- Joined
- Dec 8, 2006
- Messages
- 93,960
- Reaction score
- 69,037
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
It's a war! :lamo
Why don't we have to declare these things anymore?
It's a war! :lamo
I would say to everyone "REMAIN CALM!" Per the article in the OP, it's speculation at this point as to knowing exactly what's going to happen in Libya as far as what form of government takes shape when Ghadaffi (spell check) is either removed from power by force or he leaves of his own accord if he leaves at all. More to the point, without knowing exactly what the U.N. resolution states, you really can't determine for sure what's going to happen because we don't know what the resolution actually calls for. (I tried to find the resolution calling for Libyan air strikes but it's not posted at the U.N.'s website yet.)
Why don't we have to declare these things anymore?
we don't know what the resolution actually calls for.
Edit: Haven't seen DonaldSutherland. I wonder how he'd weigh in on what's happening...
Maggie,
I've commented in a few threads. My thoughts are as follows:
My preference would have been supplying arms to the anti-Gadhafi forces. A no-fly zone aimed at protecting civilians would be as far as I would go, but that was not my preference. As that is the direction things went, I strongly support the military men and women who are involved in the effort.
I continue to believe that it should be up to the Libyans to wage their revolution, fully recognizing that there is no guarantee that the revolution would be successful under such circumstances. I am concerned about the risk that the mission could morph into active intervention on the side of the revolution. While I support the anti-Gadhafi forces, I do not believe the U.S. should be helping wage their revolution. I just don't see the compelling U.S. interests that would justify such direct intervention.
I also remain concerned about the lack of broad-based support for the revolution. Col. Gadhafi still enjoys a significant reservoir of support, and not all of that support can be explained by coercion. I suspect that such support more than Col. Gadhafi's use of air power might have explained why the anti-Gadhafi forces ran out of steam and were in broad retreat until the no fly zone was implemented. The masses of people in areas from which Gadhafi's forces were initially driven out did not join the revolutionaries to to necessary extent that a building tidal wave of popular support would have toppled the regime. Therefore, no knockout blow was delivered.
Given that reality, should the Gadhafi dictatorship be driven from power--and that could still happen--the lack of broad support for the anti-Gadhafi forces and the poor political/military skill shown on their part raise real questions as to whether they could forge a sufficiently stable and broadly representative government quickly enough to avert the dangers of the power vacuum that would be left in the wake of the dictatorship's demise. There would be real risk of civil war if such a transitional government could not be formed quickly enough. Mere pledges of democracy would not be able to avert those risks.
Finally, while the no fly zone has been designed, in theory, to protect civilians, the rhetoric coming from Washington, Paris, and London has differed at times from the mandate and those differences raise credibility issues. For example, President Obama recently stated that it is official U.S. policy that Gadhafi leave. Yet, the military mission is much more limited (unless it has already evolved into something beyond a no fly zone). I favor a more limited military mission (as noted above, and would have preferred supplying arms to the anti-Gadhafi forces rather than the no fly zone). Nevertheless, the gap between the political rhetoric/stated policy and the actual military mission is not helpful. It is important that the rhetoric/official policy reflect the reality. Either the rhetoric/policy goals have to be reined in or the military mission expanded. I favor the former. Otherwise, U.S. policy and communication on the issue will be viewed as hollow.
My preference would have been supplying arms to the anti-Gadhafi forces. A no-fly zone aimed at protecting civilians would be as far as I would go, but that was not my preference. As that is the direction things went, I strongly support the military men and women who are involved in the effort.
I am concerned about the risk that the mission could morph into active intervention on the side of the revolution.
Col. Gadhafi still enjoys a significant reservoir of support, and not all of that support can be explained by coercion. I suspect that such support more than Col. Gadhafi's use of air power might have explained why the anti-Gadhafi forces ran out of steam and were in broad retreat until the no fly zone was implemented.
There would be real risk of civil war if such a transitional government could not be formed quickly enough.
Finally, while the no fly zone has been designed, in theory, to protect civilians, the rhetoric coming from Washington, Paris, and London has differed at times from the mandate
For example, President Obama recently stated that it is official U.S. policy that Gadhafi leave. Yet, the military mission is much more limited (unless it has already evolved into something beyond a no fly zone).
Either the rhetoric/policy goals have to be reined in or the military mission expanded. I favor the former. Otherwise, U.S. policy and communication on the issue will be viewed as hollow.
the direction things went?
yes, someone killed gadaffi's son, someone's been bombing tanks and other ground forces
concerned about active intervention?
you just said you want to arm one side
i haven't hear a whiff of that in any of the sources
i think there might be very real risk even if someone could put something together fast
unless?
Have conservatives actually not noticed that liberals are generally against this action taken by Obama?
Incidentally, a tomahawk missile is about as expensive as most of a teaching career.
Will someone please wake me up when 120 000 American troops enter Libya.
And the mission creep continues. The no-fly zone quickly escalated to air strikes, and now protecting Libya's people has escalated to spreading democracy to Libya. One way or another, Obama is NOT going to get the result he wants in Libya. It's better to not even be involved in this.
The claim about the death of one of Gadhafi's sons has not been substantiated.
IMO, the language is overly broad.
I'm referring to direct military intervention aimed at helping the revolution succeed. I oppose it.
Supplying arms is not the same thing as direct military intervention.
Whether or not the apparent gap between the stated military mission and U.S. policy/communication is really as large as it appears is somewhat uncertain.
Actions in coming days will establish whether the mission is more than just concerned with a no fly zone.
I'm curious as to why the anti-war crowd isn't already in the streets.
Probably the same reason the Right's been all "support our troops" until this. It's all blind politics--follow your side, not your nation.
no you got it wrong see when the W.M.D.'s fell flat GW changed his tune and made it about (oh we are sooo concerned about what Sadam is doing to his people we need to go to war with him) and it worked so now Obama figured it worked once it'll work again and is using the exact same line to sell this war to the public. WTF!!!So far, this isn't equal to Iraq. Stopping the civilian killing is different than invading on a pretext. Now, if he means to install a democracy, he's making a similar mistake to what Bush made in Iraq. We do have to see where this goes.
obama, december, 07:
"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"
biden, may of 07:
"if he (bush) gives authorization to war without congressional approval i will make it my business to impeach him"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adpa5kYUhCA
these are NOT points, partisans
they're problems
obama, december, 07:
"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... unless of course his name is Obama, then have at 'em!