War In Libya (It's Real Now, Nutty!)

[FooFa]

a) we don't have oil interests in africa
b)sometimes it is..

it's glib to say 'it's for oil' but we do get a some oil of it from Libya..   and in Africa, I just don't see any way to end it even with our intrusion..

I'm sure Obama and the rest would have been happy to let it all play out on it's own like it has everywhere else in the Mid-east where the people are rising up.. but this time Ghadaffi threatened to kill everyone in sight and the mid-east leaders believed him and asked for our assistance..

there was no good response..

think about it... Obama is literally damned with either choice he makes... Don't get involved and watch 1000's and maybe even 10's of 1000's slaughtered ... for which he would be supremely vilified for and blamed

or

do what can minimally be done and get blamed for using the US military here instead of there..

I can only assume he made the choice that would let him sleep at night.

this is why he was elected.. to make these choices. He made it, it's working out OK so far.. let's see how it eventually plays out.

what choice would you have made?

Everything you say is true and makes sense. I guess I don't agree with the ends justifying the means. I know there are always exceptions to rules but the use of the military seems to have become an untouchable by congress or an after thought. Within the present framework I suppose I would have done what he did but who is the enemy and who is the ally in that situation...Or is going to be another Afghanistan where we just stay and maintain bases and talk about security?

[ekg]

Everything you say is true and makes sense. I guess I don't agree with the ends justifying the means. I know there are always exceptions to rules but the use of the military seems to have become an untouchable by congress or an after thought. Within the present framework I suppose I would have done what he did but who is the enemy and who is the ally in that situation...Or is going to be another Afghanistan where we just stay and maintain bases and talk about security?

That's the worst part of all... Ghaddfi was a shitty guy, but he was our shitty guy.  The ones to  take over? May hate us... and for that, we could be in worse danger. But at the end of the day there was only one choice to make and that was not to allow a dictator brutally murder 10's of 1000's of his people all because they wanted to be free..

in other parts of Africa the same genocide happens and we don't send in our guys..  but I think that the chance was taken in Libya because to have another country in that area to become a democracy, is just too good of an option to pass up..

[Howey]

During all the talk this morning over bin Laden, I heard a line I've been using for a while. It was the fact that the youth of the Middle East want change in how their countries are run, they want a voice and the freedom to enjoy that freedom.

It may or may not be a slow process, but it will.

The thing about Libya, especially when Ghadaffi's gone, is that it is a clear message - not from the U.S., NATO, or any government - from the people to their governments.

[lil mike]

That's the worst part of all... Ghaddfi was a shitty guy, but he was our shitty guy.  The ones to  take over? May hate us... and for that, we could be in worse danger. But at the end of the day there was only one choice to make and that was not to allow a dictator brutally murder 10's of 1000's of his people all because they wanted to be free..

in other parts of Africa the same genocide happens and we don't send in our guys..  but I think that the chance was taken in Libya because to have another country in that area to become a democracy, is just too good of an option to pass up..

We had kind of made our peace with him since he came clean on his WMD's and coporated with all of our inspections, but I wouldn't characterize him as "our" guy.  Nor do I think oil, which I don't beleive we get from that country, had any impact on our decision making.  For the UK and France it's a different story, but if they can trick us into doing their dirty work..

Syria and Iran on the other hand, are both avowed enemies and are real threats.  We seem to be OK with Syria slaughtering their people on a daily basis.  That's why I can't make real sense of the administration's policy.  How the hell is Libya more important to us than Syria is?   If there is some overall marching plan, I don't see it.

[ekg]

We had kind of made our peace with him since he came clean on his WMD's and coporated with all of our inspections, but I wouldn't characterize him as "our" guy.  Nor do I think oil, which I don't beleive we get from that country, had any impact on our decision making.  For the UK and France it's a different story, but if they can trick us into doing their dirty work..

well, you can not believe it all you want, but we do get oil from them..

http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbblpd_a.htm

Syria and Iran on the other hand, are both avowed enemies and are real threats.  We seem to be OK with Syria slaughtering their people on a daily basis.  That's why I can't make real sense of the administration's policy.  How the hell is Libya more important to us than Syria is?   If there is some overall marching plan, I don't see it.

I don't know why, you've been given a pretty decent answer..

Why Syria is different for the U.S.

The United Nations says it has information that 76 people were killed in that country last Friday alone, apparently during peaceful marches. President Bashar al-Assad's regime has described the protesters as "armed criminal groups," and shows no sign of letting up.

President Barack Obama has condemned the violence "in the strongest possible terms" and is seeking ways to "increase the pressure on the regime ... in a targeted way," according to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. So far, however, the response has amounted to little more than talk.

Rights group: More than 400 killed in Syria.

Over in Libya, however, the U.S. reaction was entirely different when strongman Moammar Gadhafi promised to show "no mercy" to residents of the rebel-held city of Benghazi. Washington worked furiously behind the scenes at the United Nations to win an international mandate for a naval blockade, a no-fly zone and a license to take military action to protect civilians.

Obama promised no use of ground troops, but U.S. air power was used to devastating effect against elements of Gadhafi's forces before control of the operation was handed over to NATO commanders.

The White House says the two situations can't be compared.

Libya was "a unique situation," Carney told reporters Monday. "We had large portions of the country that were out of the control of Moammar Gadhafi (and) we had an international consensus to act. We had the support of the Arab League to act in a multilateral fashion."

But Washington is "pursuing a range of possible policy options" in Syria, he stressed. The administration is looking at "targeted sanctions to respond to the crackdown ... and to make clear that this behavior is unacceptable."

American "values and principles apply to all countries," Defense Secretary Robert Gates added Tuesday. "Our response in each country will have to be tailored to that country, and the circumstances peculiar to that country."


Second, there is "nowhere near the consensus on Syria as there is on Libya," Pletka told CNN. Syria, as opposed to Libya, stands at the heart of the Arab world. Assad has more friends and allies to call on.

"Assad is a dictator, a sponsor of terrorism, (and) a thug," Pletka said. "You could argue he's worse than Gadhafi." But "on Syria, the Arab League is not going to be nearly as forward-leaning. (They're) much closer to Assad."



At the same time, Israel may have a hostile relationship with its neighbor, but the Israeli leadership is "very comfortable with the devil it knows" in Damascus


Obama, Pletka said, has shown an extreme reluctance to engage in unilateral military action. Ousting Assad would change the entire political dynamic in the Middle East to the benefit of the United States, she said, noting Syria's close ties to Iran and organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. But unless and until a firmer international consensus emerges, more concerted action is unlikely.

Military action in Libya may also have became a priority partly due to fears of al Qaeda, according to Rick Nelson, a terrorism expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, another Washington think tank.

Al Qaeda is "good at using countries in chaos to carve out safe havens," Nelson said, noting that the second-highest number of foreign fighters for al Qaeda in Iraq came from Libya. As Libya became more unstable, it may have become a priority for Western powers to ensure the country doesn't become more of a home for al Qaeda leaders.

Nelson echoed Pletka's point about the lack of an international consensus on Syria.

"People don't want to be on Assad's bad side," he said. If you attack Syria, "you're crossing a line that is changing the whole strategic calculus in the region in one move," he said. "The stakes are a lot higher."

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-26/us/u.s..libya.syria_1_libya-syria-president-bashar?_s=PM:US

I mean, we may not even have Israel on our side in that one..

now, you may not like it.. but don't say you can't make real sense of the administration's policy. .. it's pretty clear.

[JukeBoxGuy]

We had kind of made our peace with him since he came clean on his WMD's and coporated with all of our inspections, but I wouldn't characterize him as "our" guy.  Nor do I think oil, which I don't beleive we get from that country, had any impact on our decision making.  For the UK and France it's a different story, but if they can trick us into doing their dirty work..

Syria and Iran on the other hand, are both avowed enemies and are real threats.  We seem to be OK with Syria slaughtering their people on a daily basis.  That's why I can't make real sense of the administration's policy.  How the hell is Libya more important to us than Syria is?   If there is some overall marching plan, I don't see it.

There is no overall marching plan.  There hasn't been for decades.  We base our foreign policy on the current political situation and then we change it.

North Africa and the Middle East are a mess.  The countries are artificial.  They were formed through European colonization and are held together only by brutal dictatorship.  When these dictatorships collapse, they fracture along ethnic and tribal lines.

Our problem is that we have to choose our battles, as we can't afford to fight everywhere.  With our ground troops still engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq, and since our European allies seem to be willing to take the lead, Libya seems to be the battle of choice.

I think we hope that Syria and Yemen will sort themselves out, as did Egypt.  In the case if Syria, Israeli intervention may become a factor.

As for Iran, I think we are delaying an inevitable confrontation. 

And if anyone thinks that Pakistan is anything more than an Ally of Convenience, they are deluding themselves...   

[FooFa]

In what way did Egypt sort itself out? A military command with no identified leader and curfews as well as continued violence against those seeking a true democracy...

[lil mike]

well, you can not believe it all you want, but we do get oil from them..

http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbblpd_a.htm

OK I stand corrected.  We do get some oil from Libya.  But it just doesn't seem to be a significant amount.  Like 2% of our imported oil.  Less than we get from Belgium and Trinadad and Tobago.

Your reply to Fafa here was that oil was one of the reasons we intervened.

a) we don't have oil interests in africa

So was it?  Is this a war for oil?

I don't know why, you've been given a pretty decent answer..

I mean, we may not even have Israel on our side in that one..

now, you may not like it.. but don't say you can't make real sense of the administration's policy. .. it's pretty clear.

You accept everything pretty much uncritically from the administration so you may not be the best judge of whats a clear answer or not.

Why was the fact that large areas in rebel hands make a difference as to whether it was in US national interest or not?

Or because the international community and the Arab League supported it?  How does that make it US national interest?

[ekg]

OK I stand corrected.  We do get some oil from Libya.  But it just doesn't seem to be a significant amount.  Like 2% of our imported oil.  Less than we get from Belgium and Trinadad and Tobago.

Your reply to Fafa here was that oil was one of the reasons we intervened.


So was it?  Is this a war for oil?

you make my head hurt.

it's not that black and white..

so no it wasn't... and then yes it was..

the same way fafa and I were both correct when we said

B. That's not what the US Armed Forces mission is in the world.

b)sometimes it is..

you know this.. why do you want to pretend otherwise just because the President has (D) after his name? Can you really not get over it already?

You accept everything pretty much uncritically from the administration so you may not be the best judge of whats a clear answer or not.

and you only accept words,thoughts,wars, and polices if they come from GOP members..   

Why was the fact that large areas in rebel hands make a difference as to whether it was in US national interest or not?

Or because the international community and the Arab League supported it?  How does that make it US national interest?

I think the article I gave and JBG's reply is pretty easy to understand, so nothing I can say now will make it an easier for you to decide to understand it.. how about pretending it's coming from Bush and Cheney, maybe that will make it easier for you to get?

[lil mike]

you make my head hurt.

it's not that black and white..

so no it wasn't... and then yes it was..

Well there are wars for oil and then wars for oil.  I thought it was odd that you would use that formulation on the first war in the middle east that we've gotten into that "war for oil" has not been a lefty talking point.

So to me, it was weird that you were saying it when I wasn't hearing it from Code Pinko or ANSWER.  I suppose one could make a case that the Gulf War was a war for oil, and I don't think there is any case that Iraq was a war for oil, but the left claimed both of them were.

And Libya?  At 2% of oil, I don't think this is a war for oil.

For us.

the same way fafa and I were both correct when we said

you know this.. why do you want to pretend otherwise just because the President has (D) after his name? Can you really not get over it already?

and you only accept words,thoughts,wars, and polices if they come from GOP members..   

I think the article I gave and JBG's reply is pretty easy to understand, so nothing I can say now will make it an easier for you to decide to understand it.. how about pretending it's coming from Bush and Cheney, maybe that will make it easier for you to get?

It was easy to understand except when it came to explaining what was the US national security interest was.  That is my question after all. I get it that it was exciting to lead from behind the French and Arab League, but because you are seeking the approval of other's in their national security interests doesn't make it our national security interest.  I mean, if we had no other wars or anything else going and just needed practice with operations and live fire, eh, maybe then.

But I've learned that when someone can't explain something to me and refers me to an article that doesn't respond to the question I'm asking, they probably don't know either and are just crushing on the person who got us into the war.

But if it makes you feel any better, since we've committed forces, it's in our national security interest now.  I think that's probably not something you would follow though, based on past history but now we're committed to this war and have to get rid of Gaddaffi (damn spelling) and make sure that a  reasonably democratic government takes charge there. 

I hope the President is up for it.

[ekg]

Well there are wars for oil and then wars for oil.  I thought it was odd that you would use that formulation on the first war in the middle east that we've gotten into that "war for oil" has not been a lefty talking point.

So to me, it was weird that you were saying it when I wasn't hearing it from Code Pinko or ANSWER.  I suppose one could make a case that the Gulf War was a war for oil, and I don't think there is any case that Iraq was a war for oil, but the left claimed both of them were.

And Libya?  At 2% of oil, I don't think this is a war for oil.

I disagree... that oil serves our national interests and keeping it safe is a part of national security.. even that small amount serves us they are in the top 10 oil producers... There was a need for us to protect our interests..especially now with prices already high.. add in Ghadaffi's treats and the tension it creates in the area gets real ugly real fast..

was it number one on the list? no.. but it was on the list in the top3 IMO.. how can you look at that and say "Nope, don't see it".. all you had to do was listen to the news the 1st few days and hear them tell you of the tension affecting OPEC and gas prices.. just the rumor he was leaving brought them down some..

I don't even know who code pink or ANSWER is so why would I know what they are saying.  I was answering fafa in the simplest way possible.. nothing more, nothing less...

For us.

It was easy to understand except when it came to explaining what was the US national security interest was.  That is my question after all. I get it that it was exciting to lead from behind the French and Arab League, but because you are seeking the approval of other's in their national security interests doesn't make it our national security interest.  I mean, if we had no other wars or anything else going and just needed practice with operations and live fire, eh, maybe then.

But I've learned that when someone can't explain something to me and refers me to an article that doesn't respond to the question I'm asking, they probably don't know either and are just crushing on the person who got us into the war.

But if it makes you feel any better, since we've committed forces, it's in our national security interest now.  I think that's probably not something you would follow though, based on past history but now we're committed to this war and have to get rid of Gaddaffi (damn spelling) and make sure that a  reasonably democratic government takes charge there. 

I hope the President is up for it.

I don't find the mystery in what our national interests were in this situation... I don't find the mystery in why we didn't go into Syria or even Iran the way you do.. I do find it mysterious that you expect this President to solve every previous presidents problems though, when you're not really going to 'understand' what he does regardless of how easy it is to understand anyway..

I  think the oil and the chance at another ousted dictator and insertion of a democracy, along with the saving of potentially 10's of 1000's of people who just wanted to be free made it in our interest.. I don't think I'm hiding anything from you or dodging any question, I just can't explain it any better than it's already been explained to you by me,cnn and JBG.. so you can take this..

But I've learned that when someone can't explain something to me and refers me to an article that doesn't respond to the question I'm asking, they probably don't know either and are just crushing on the person who got us into the war.

and add it to that growing list of your refusal to accept anything that doesn't come from the mouth of (R)'s..because I can't make it any easier.. unless I hunt up flow charts, but even that.. would probably be a waste of my time..

[lil mike]

I disagree... that oil serves our national interests and keeping it safe is a part of national security.. even that small amount serves us they are in the top 10 oil producers... There was a need for us to protect our interests..especially now with prices already high.. add in Ghadaffi's treats and the tension it creates in the area gets real ugly real fast..

was it number one on the list? no.. but it was on the list in the top3 IMO.. how can you look at that and say "Nope, don't see it".. all you had to do was listen to the news the 1st few days and hear them tell you of the tension affecting OPEC and gas prices.. just the rumor he was leaving brought them down some..

I don't even know who code pink or ANSWER is so why would I know what they are saying.  I was answering fafa in the simplest way possible.. nothing more, nothing less...

Like I said, I don't think it was a war for oil, for us.

I do think from the European perspective, it very much is a war for oil, since the have much closer business dealings with Libya and get much more of their oil from there.  If you recall, it eventually came out that pressure from the UK government on the Scottish legal system lead to the release of one of the Lockerbie bombers, allegedly for humanitarian reasons although apparently back home in Libya, he experienced a miraculous remission and last I heard, was still alive.

So, if foreign governments will trade a terrorst who killed their own people (not to mention ours) for oil contracts, I'm not surprised they would try to get a superpower with superior military capabilities to do their dirty work.  Same thing happened in Bosnia.  There was a humanitarian crisis, but not a national security crisis.   So, which country has has more civilian deaths since these uprisings started?  Libya or Syria? 

I don't find the mystery in what our national interests were in this situation... I don't find the mystery in why we didn't go into Syria or even Iran the way you do.. I do find it mysterious that you expect this President to solve every previous presidents problems though, when you're not really going to 'understand' what he does regardless of how easy it is to understand anyway..

I  think the oil and the chance at another ousted dictator and insertion of a democracy, along with the saving of potentially 10's of 1000's of people who just wanted to be free made it in our interest.. I don't think I'm hiding anything from you or dodging any question, I just can't explain it any better than it's already been explained to you by me,cnn and JBG.. so you can take this..

But I've learned that when someone can't explain something to me and refers me to an article that doesn't respond to the question I'm asking, they probably don't know either and are just crushing on the person who got us into the war.

and add it to that growing list of your refusal to accept anything that doesn't come from the mouth of (R)'s..because I can't make it any easier.. unless I hunt up flow charts, but even that.. would probably be a waste of my time..

Yes yes the "mouth of R's."  Like I said, I get the humanitarian angle, however now that we are involved in Libya, are we willing to stay to do what it takes, kill Ghaddafi, help support a democratic government there... I mean, do you understand the commitment we have made?  Or, are you going to get bored with the whole thing and want the US to pull out later?  I think that since we've gotten sucked into this, we've got a much bigger commitment than just lobbing a few bombs, and I don't see these issues being addressed.  That's why asking what our national security interests are isn't just a matter of R's and D's.  I see that you seem to find it difficult to think I can have anything other than a partisan slant on foreign policy.

Which, considering your reaction to Bin Ladin's killing, is more than a wee bit ironic!

[ekg]

Like I said, I don't think it was a war for oil, for us.

and yet, as I've laid it out.. it was... it just wasn't the only reason.

do you disagree with what I have said about the oil stability being in our national and security interests?

I do think from the European perspective, it very much is a war for oil, since the have much closer business dealings with Libya and get much more of their oil from there.  If you recall, it eventually came out that pressure from the UK government on the Scottish legal system lead to the release of one of the Lockerbie bombers, allegedly for humanitarian reasons although apparently back home in Libya, he experienced a miraculous remission and last I heard, was still alive.

So, if foreign governments will trade a terrorst who killed their own people (not to mention ours) for oil contracts, I'm not surprised they would try to get a superpower with superior military capabilities to do their dirty work.  Same thing happened in Bosnia.  There was a humanitarian crisis, but not a national security crisis.   So, which country has has more civilian deaths since these uprisings started?  Libya or Syria? 

yep, what I expected.. it's the (R) thing again.. that's all, no need to explain this mysterious 'questions' and 'inability to understand' any more..

btw, it's the Bosnia thing that gave it way..  I guess going with example from the  Bush era was too much to ask for..

so here's something, it turns out that Bush went after Saddam for humanitarian reasons, the same reasons we're in Libya, one day the Bush admin will find out the real reason and stick with it, instead of just giving out reasons du jour when asked....So yeah, this should help your understanding, since you had not a single question when it was Bush/Saddam.. Per Condi Rice, The Saddam thing is just like the Ghaddafi thing, he was killing his own people and that presented a security for us that we just couldn't stand..

Odd that he allowed Dafur to happen tho, how many of  their people had died in comparison to Iraq.. since you're all about making comparison and all..well heh, comparisons to (D) actions that is..

I'm sure Iraq had nothing to do with oil or the vendetta against Saddam..or to keep the stability in the area.. nooooo, that was a good, unquestionable choice for you that had nothing to do with the (R) after the decider in chiefs name..

Jesus, do you see how partsian and childish you are being yet?  Like it's been explained to you already,

There is no overall marching plan.  There hasn't been for decades.  We base our foreign policy on the current political situation and then we change it.

pull your head out of the partsian feeding bag already..

here's what Rice has said..

You’re looking at a dictator in Libya who has tried to put down an uprising. If you want to talk about a humanitarian disaster, why did we go into Libya? Because he was about to mow down his own people. He was going to eliminate his own people.
He was going to commit genocide against his own people. Saddam Hussein committed chemical warfare against his own people. And I’d really like to have an answer from those who say it was a good thing to intervene humanitarian way in Libya, because Gadhafi was killing massive numbers of civilians.
Saddam Hussein put 400,000 people in mass graves. He used chemical weapons against Kurds and Shia. If that wasn’t a humanitarian reason to intervene, quite apart from the security reasons, I really think people have a lot of explaining to do.

why didn't we go into Syria under Bush? Why didn't we go into Iran? Why not NK? oh wait, you don't have any questions for that president.. only this one..

so, ok how about you let that Condi answer, answer all these mysterious Libya questions for you...  and hey, let's take this from the other POV, where were the ppl today who are questioning and complaining about Libya(that would be you btw), when Bush did the same exact thing for Iraq?  Like Condi said..I really think you have a lot of explaining to do

or you could just go with what we both know to be true and that's the (R) thing..

Yes yes the "mouth of R's."  Like I said, I get the humanitarian angle, however now that we are involved in Libya, are we willing to stay to do what it takes, kill Ghaddafi, help support a democratic government there...

are we going to kill Ghaddafi?  Maybe you missed the news, but we almost did last week... killed his son and grandson instead, so to me that question is answered..

are we going to stay? who is this 'we'.. us? the US? Or the rest of the countries and arab league who are involved? I assume 'we' as in the US, will be there in some fashion in the background, or in a 'support' position..for many a year.. it's what we're all about now since Iraq, nation building.. seems a little extreme, but whaddyagonnado? you broke it, you bought it right?  You're happily committed to Iraq for another 10-50 years, Afghanistan for the same.. so maybe you can tell me why you're so worried about being in Libya? One would think this is a pretty prize for you..even if  the gift came from a Muslim,Liberal,secular, socialist..

I mean, do you understand the commitment we have made?  Or, are you going to get bored with the whole thing and want the US to pull out later?  I think that since we've gotten sucked into this, we've got a much bigger commitment than just lobbing a few bombs, and I don't see these issues being addressed.  That's why asking what our national security interests are isn't just a matter of R's and D's.  I see that you seem to find it difficult to think I can have anything other than a partisan slant on foreign policy.

I wouldn't say that, I'd say its more like I find it difficult to believe that you can have anything but a partsian slant on any policy or topic, not just the foreign ones..since you've yet to prove you have the ability to be bipartsian on anything.. this thread being just another nugget of proof in the long line of many..

I don't remember a single question about Saddam, a single mystery that needed to be solved before you could see just exactly what that admin was doing and what their long term goals were..I don't seem to remember  theses time-table issues, our commitment issues with any of that.. even tho, IIRC, those timetables were something like, 24 months weren't they? Greeted as hero's and saviors or something? and yet, silence from you, no questions asked..

Which, considering your reaction to Bin Ladin's killing, is more than a wee bit ironic!

I see you are still stuck in Kaz-bot mode.. repeating the same thing over and over even though the facts have proven you wrong over and over..I'm pulling for you to to overcome that deficit...  but I do find it funny to see just how much it bothers you that Obama was the one to actually finish the job..  so there's that.. and considering you had no problems when this was Bush/Saddam but have a whole bunch  of them only when it's Obama/Ghaddaf .. I think this is partsian-kettle calling..and you're partsian-black..

[lil mike]

and yet, as I've laid it out.. it was... it just wasn't the only reason.

do you disagree with what I have said about the oil stability being in our national and security interests?

I agree in general.  But specifically, I don’t see exactly how that applies to us taking up arms against Libya.  We’ve prolonged a civil war that would have been over by now.  How does that add to oil stability?
In fact, I think you’re the first person to mention “oil stability” as a basis for our intervention.  Usually it’s been humanitarian reasons.  Is that a White House reason?  If so, I’ve not heard it.

yep, what I expected.. it's the (R) thing again.. that's all, no need to explain this mysterious 'questions' and 'inability to understand' any more..

btw, it's the Bosnia thing that gave it way..  I guess going with example from the  Bush era was too much to ask for..

so here's something, it turns out that Bush went after Saddam for humanitarian reasons, the same reasons we're in Libya, one day the Bush admin will find out the real reason and stick with it, instead of just giving out reasons du jour when asked....So yeah, this should help your understanding, since you had not a single question when it was Bush/Saddam.. Per Condi Rice, The Saddam thing is just like the Ghaddafi thing, he was killing his own people and that presented a security for us that we just couldn't stand..

Odd that he allowed Dafur to happen tho, how many of  their people had died in comparison to Iraq.. since you're all about making comparison and all..well heh, comparisons to (D) actions that is..

I'm sure Iraq had nothing to do with oil or the vendetta against Saddam..or to keep the stability in the area.. nooooo, that was a good, unquestionable choice for you that had nothing to do with the (R) after the decider in chiefs name..

Jesus, do you see how partsian and childish you are being yet?  Like it's been explained to you already,

Given your behavior this week, I think your credibility to call someone else partisan is rather weak.

Let’s start with Bosnia.  You say that “gave it away” that it was all about partisanship.  In recent history, which intervention is the best example of a humanitarian intervention without a strong US national interest? 
In the former Yugoslav Republic you had a civil war/war of secession within the borders of the former Yugoslavia.  The Europeans, again lead by the French worked the diplomatic strings to get us involved.  For the Europeans, it was in their interest to get involved (I mean get us involved) militarily.  They didn’t want tens of thousands of refugees fleeing into their countries. 
So we got involved and actually brokered a peace treaty, which you can clearly count as a diplomatic success.  But US national interest?

If you think the Bush era offers a better example, I’d like to hear it.  Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq was presented as a humanitarian mission.  Those reasons were way down the list.  US national interests were presented in as the primary reasons for intervention in both cases.  So your re-writing of history into turning Iraq into a humanitarian intervention is kind of odd.  I’ve posted the resolution that passed the Congress authorizing use of force in Iraq numerous times.   Do I really need to do it again? There were multiple reasons and the majority related to US national interest.

There is no overall marching plan.  There hasn't been for decades.  We base our foreign policy on the current political situation and then we change it.

pull your head out of the partsian feeding bag already..

Uh… that was quoted from Jukebox Guy.  Is his head in a partisan feedbag, or did you quote it by accident thinking I said it, and therefore it just sounded to you like a “partisan feed bag?”

See?  Fairly conclusive proof that if you think I say something, your mental filter tells you it’s a Republican talking point.  Welcome to the Republican Party JBG!

here's what Rice has said..



why didn't we go into Syria under Bush? Why didn't we go into Iran? Why not NK? oh wait, you don't have any questions for that president.. only this one..

There was not a popular revolt in Syria. Iran or North Korea during Bush’s term.

There has been a popular revolt in Iran and Syria in Obama’s term though.  Iran?  We already know how that turned out. 

As for Syria, we already know what the Syrians will do.  They’ve massacred before, and so far in this latest rebellion it looks like they’ve racked up a bigger body count than the Libyans.

so, ok how about you let that Condi answer, answer all these mysterious Libya questions for you...  and hey, let's take this from the other POV, where were the ppl today who are questioning and complaining about Libya(that would be you btw), when Bush did the same exact thing for Iraq?  Like Condi said..I really think you have a lot of explaining to do

or you could just go with what we both know to be true and that's the (R) thing..

Answered above.  We didn’t go to war with Iraq because they had massacred and gassed, their own people.

You’re turning into quite the neo-con aren’t you?  I’ve no doubt that Condi supports the intervention, the same as the neo-cons down at the Weekly Standard who are also cheering Obama on.

are we going to kill Ghaddafi?  Maybe you missed the news, but we almost did last week... killed his son and grandson instead, so to me that question is answered..

are we going to stay? who is this 'we'.. us? the US? Or the rest of the countries and arab league who are involved? I assume 'we' as in the US, will be there in some fashion in the background, or in a 'support' position..for many a year.. it's what we're all about now since Iraq, nation building.. seems a little extreme, but whaddyagonnado? you broke it, you bought it right?  You're happily committed to Iraq for another 10-50 years, Afghanistan for the same.. so maybe you can tell me why you're so worried about being in Libya? One would think this is a pretty prize for you..even if  the gift came from a Muslim,Liberal,secular, socialist..

Of course I meant the US by “we.”  Do you think the rest of NATO is buying to a long term commitment?

And as I’ve already stated, I bet I’ll be supporting a longer commitment to Libya long after you have moved on. As you restated, if we broke it we bought it, which is why I supported staying in Iraq and finishing the job.  Even though I opposed the invasion of Iraq.  Once we invaded and overthrew the government, it became our problem and our responsibility.

Now if we hadn’t stayed and we had left when you wanted us to leave, what kind of shape would the middle east be in now?

If we succeed in overthrowing Ghaddafi, the same rules would apply.

I wouldn't say that, I'd say its more like I find it difficult to believe that you can have anything but a partsian slant on any policy or topic, not just the foreign ones..since you've yet to prove you have the ability to be bipartsian on anything.. this thread being just another nugget of proof in the long line of many..

I don't remember a single question about Saddam, a single mystery that needed to be solved before you could see just exactly what that admin was doing and what their long term goals were..I don't seem to remember  theses time-table issues, our commitment issues with any of that.. even tho, IIRC, those timetables were something like, 24 months weren't they? Greeted as hero's and saviors or something? and yet, silence from you, no questions asked..



I see you are still stuck in Kaz-bot mode.. repeating the same thing over and over even though the facts have proven you wrong over and over..I'm pulling for you to to overcome that deficit...  but I do find it funny to see just how much it bothers you that Obama was the one to actually finish the job..  so there's that.. and considering you had no problems when this was Bush/Saddam but have a whole bunch  of them only when it's Obama/Ghaddaf .. I think this is partsian-kettle calling..and you're partsian-black..

Well you’re wrong in just about everything you’ve stated.
Partisian?  As you already knew, and reposted yet again, I opposed the invasion of Iraq, but once we were in I saw no way to get out other than to make the place a success since the options included leaving a civil war raging, an Iranian client state, or a radical muslim dictatorship.  So in spite of what you wanted, we stuck it out and are now leaving the place actually in better shape than we found it.

Saddam?  Answered above.  Yes I opposed timetables.  They are a valuable weapon that we give to the enemy.

If I’m repeating the same thing over and over, it’s because you are asking the same things over and over.  You won’t believe me the first, third, or thirtieth time I state them, and I except this post to be no different.
Just tell me what are goals and timetables are for Libya.  Since you seem to know much more of what the administration has in mind (rather than just winging it like I think), I would like to hear the administration vision for Libya for a year from now.

[FooFa]

Maybe you could take little breaks from the two or three of you who are entertained in some way by these semantic mazes. That is intended in a vibe of jest and not presuming to say that 'you're doing it wrong'.

I'm fascinated when I hear that I was in agreement with Mike on something, in this case, Iraq was an un called for war. Mike seems to also agree with me on the you break it you bought it scenario. I imagine the fork in the road would come where I say that 'buying it' has become way too common of a circular logic justification for war without end.

Since at least Roman times, it's been shown over and over again that the few with power encourage armed conflicts constructed by psychotics in control in order to justify military complex etc...It's the exact same thing that Washington and Eisenhower among others tried to warn people about. It's not something that gives me comfort to believe or makes sense of things or an indication that I'm a paranoid with a bomb shelter living off the grid and eating crickets. It's factually based history but you can't let the main stream on anything guide you since it's all connected to marketing. I'm not suggesting that everything that the main stream say's are lies or fabrications but that a well rounded person with common sense should no better than to give Meet The Press or Hannity etc...anything more than a quick monitoring. Of course if you agree with the neocon agenda of the US doing no wrong and being the superman of the world then you would buy everything the main stream sells since they never question the agenda of the crumbling empire which has already reached developing nation status on such things infant mortality and people lacking medical care.