop the partisan attacks on him for just a moment and consider what the article has to say about this.
Click to expand...
Posted via VolNation Mobile[/QUOTE]



What did I miss? I am confused by this post.
 
#81
#81
lawgator1 said:
Similar, I would agree.

I doubt you will see much unless and until we either incur some significant loss or it looks like there might be some modification to the "no boots on the ground" claims.
Click to expand...

please tell me you aren't arguing that the iraq war protests only started after the ground losses?
 
#83
#83
droski said:
please tell me you aren't arguing that the iraq war protests only started after the ground losses?
Click to expand...


No, but it was evident that what was being contemplated in Iraq risked much more life and limb to US soldiers than what was contemplated in Iraq. The public was warned for a long time about possible significant losses and so anticipation was there to motivate people to protest.

The Libyan thing has happened relatively quickly and the perception is that we are just going to smart bomb some anti-aircraft sites, a few administrative buildings, and be done with it. Hardly the same thing as what we were led to believe was coming in Iraq.
 
#84
#84
utvolpj said:
has he said that? Goes against the message being put out by his Sec of State
Click to expand...

Obama walks fine line on Gadhafi's future - CNN.com

President Barack Obama repeated Monday that Moammar Gadhafi "needs to go," but he acknowledged the Libyan dictator may remain in power for some time because the allied military mission in North Africa has a more narrow mandate of just protecting innocent civilians.
"Our military action is in support of an international mandate from the Security Council that specifically focuses on the humanitarian threat posed by Colonel Gadhafi's people," Obama said at a news conference here.
Obama alluded to the fact that U.N. Resolution 1973 passed on Thursday restricts the U.S. and its allies from seeking regime change and directly ousting Gadhafi from power.
But, he noted, "Now, I also have stated that it is U.S. policy that Gadhafi needs to go."
Click to expand...

"There are a whole range of policies that we are putting in place that have created one of the most powerful international consensuses around the isolation of Mr. Gadhafi, and we will continue to pursue those," Obama said. "But when it comes to the military action, we are doing so in support of U.N. Resolution 1973 that specifically talks about humanitarian efforts, and we are going to make sure we stick to that mandate."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#85
#85
well it's nice for our fighting folks to have a clear set of goals from the admin
 
#86
#86
I think people need to realize that Obama has to hedge his bets a little here in terms of who is going to win. He has publicly stated that Ghadafi has to go. But he can't say that we are bombing so as to meddle and force that to happen.

Everyone knows it to be the case. But there is some fallout involved in that being policy.
 
#87
#87
utvolpj said:
well it's nice for our fighting folks to have a clear set of goals from the admin
Click to expand...


That's not a very meaningful comment.

The military is not given the command here to go get rid of Ghadafi. They are given order to be part of coalition to take control of air space and hit some specific targets. The individuals in the military know what their order is. They don't need to be involved in the policy reasons at that level.
 
#89
#89
Lawgator, you are presenting classic revisionist history.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#91
#91
lawgator1 said:
In what respect?
Click to expand...

Gotta drive somewhere. Stay tuned, unless someone else sees what I mean in regards to your recollection of the early gulf war. Hint: we were kicking their ass with very few casualties.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#92
#92
lawgator1 said:
That's not a very meaningful comment.
Click to expand...

well you're the expert

lawgator1 said:
The military is not given the command here to go get rid of Ghadafi. They are given order to be part of coalition to take control of air space and hit some specific targets. The individuals in the military know what their order is. They don't need to be involved in the policy reasons at that level.
Click to expand...

they need to know what the end game is so they can prepare. Allowing them to just go along is not going to help anything. The admin does not have a clear message and are being failed by their leaders. I'm just glad you're willing to risk lives based on some UN order and a wishy-washy Pres. As IP asked, where were you in 03-08?

volinbham said:
Listen to the commanders discuss it. They are stumbling around this issue.
Click to expand...

I understand they can plan for today but I would bet they perform much better with a long term view. I doubt they like being in the dark
 
#93
#93
IPorange said:
Gotta drive somewhere. Stay tuned, unless someone else sees what I mean in regards to your recollection of the early gulf war. Hint: we were kicking their ass with very few casualties.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


Sure, but the expectation was that it would cost lives, time, and money, and many were skeptical of the administration's claims that there was real linkage to 9/11 or WMDs there.

In this case, Ghadafi has long been recognized as a nut and the reports of him using his military to kill protestors are not in doubt. Heck, he even brags about it.

Plus, we are being told no invasion or ground troops.

This cannot be compared to Iraq in the sense of protests in this country so as to paint people or media as just anti-Bush. There is a lot of hesitation out there over this for the reasons cited in this thread, i.e. what is the objective?

But that does not translate nearly to the ramp up to Iraq. Not even close.


utvolpj said:
well you're the expert



they need to know what the end game is so they can prepare. Allowing them to just go along is not going to help anything. The admin does not have a clear message and are being failed by their leaders. I'm just glad you're willing to risk lives based on some UN order and a wishy-washy Pres. As IP asked, where were you in 03-08?



I understand they can plan for today but I would bet they perform much better with a long term view. I doubt they like being in the dark
Click to expand...


No they don't.
 
#96
#96
From Obama's comments

Now, here is why this matters to us. Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Qaddafi would commit atrocities against his people. Many thousands could die. A humanitarian crisis would ensue. The entire region could be destabilized, endangering many of our allies and partners. The calls of the Libyan people for help would go unanswered. The democratic values that we stand for would be overrun. Moreover, the words of the international community would be rendered hollow.
Click to expand...

Some like a pre-emptive strike to anyone. Does any of this sound familiar? Throw in a comment or two about WMD and voila!

Transcript of Obama’s Remarks on Libya - Washington Wire - WSJ
 
Last edited:
#97
#97
1. The Obama Administration, known for being short on common courtesy (Strom Thurmond was renowned for answering every phone call / piece of mail from constituents; Obama's Admin often leaves core constinuencies letters / requests unacknowledged), is short on real core beliefs / policies. Hence, France and GB lead this one.

2. The parallels of rhetoric between this and Iraq should surprise no one seriously attuned to how the world functions.

3. UN Mandates are typically ignored. Obama citing the scope of the mandate suggests they are well aware of the political realities in Libya, and that no one has the stomach for the "Old School" imperialism required to oust Qaddafi. It probably also recognizes how the country would be ungovernable besides.

4. I have no idea what the endgame is. I suppose it is to try to establish / build a nascent resistance movement within Libya for whenever the "biological solution" asserts itself - or that might be assertions in the postscript to this. Maybe they just needed to give the planes a runout. Or Sarkozy, who is deeply unpopular, needed a distraction. :dunno:
 
#98
#98
droski said:
ummmm

The War Crimes of Saddam Hussein
Click to expand...


We didn't go into Iraq because Saddam Hussein had used his military against his own people.

We aren't involved in Libya because Ghadafi has used his military against his own people, either.

The difference is the level of commitment involved between the two, not who is C-in-C at the moment.

You want to be critical of Obama for saying its because of the humanitarian need? Okay. That's fine. I agree it is not the real motivation.

You expect Obama to say its because we are trying to curry favor with the rebels because we think/hope they are going to win? No POTUS would say that.
 
#99
#99
lawgator1 said:
We didn't go into Iraq because Saddam Hussein had used his military against his own people.

We aren't involved in Libya because Ghadafi has used his military against his own people, either.

The difference is the level of commitment involved between the two, not who is C-in-C at the moment.

You want to be critical of Obama for saying its because of the humanitarian need? Okay. That's fine. I agree it is not the real motivation.

You expect Obama to say its because we are trying to curry favor with the rebels because we think/hope they are going to win? No POTUS would say that.
Click to expand...

i'm not saying this one is bad and the other is Ok. i'm asking why you seem to think this one is OK and the other is bad. arguing atrocities by ghadafi is absurd given husein's record.
 
#100
#100
droski said:
i'm not saying this one is bad and the other is Ok. i'm asking why you seem to think this one is OK and the other is bad. arguing atrocities by ghadafi is absurd given husein's record.
Click to expand...


Well, its not as simple as one "good," one "bad."

Iraq involved over 100,000 U.S. troops at any given time for a decade. Deaths of U.S. servicemen and women are close to 5,000 now, I believe, with tens of thousands seriously and often permanently injured. The monetary cost has been enormous. The ill will we managed to generate is incalculable.

Libya appears to be something where, if all goes according to plan, its over in a few days, no U.S. casualties, and the cost relatively tiny.

I cannot believe we have taken this step without a pretty strong sense that the people who will take over the country will be substantially more friendly to us than Ghadafi. If it turns out we didn't make that calculation as part of this, then I'll be as critical as anyone. But I have to think that was examined very closely and that the expectation is that this will pay off big for us.

Might it turn out the other way around, as in Iraq? Sure. But we are investing far less up front to take that chance, it would appear.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top