Thread: Looks like Ghadafi has won...

Originally Posted by John Drake

And people say I'm paranoid for thinking the pubs actually want to make things worse in this country than they already are. These people will do anything to increase their power, including involving us in a war we cannot win and that will ruin us forever . . .

I think the US could win it and it won't ruin the US forever. That's overextended IMO. There are some Dems like Kerry calling for this too and not every GOP person is calling for military intervention. But many GOP partisans are indeed playing convenient politics with this topic IMO, just waiting for whatever Obama does or doesn't do and picking the opposite to bash him. On issues of national security and war, however, that's entirely illegitimate by putting the nation's welfare second to cheap politics (not that the Dems haven't done that in the past themselves, but it's likewise illegitimate to me). War issues are the most serious things that a nation can consider, and that must take precedence, objectiveness, political selflessness and with the utmost seriousness in evaluation.

For example, where's the cash for this just for starters? Are some of those partisans willing to immediately agree to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the top earners and corporate tax cuts to pay for this war? A war is what it will likely require given the no-fly zones will almost certainly be insufficient to get rid of Khadafi. We are also already in two war theatres at great cost...one that helped drive up the deficit given they weren't properly paid for for many years. How about the issue of over-stretching and over-exhausting the military (and consideration of their lives) and its effects on other problematic theatres who make that assessment?

I've heard enough about the blather and rhetoric with the Iraq run-up insofar as quick cheap low friendly casualty wars with flowery endings, etc. It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now to lazily assume such things or take no accounting of the responsibilities of conducting a war. It was bullshit bravado and flake jingoism in the prior wars too and hence why books and films by real veterans point that out, e.g. Red Badge of Courage, Born on the Fourth of July, All Quiet on the Western Front, etc.

YouTube - All quiet on the Western Front Part 1

Simply put, it's easy to start a war and hard to end one, and hard again to win the peace with them, e.g., what kind of resulting government and situation comes after the regime is toppled.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

For example, where's the cash for this just for starters? Are some of those partisans willing to immediately agree to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the top earners and corporate tax cuts to pay for this war? A war is what it will likely require given the no-fly zones will almost certainly be insufficient to get rid of Khadafi. We are also already in two war theatres at great cost...one that helped drive up the deficit given they weren't paid for properly for many years.

ahoy O'Sullivan Bere,

aye, i've raised this point before and recieved only one answer, and that from the fearsome Commodore, who asserted that Libyan oil could be used to pay fer our no-fly zone and military bombardment that would precede it.

other than that, me friend....thar be crickets.

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy O'Sullivan Bere,

aye, i've raised this point before and recieved only one answer, and that from the fearsome Commodore, who asserted that Libyan oil could be used to pay fer our no-fly zone and military bombardment that would precede it.

other than that, me friend....thar be crickets.

- MeadHallPirate

Yeah, those familiar claims were also arguments for Iraq...all their oil would be flowing right into US coffers afterwards to pay for it, which of course was said would be cheap anyway, etc. Guess what happened to those claims . . .

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

We didn't care about Libyan lives a few years ago, so why do we care now?

Because by not doing anything Obama gives the right an excuse to rant and rave about his not doing anything.

Of course had Obama intervened then the right would have been ranting about Obama getting the US into another war but that is the other side of the coin.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

That seems to be Obama's assessment insofar as the US taking unilateral steps without others committing and getting on board for military interventions with deeds, troops, cash, etc, instead of the US getting stuck carrying all the water and its costs and consequences, etc, where others can spin away upon it with cheers and jeers of convenience on the free rider principle at no cost in lives, cash, accountability, etc.

The Associated Press: US adds new Libya sanctions

Sure, and it's the right move for the time being.

Originally Posted by RDK

Because by not doing anything Obama gives the right an excuse to rant and rave about his not doing anything.

Of course had Obama intervened then the right would have been ranting about Obama getting the US into another war but that is the other side of the coin.

They'll rant either way. I'd rather they rant at Obama for taking the cheaper option.

Besides, it just makes them look more hypocritical in that scenario because more war equals bigger government.

Originally Posted by Commodore

May their children forgive us.

For aiding Gadhafi when he started disarming his country? Yeah, hopefully.

Originally Posted by Donahue

I don't consider myself a right ringer but I support smaller government and staying out of wars that don't directly benefit us. I don't see any reason for us to get involved in Libya.

That's good then. Again, you're consistent.

Originally Posted by Donahue

That's probably fairly accurate but I don't see it as a problem.

There is an infinite number of conflicts and social injustices going on in this world and we simply don't have the money or manpower to get involved in every single one. I don't see anything immoral about picking and choosing where we intervene on what best helps us.

Isn't doing what's best for us the point of forming separate governments?

What's best for us and what's best for military contractors and oil companies are very different.

I don't see most of our interventions helping our public.

Originally Posted by Donahue

We didn't care about Gaddhafi. We cared about ending his state sponsorship of terrorism, which is vastly different. It's not like our improved relations with Libya simply coincided with him disarming his country. Aid was given and sanctions were lifted because he agreed to our demands. It seems like a pretty solid diplomatic move to me.

Of course it's about freeing people but it's not all about freeing people. We have limited expenses and personnel and our actions have consequences, so we're forced to pick and choose our battles. We have to draw the line some place and our interests seems as good as any to draw it. I have a difficult time believing any government we've had in this country wouldn't choose to liberate everyone on the planet if it were actually possible but it's not.

Only on rare occasion do I see America as having any true interest in liberating anyone.

It's all about money and political strategy.

We support democracies only when they support our interests. We're just as eager to support dictatorships when they do the same.

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

What's best for us and what's best for military contractors and oil companies are very different.

I don't see most of our interventions helping our public.

I honestly wish we would start taking oil. I'm tired of listening to people insist the United States only cares about oil and then making excuses why we don't take so much as a tablespoon's worth after we liberate a population.

Critics would have had a conniption had he done it but Pres. Bush should have immediately seized control of Iraqi oil fields and infrastructure, brought U.S. oil companies into the country to modernize a cash cow horribly neglected by Saddam Hussein, sold the U.S. oil at cost, and financed our wars and their economy by undercutting OPEC's prices and selling oil everywhere else. That would have been in the best interests of us, the Iraqi people, and pretty much everyone in the world but OPEC, who I couldn't possibly care less about.

Instead Pres. Bush is criticized for liberating Iraq for oil despite taking no oil; Iraq's economy is completely stagnant because their oil industry was too neglected to increase production and that's the only source of money in that country; and OPEC has been able to manipulate wars in Afghanistan and Iraq then the recent Islamic uprisings to their best advantage but MSNBC and CNN would have crucified Pres. Bush if he actually did that.

I support Pres. Obama's decision to stay out of Libya, another oil rich nation, and think it's in our best interest because we're not willing hurt the feelings of that Parisian college student, who we've been talking about, 60 years my junior who I've never met, but would completely support him if he said he wanted to go into Libya, seize control of their oil fields, etc. That would be the right thing to do for us and them.

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

We support democracies only when they support our interests. We're just as eager to support dictatorships when they do the same.

That's nonsense. There's a big difference between supporting one dictator over another and supporting a dictatorship over a legitimate democracy. These countries would have had dictatorships with or without our support and we've always taken steps to demand better human rights relations but what are we supposed to do, only deal with nice people?

Pres. Bush was extremely vocal about human rights in these countries and he's still criticized as being a war monger despite using economic sanctions effectively to bring about change but there's only so much speaking out against human rights violations can do.

Originally Posted by Donahue

I honestly wish we would start taking oil. I'm tired of listening to people insist the United States only cares about oil and then making excuses why we don't take so much as a tablespoon's worth after we liberate a population.

Critics would have had a conniption had he done it but Pres. Bush should have immediately seized control of Iraqi oil fields and infrastructure, brought U.S. oil companies into the country to modernize a cash cow horribly neglected by Saddam Hussein, sold the U.S. oil at cost, and financed our wars and their economy by undercutting OPEC's prices and selling oil everywhere else. That would have been in the best interests of us, the Iraqi people, and pretty much everyone in the world but OPEC, who I couldn't possibly care less about.

Instead Pres. Bush is criticized for liberating Iraq for oil despite taking no oil; Iraq's economy is completely stagnant because their oil industry was too neglected to increase production and that's the only source of money in that country; and OPEC has been able to manipulate wars in Afghanistan and Iraq then the recent Islamic uprisings to their best advantage but MSNBC and CNN would have crucified Pres. Bush if he actually did that.

I support Pres. Obama's decision to stay out of Libya, another oil rich nation, and think it's in our best interest because we're not willing hurt the feelings of that Parisian college student, who we've been talking about, 60 years my junior who I've never met, but would completely support him if he said he wanted to go into Libya, seize control of their oil fields, etc. That would be the right thing to do for us and them.

I actually kind of agree with that. If you're going to go to war, do it ruthlessly.

None of this half-and-half shit works.

Either stay out of wars almost always (best option) or enter wars and take all the spoils (next best option).

Originally Posted by Donahue

That's nonsense. There's a big difference between supporting one dictator over another and supporting a dictatorship over a legitimate democracy. These countries would have had dictatorships with or without our support and we've always taken steps to demand better human rights relations but what are we supposed to do, only deal with nice people?

Pres. Bush was extremely vocal about human rights in these countries and he's still criticized as being a war monger despite using economic sanctions effectively to bring about change but there's only so much speaking out against human rights violations can do.

Read about Mossadegh in Iran. Read about the manipulations of South American governments in support of our corporate interests.

We've subverted democracy throughout the world on multiple occasions, and we've done it ever since the early 1900s.

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

I actually kind of agree with that. If you're going to go to war, do it ruthlessly.

None of this half-and-half shit works.

Either stay out of wars almost always (best option) or enter wars and take all the spoils (next best option).

Ruthless?

Taking Iraqi oil and using it to fund their government would have been a blessing to the people. Instead we were too afraid of the feelings of Parisian college students to help the people out so we're leaving the country in squalor. Every other day The New York Times runs a story on their population's poverty and the government's struggles to pay the smallest bills.

That's what is ruthless and that's why we should be less concerned with our image abroad and more concerned with doing what's ultimately necessary. Afghanistan and Iraq will almost certainly descend into the same civil wars that have plagued the region once we leave and we have concerns over our image to blame.

That's ruthless.

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

For aiding Gadhafi when he started disarming his country? Yeah, hopefully.

So you would rather have him supply and support terrorists?

Do you have any specific U.S. targets you would like to see blown up or do you prefer to let them choose at random?

It's not like we aided him because we're best friends forever. We aided him because he gave into our demands and stopped supporting terrorism. I don't see why this is a bad thing, especially when Pres. Bush is being criticized as a war monger. Isn't a non-violent solution what you were looking for?

Originally Posted by Donahue

Ruthless?

Taking Iraqi oil and using it to fund their government would have been a blessing to the people. Instead we were too afraid of the feelings of Parisian college students to help the people out so we're leaving the country in squalor. Every other day The New York Times runs a story on their population's poverty and the government's struggles to pay the smallest bills.

That's what is ruthless and that's why we should be less concerned with our image abroad and more concerned with doing what's ultimately necessary. Afghanistan and Iraq will almost certainly descend into the same civil wars that have plagued the region once we leave and we have concerns over our image to blame.

That's ruthless.

Invading a country over faulty reasons is ruthless. Supporting a dictator in Iraq when it served our interests and then deciding it was time to remove him when it became convenient to other interests is also ruthless.

The reason we didn't go with your plan as far as oil goes, however, is because we opened Iraq's oil market up to various companies. So no, we didn't "take" Iraq's oil. However, we did help several corporations profit from it without much regard for using the money gained to help Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/wo...st/09iraq.html

Blood and oil: How the West will profit from Iraq's most precious commodity - Middle East, World - The Independent

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/wo...st/19iraq.html

So, again, we didn't take the oil. We let multinational corporations take it, which shouldn't be surprising, since a lot of the previous administration's members were connected to these companies.

The same is true for certain members of the U.K. government.