Submitted by Connie Mack Berry Jr on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 12:58am.
No doubt Obama is worst than Bush 2 on simple constitutional issues........Hell! He didn't even try to use the War Powers Act for any authority on making war.. I think it was James Madison that said "you know when you have dictator or tyrant, when the SOB goes to war without the authority of law"* paraphasing of course...............The emperor made a pathetic effort to rationalize his unilateral attack on Libya by saying “I refused to wait for the images of slaughter.” His words were reminiscent of Condoleezza Rice’s earlier unfounded fear image of a “mushroom cloud.” If this guy is really troubled by the sight of slaughter, he might want to take a look at such publications as Der Spiegel, The Guardian, and Rolling Stone and view the images of American soldiers butchering and decapitating Afghan civilians.
* Note..Obama is simply a Puppet of the Military Industrial Complex and the Goldman Sachs Complex and Bush 2 on Steroids........Some change!!!!!!
Submitted by Jake Gellar-Goad on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 1:40am.
A few pieces of the speech:
It’s true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. In this particular country -– Libya -- at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Qaddafi’s forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.
To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and -– more profoundly -– our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. 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.
Moreover, America has an important strategic interest in preventing Qaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful –- yet fragile -– transitions in Egypt and Tunisia.
Now, just as there are those who have argued against intervention in Libya, there are others who have suggested that we broaden our military mission beyond the task of protecting the Libyan people, and do whatever it takes to bring down Qaddafi and usher in a new government.
Of course, there is no question that Libya -– and the world –- would be better off with Qaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.
Using violence to prevent violence almost necessarily involves some cognitive dissonance, which makes it hard pill to swallow and a nuanced argument to sell. I'm trying not to be cynical though, and to suspend any immediate judgment. But the second we do a ground invasion, or if come Independence Day we're asked to remember our troops fighting in the skies of Libya, I think either of those would do in my ability to suspend cynicism.
working very hard to give the benefit of the doubt. But I can seem to get past all the double talk and bullshit flowing from the war machine on the Afghanistan front, where we will eventually walk away, as the Russians and countless occupiers before us walked away, with nothing to show for our efforts ... unless you consider profits for arms manufacturers to be something to show for our efforts.
... Oh wait we didn't. Obama could have easily used the "lesson learned meme" from our failure to support the people of Iraq after the Gulf War. Instead he uses some lame humanitarian responsibility, child, please.
I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
Submitted by scharrison on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 11:30am.
This has evolved from clearing the skies of Daffy's warplanes, to U.S. (and other) forces helping prosecute the war for the rebels by attacking ground targets.
The term "No Fly Zone" was misleading enough back in the post-Desert Storm days: It should have been called "We Get To Fly And You Don't". Now it's just an excuse to wage outright war with the U.N.'s blessing.
We're beating up Qaddafi's military, but there is absolutely no evidence (and plenty to the contrary) that we're going to add the ground troops that would be necessary to control the area and its resources. What we're doing is much more consistent with what it would take to, say, stop violence in Kosovo, then to go after its oil. Not to mention that the oil companies are not exactly close to Obama, Clinton, and other proponents of military action.
I understand the cynicism about military action following the disastrous Iraq war, and I do respect that there's a case (albeit a hard-hearted and isolationist one) against intervening in humanitarian crises...but there's just no reason right now to think this is about oil.
If it's in the Middle East and eastern Mediterranean, it is always about oil, though in this case it's not about getting "us" oil. It's about stabilizing the price of oil on the global markets by ensuring that Libyan refining capacity stays online ... mostly to feed the thirst for diesel in Europe. The markets have been shocked by the violence in Libya, not because of humanitarian concerns, but because of pricing speculation. Our diplomatic and military intervention is designed to dampen those fears.
And what do you want to bet that we already have mercenaries on the ground there? You know, Xe and other evil spawn of Blackwater. Hell, we don't have to send ground troops anywhere anymore to disrupt foreign governments. Eric Prince will do anything we want for a few hundred million.
You'd avoid prolonging a war that Qaddafi was on the verge of winning, and you wouldn't save an opposition he was about to eliminate. We just escalated Libya's civil war by stopping Qaddafi from winning easily, which doesn't exactly stabilize it. In fact, the price of oil was destabilized by the attack: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12802108 .
Also, I'd personally be willing to put money on us not having Xe on the ground. That's quite an extraordinary claim, that the US would send contractors into a country without anyone having any evidence of it, and without having any protection from friendly military.
but strong-armed dictators rarely collapse until induced to do so. Had we not invaded, his regime would have almost certainly survived this, and, upon his eventual death, probably be handed over to a slightly less crazy heir. We're supporting the biggest threat to his regime that he's ever faced, which means right now we are the ones promoting Libyan instability.
Further, the oil industry isn't exactly known for conspiring to take down strong-armed dictators in favor of (maybe?) more democratic revolutions. Quite the opposite. In fact, they seem just fine operating in dictatorish countries like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, UAE, Sudan, Baathist Iraq, and others.
I just don't see how conspiring to lengthen a civil war and help a revolution is consistent with oil company behavior or objectives, and I especially don't see how its a more compelling motive to a somewhat oil-unfriendly Obama administration than an impending massacre.
Submitted by scharrison on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 5:31pm.
to this issue than we're aware of right now, and some of those layers may be of European origin. Film at 11, maybe.
Just to clarify, I'm no fan of Qadaffi. I was near the libyan border in Tunisia 28 years ago training their military on how to defend against Qaddafi's forces. Or how to die more professionally trying to slow them down, anyway. I was over him then and I'm over him still.
But...I've also seen a whole lot of strategic moves take place under the banner of humanitarianism, and I'm pretty much over that as well.
Submitted by scharrison on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 2:28pm.
it's about creating an environment where much more of the oil can be exploited by companies like ConocoPhillips. Libya is the #1 African country for oil reserves, but billions more need to be spent for exploration, upgrading of refineries, etc. And across the board, nobody wants to spend that kind of money with Daffy's regime in place.
So, Daffy needs to go, and this civil war is a perfect opportunity to make that happen.
1. We don't know what the next government will look like. It could be a total mess. And, we've made it clear we don't intend to commit ground troops, so we won't be controlling the process. This hardly looks like a mission to create an environment safe for foreign oil companies.
2. The fact that our actions could possibly result in an oil-friendly Libyan future hardly means that it was the motive. The humanitarian motive is more consistent with what we've seen, since we're trading the near-certainty of atrocities at Qaddafi's hands for a much smaller probability under a new government.
3. What's being ignored is the fact that Qaddafi is a damned lunatic who has ordered terrorist attacks in the past and brought in foreign paramilitary forces to violently repress dissent. Anyone who wants to be suspicious of the humanitarian motive would have an easier time claiming that he's being removed because we find him inconvenient than putting some kind of oil argument together.
Submitted by wafranklin on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 5:33pm.
All to complex analysis.
We attacked Libya "because we can". And we will do this again and again until we cut the size of the military in half, or better. And we will do it until once again we draft the ground soldiers and marines who die.
It is fundamentally because we are collectively stupid. Forget the excuses and rationale.
Submitted by Reasonably Honest on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 9:54am.
If this is a responsible humanitarian move then how many other opportunities to intervene have we missed around the world?
100?
1,000?
10,000?
The lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan must not have been as evident to others as to me. If you had bet me on the day of Obama's victory that he would be attacking Libya within a couple of years..........you could have won just about all I got.
Nice speech
Still don't buy it.
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
Other polls
Through the ages
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
Lotsa good ones in there
Here's one of my favorites.
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
War run by Puppets?
No doubt Obama is worst than Bush 2 on simple constitutional issues........Hell! He didn't even try to use the War Powers Act for any authority on making war.. I think it was James Madison that said "you know when you have dictator or tyrant, when the SOB goes to war without the authority of law"* paraphasing of course...............The emperor made a pathetic effort to rationalize his unilateral attack on Libya by saying “I refused to wait for the images of slaughter.” His words were reminiscent of Condoleezza Rice’s earlier unfounded fear image of a “mushroom cloud.” If this guy is really troubled by the sight of slaughter, he might want to take a look at such publications as Der Spiegel, The Guardian, and Rolling Stone and view the images of American soldiers butchering and decapitating Afghan civilians.
* Note..Obama is simply a Puppet of the Military Industrial Complex and the Goldman Sachs Complex and Bush 2 on Steroids........Some change!!!!!!
Time will tell
A few pieces of the speech:
Using violence to prevent violence almost necessarily involves some cognitive dissonance, which makes it hard pill to swallow and a nuanced argument to sell. I'm trying not to be cynical though, and to suspend any immediate judgment. But the second we do a ground invasion, or if come Independence Day we're asked to remember our troops fighting in the skies of Libya, I think either of those would do in my ability to suspend cynicism.
I've been doing the same thing
working very hard to give the benefit of the doubt. But I can seem to get past all the double talk and bullshit flowing from the war machine on the Afghanistan front, where we will eventually walk away, as the Russians and countless occupiers before us walked away, with nothing to show for our efforts ... unless you consider profits for arms manufacturers to be something to show for our efforts.
The idea that there is something we can "win" in Afghanistan is absurd.
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
Similar to US intervention in Darfur...
... Oh wait we didn't. Obama could have easily used the "lesson learned meme" from our failure to support the people of Iraq after the Gulf War. Instead he uses some lame humanitarian responsibility, child, please.
I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
John Stu
What I was afraid of
This has evolved from clearing the skies of Daffy's warplanes, to U.S. (and other) forces helping prosecute the war for the rebels by attacking ground targets.
The term "No Fly Zone" was misleading enough back in the post-Desert Storm days: It should have been called "We Get To Fly And You Don't". Now it's just an excuse to wage outright war with the U.N.'s blessing.
How on Earth does an air campaign get us oil?
We're beating up Qaddafi's military, but there is absolutely no evidence (and plenty to the contrary) that we're going to add the ground troops that would be necessary to control the area and its resources. What we're doing is much more consistent with what it would take to, say, stop violence in Kosovo, then to go after its oil. Not to mention that the oil companies are not exactly close to Obama, Clinton, and other proponents of military action.
I understand the cynicism about military action following the disastrous Iraq war, and I do respect that there's a case (albeit a hard-hearted and isolationist one) against intervening in humanitarian crises...but there's just no reason right now to think this is about oil.
Think it through
If it's in the Middle East and eastern Mediterranean, it is always about oil, though in this case it's not about getting "us" oil. It's about stabilizing the price of oil on the global markets by ensuring that Libyan refining capacity stays online ... mostly to feed the thirst for diesel in Europe. The markets have been shocked by the violence in Libya, not because of humanitarian concerns, but because of pricing speculation. Our diplomatic and military intervention is designed to dampen those fears.
And what do you want to bet that we already have mercenaries on the ground there? You know, Xe and other evil spawn of Blackwater. Hell, we don't have to send ground troops anywhere anymore to disrupt foreign governments. Eric Prince will do anything we want for a few hundred million.
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
Seems to me that if you want to stabilize it to keep oil flowing
You'd avoid prolonging a war that Qaddafi was on the verge of winning, and you wouldn't save an opposition he was about to eliminate. We just escalated Libya's civil war by stopping Qaddafi from winning easily, which doesn't exactly stabilize it. In fact, the price of oil was destabilized by the attack: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12802108 .
Also, I'd personally be willing to put money on us not having Xe on the ground. That's quite an extraordinary claim, that the US would send contractors into a country without anyone having any evidence of it, and without having any protection from friendly military.
I think you have it wrong
A strong-armed dictator is the most stable government of all, until it's not.
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
That's a fair point
but strong-armed dictators rarely collapse until induced to do so. Had we not invaded, his regime would have almost certainly survived this, and, upon his eventual death, probably be handed over to a slightly less crazy heir. We're supporting the biggest threat to his regime that he's ever faced, which means right now we are the ones promoting Libyan instability.
Further, the oil industry isn't exactly known for conspiring to take down strong-armed dictators in favor of (maybe?) more democratic revolutions. Quite the opposite. In fact, they seem just fine operating in dictatorish countries like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, UAE, Sudan, Baathist Iraq, and others.
I just don't see how conspiring to lengthen a civil war and help a revolution is consistent with oil company behavior or objectives, and I especially don't see how its a more compelling motive to a somewhat oil-unfriendly Obama administration than an impending massacre.
I think there are more layers
to this issue than we're aware of right now, and some of those layers may be of European origin. Film at 11, maybe.
Just to clarify, I'm no fan of Qadaffi. I was near the libyan border in Tunisia 28 years ago training their military on how to defend against Qaddafi's forces. Or how to die more professionally trying to slow them down, anyway. I was over him then and I'm over him still.
But...I've also seen a whole lot of strategic moves take place under the banner of humanitarianism, and I'm pretty much over that as well.
It's not really about the U.S. "getting" the oil,
it's about creating an environment where much more of the oil can be exploited by companies like ConocoPhillips. Libya is the #1 African country for oil reserves, but billions more need to be spent for exploration, upgrading of refineries, etc. And across the board, nobody wants to spend that kind of money with Daffy's regime in place.
So, Daffy needs to go, and this civil war is a perfect opportunity to make that happen.
This may have that effect
But:
1. We don't know what the next government will look like. It could be a total mess. And, we've made it clear we don't intend to commit ground troops, so we won't be controlling the process. This hardly looks like a mission to create an environment safe for foreign oil companies.
2. The fact that our actions could possibly result in an oil-friendly Libyan future hardly means that it was the motive. The humanitarian motive is more consistent with what we've seen, since we're trading the near-certainty of atrocities at Qaddafi's hands for a much smaller probability under a new government.
3. What's being ignored is the fact that Qaddafi is a damned lunatic who has ordered terrorist attacks in the past and brought in foreign paramilitary forces to violently repress dissent. Anyone who wants to be suspicious of the humanitarian motive would have an easier time claiming that he's being removed because we find him inconvenient than putting some kind of oil argument together.
Because we can
All to complex analysis.
We attacked Libya "because we can". And we will do this again and again until we cut the size of the military in half, or better. And we will do it until once again we draft the ground soldiers and marines who die.
It is fundamentally because we are collectively stupid. Forget the excuses and rationale.
wafranklin
If this is a responsible
If this is a responsible humanitarian move then how many other opportunities to intervene have we missed around the world?
100?
1,000?
10,000?
The lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan must not have been as evident to others as to me. If you had bet me on the day of Obama's victory that he would be attacking Libya within a couple of years..........you could have won just about all I got.
Another take on it
from Gingrich:
Another take: CIA = mercenaries?
If the CIA is on the ground there, you can bet a shitload of other "interested parties" are too.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31intel.html?_r=1&hp
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.