Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 03-25-2011, 08:21 PM   #121
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
Good players don't miss the opportunity for the fast break!
You don't break solo. Two weeks ago we'd have been going it alone...

I heard that today there were aircraft from Qatar over Libya under the UN resolution. This is pretty remarkable.

-spence
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2011, 03:03 AM   #122
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
The context for the quote is specifically about preventative war with Iran to bomb their nuclear facilities. To take this remark as a generalization and apply it to Libya seems like a stretch.


War is both a noun and a verb. War can be a legal word...to do with legal matters, treaties, property and all that nasty stuff. To assert that killing, bombs etc... is war because it's ugly...well duh. I thought this forum was a bit beyond that...I wish we were beyond your intellectual dishonesty...the self-ordained intellectuals here can barely spell, while at the same time lecturing on things like ignorance and intelligence




no, he speaks generally with regard to presidential power and engagment of the military and then specifically with regard to Iranian nuclear facilities, what is the difference between bombing nuclear facilities to prevent Amadin. from using them, or products from them against a population and bombing tanks, troops and shooting down jets to prevent their use by Gad. against a population? neither being ours

??? preventative war with Iran -spence
Iran doesn't pose a "serious threat to us"...what ever happened to those talks???

"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela -- these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union," Obama said. "They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we're going to wipe you off the planet. And ultimately that direct engagement led to a series of measures that helped prevent nuclear war, and over time allowed the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin Wall. Now, that has to be the kind of approach that we take. You know, Iran, they spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance. And we should use that position of strength that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen." Obama(sounds like Obama thought this one was going to be a fast break and a slam dunk)

I'm not suggesting that he does not have the authority to go in to Libya or that we should not intervene, only that he is, as Piscator stated, an utter hypocrit based on his past comments, which should surprise noone at this point just as your dutiful, twisted spin of all things Obama should surprise noone...

Last edited by scottw; 03-26-2011 at 06:19 AM..
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2011, 09:06 AM   #123
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
what is the difference between bombing nuclear facilities to prevent Amadin. from using them, or products from them against a population and bombing tanks, troops and shooting down jets to prevent their use by Gad. against a population? neither being ours
The situation in Iran is a hypothetical. While Iranian nukes shift the balance of power, the odds that they would be employed against Iran's neighbors or given to terrorists is probably quite remote.

The situation in Libya is real. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians was occurring. The situation was deteriorating and heading towards a likely genocide. The destabilizing impact of this would most certainly harm US interests, especially those of our Arab allies.

What's remarkable is how the Administration united Western and Middle Eastern interests under International Law. I'm not sure this has ever been done before and could set a very positive precedent.
Quote:
Useless random quote snipped.
Quote:
I'm not suggesting that he does not have the authority to go in to Libya or that we should not intervene, only that he is, as Piscator stated, an utter hypocrit based on his past comments, which should surprise noone at this point just as your dutiful, twisted spin of all things Obama should surprise noone...
Full Text...

Quote:
(Boston Globe) In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an 'Imminent' threat?)

(Candidate Obama) 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.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Clearly Obama is responding to a question specifically about how a President Obama would deal with Iran, not every conceivable action that might involve military activity.

With Libya, Congress was informed as is required under the War Powers Act and has legal recourse to halt the military involvement if they so wish.

I'd also note that on March 1st the Senate voted UNANIMOUSLY in support of a no fly zone, so the idea that Obama is going off alone here just isn't reality.

-spence

Last edited by spence; 03-26-2011 at 09:15 AM..
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2011, 09:12 AM   #124
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
You don't break solo. Two weeks ago we'd have been going it alone...

I heard that today there were aircraft from Qatar over Libya under the UN resolution. This is pretty remarkable.

-spence
It is remarkable. Wonder what the end game is?? or shall I say agenda.
We know why the EU cares. Oil.
buckman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2011, 09:22 AM   #125
justplugit
Registered Grandpa
iTrader: (0)
 
justplugit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: east coast
Posts: 8,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
There's a joke in my office - "The more letters after their last name and more advanced degrees they have, the dumber they actually are."
Gotta luv it, JD.

" Choose Life "
justplugit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2011, 09:23 AM   #126
Piscator
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Piscator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marshfield, Ma
Posts: 2,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
The context for the quote is specifically about preventative war with Iran to bomb their nuclear facilities. To take this remark as a generalization and apply it to Libya seems like a stretch.
-spence
Spence, I guess most of us read it differently than you do.

Obama first gives a general comment about Presidential power and than specifically answers the question, When answering the question he actually says “AS FOR THE SPECIFIC QUESTION ABOUT BOMBING SUSPECTED NUCLEAR SITES”. It is clear as day he is giving a general comment then a specific answer to the question.

This is how I read it:
Boston Globe) Q: In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?

GENBERAL COMMENT BY OBAMA: 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. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

He then goes on to give a SPECIFIC ANSWER TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION “As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”
Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power Dec 20, 2007

Just another example of him saying one thing and doing another………..

"I know a taxidermy man back home. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him!"
Piscator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2011, 09:39 AM   #127
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,567
[QUOTE=spence;847238]Clearly Obama is responding to a question specifically about how a President Obama would deal with Iran, not every conceivable action that might involve military activity. 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.except Libya in 2011?

With Libya, Congress was informed as is required under the War Powers Act and has legal recourse to halt the military involvement if they so wish.-Spence

OBAMA-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. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the "informed consent " of Congress prior to any military action.

Boehner's point: Obama White House notified Congress---but did not consult. By Lynn Sweet on March 24, 2011 11:09 AM | No Comments

WASHINGTON---House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has a point--that the White House, despite their assertions, did not consult with Congress very much about the military action in Libya. Boehner and others have a number of legitimate questions about the U.S. engagement that need answering.

The Obama administration briefed members and staffers after the decision was made to attack; that's a one-way street, Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck noted on Thursday in a memo he sent around. "Consulting implies one is seeking input on if and how to act. The earliest communication on this topic was last Friday, when leaders were informed of the WH plan. At that point, the plan was already in motion and the use of U.S. military assets had already been committed to other nations. ....Notification is always appreciated, but it is not a substitute for the long-respected custom of congressional consultation before committing to military action, even the kinetic kind."

Last edited by scottw; 03-26-2011 at 09:44 AM..
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2011, 09:44 AM   #128
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piscator View Post
Spence, I guess most of us read it differently than you do.

Obama first gives a general comment about Presidential power and than specifically answers the question, When answering the question he actually says “AS FOR THE SPECIFIC QUESTION ABOUT BOMBING SUSPECTED NUCLEAR SITES”. It is clear as day he is giving a general comment then a specific answer to the question.
The entire context is Iran, that was the question..."In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?".

If anything, Obama is giving a simplified response as this is a question during a campaign interview. I'm sure he's quite intimate with the long running debate on this topic.

-spence
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2011, 09:47 AM   #129
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
The entire context is Iran, that was the question..."In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?".

If anything, Obama is giving a simplified response as this is a question during a campaign interview. I'm sure he's quite intimate with the long running debate on this topic.

-spence
save yourself all the spinning and just declare that all rules and any previous pronouncements by your earthly master do not apply to him...

the "context" is constitutional authority to bomb

"In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb (Iran) without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?"

Last edited by scottw; 03-26-2011 at 09:52 AM..
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2011, 09:58 AM   #130
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
save yourself all the spinning and just declare that all rules and any previous pronouncements by your earthly master do not apply to him...

the "context" is constitutional authority to bomb

"In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb (Iran) without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?"
I love it, now you've resorted to manipulating quotes!

Oh wait, you do that all the time.

-spence
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2011, 10:03 AM   #131
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I love it, now you've resorted to manipulating quotes!

Oh wait, you do that all the time.

-spence
and you've resorted to idiocy
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2011, 10:30 AM   #132
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I heard that today there were aircraft from Qatar over Libya under the UN resolution. This is pretty remarkable.

-spence
40 + nations in Iraq "war" coalition under 17 UN resolutions
buckman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2011, 12:11 PM   #133
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
The entire context is Iran, that was the question..."In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?".

-spence
so you are saying that the president's constitutional authority varies depending on which country in the middle east we are talking about?

OBAMA clearly describes what HE believes the president may or may not do regarding military action, his own words.... and he was specifically referring, in this "hypothetical", to what HE believed should be the bounds of presidential authority regarding miilitary action, and he made very clear any exceptions ...geographic location in the middle east has absolutely nothing to do with it...

Obama- “any offensive military action taken by the United States against (Iran) must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”

why should this vary from one country to the next?...oh, I forgot, we are talking about Obama "you do as I say and I'll do as I please"


is this "Iran specific" "History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. "-Obama

Last edited by scottw; 03-26-2011 at 12:52 PM..
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2011, 04:26 PM   #134
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
so you are saying that the president's constitutional authority varies depending on which country in the middle east we are talking about?

OBAMA clearly describes what HE believes the president may or may not do regarding military action, his own words.... and he was specifically referring, in this "hypothetical", to what HE believed should be the bounds of presidential authority regarding miilitary action, and he made very clear any exceptions ...geographic location in the middle east has absolutely nothing to do with it...

Obama- “any offensive military action taken by the United States against (Iran) must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”

why should this vary from one country to the next?...oh, I forgot, we are talking about Obama "you do as I say and I'll do as I please"


is this "Iran specific" "History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. "-Obama
First off, let me congratulate you on actually composing yourself enough to pen a thoughtful and well constructed post. This may be precedent setting and I'm sure it didn't come easily. Hard work should be recognized and appreciated.

Or the meds finally kicked in at the right time.

To answer your question, no, I don't believe the country matters.

The Constitution certainly does appear to give the President the ability to use military force without Congressional approval as Obama says in his quote...And there's also a lot of subjectivity as to what constitutes a "threat" to the US. This has been used to justify all manners of military action without Congressional approval throughout the years...and often with controversy given the situation.

In the case of Libya the UN resolution has a very limited objective but also legal legitimacy and sponsorship from a number of nations. This is the UN acting as much or more than the US acting. There also is a pretty clear threat to US interests.

While certainly not free, the US involvement in enforcing the UN Resolution isn't likely to change the funding or mission of the armed forces...assuming the action is kept within the expected scope.

I don't think you can say the same about any attack on Iran which would likely have stiff opposition from Russia and China and almost certainly escalate rapidly into a much larger conflict. So to even entertain such thoughts one would think Congressional approval would be a requirement.

So I think Obama is correct in asserting that to attack Iran would require Congressional approval. But this isn't a blanket statement on the use of US force.

And you say...

Quote:
I'm not suggesting that he does not have the authority to go in to Libya or that we should not intervene
Which leads me to believe you actually agree on both points.

-spence
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2011, 07:58 PM   #135
Piscator
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Piscator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marshfield, Ma
Posts: 2,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
The entire context is Iran, that was the question..."In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?".

If anything, Obama is giving a simplified response as this is a question during a campaign interview. I'm sure he's quite intimate with the long running debate on this topic.

-spence

Again Spence, that is how you read it. I read it differently (as well as most others).

"I know a taxidermy man back home. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him!"
Piscator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2011, 05:34 AM   #136
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piscator View Post
Again Spence, that is how you read it. I read it differently (as well as most others).
there is common sense...and then there is common Spence...common Spence enjoys twisting the truth, turning reality on it's head and justifying the unjustifiable for some odd purpose, you can't debate or deal reasonably with someone who is intellectually dishonest because they recognize no bounds of decency or decorum, reality, to them, is whatever they deem it to be at the moment and they take great pleasure in looking you straight in the eye and telling you that black is white or some shade of gray...and then mock or ridicule you for pointing out that it is, in fact, black...it makes them feel much smarter to repeatedly illustrate that they are in fact, dumber as they sneer and hold to their absurd contentions ......you only feed their sick passion when you engage..... but someone has to do it...Spence hasn't been right about anything in years...he continues his streak
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2011, 07:54 AM   #137
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Or the meds finally kicked in at the right time.


-spence
Apparently they wore off over night

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2011, 09:01 AM   #138
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
I don't know about you guys but I'm on the edge of my seat in anticipation of tomorrows speach. He's got some explaining to do.
buckman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2011, 10:44 AM   #139
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
Apparently they wore off over night
It just goes to show how special that one post really was.

-spence
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2011, 10:49 AM   #140
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
I don't know about you guys but I'm on the edge of my seat in anticipation of tomorrows speach. He's got some explaining to do.
I think he's waiting until tomorrow so he can reference the hand off to NATO. While frustrating, this is probably worth the political cost.

He certainly needs to clarify the mission and US involvement if he hopes to get full Congressional support. That being said, don't forget that the entire Republican caucus in the Senate has already voted in support of a no fly zone earlier this month.

The Administration may have (once again) poorly handled the domestic debate on this issue, but it's not like they're going it alone. There's quite a lot of GOP support out there.

-spence
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2011, 10:59 AM   #141
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,090
You know what's interesting about this thread is that five pages in and there's hardly any discussion on the pros or cons of the action. Same goes for most of the blogosphere. It's just an "Obama's a hypocrite" circlejerk.

-spence
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2011, 04:51 PM   #142
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Speaking of basketball Spence, O picked all the #1's to be in the FF
buckman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2011, 04:56 PM   #143
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
Speaking of basketball Spence, O picked all the #1's to be in the FF
That's because all the time he should have spent planning Libya went into his brackets.

Duh.

-spence
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2011, 07:44 PM   #144
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
That's because all the time he should have spent planning Libya went into his brackets.

Duh.

-spence
Ummm, His picks took no thought and less courage. FAIL
buckman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2011, 09:00 PM   #145
Piscator
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Piscator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marshfield, Ma
Posts: 2,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
You know what's interesting about this thread is that five pages in and there's hardly any discussion on the pros or cons of the action. Same goes for most of the blogosphere. It's just an "Obama's a hypocrite" circlejerk.

-spence
Well...............let's hear them. You go first

"I know a taxidermy man back home. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him!"
Piscator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2011, 03:15 AM   #146
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
You know what's interesting about this thread is that five pages in and there's hardly any discussion on the pros or cons of the action. Same goes for most of the blogosphere. It's just an "Obama's a hypocrite" circlejerk.

-spence
actually, most experts agree, there has been quite a bit....perhaps you are in the wrong blogosphere enveloped in your own Obama solo circlejerk
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2011, 05:34 AM   #147
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post

I'd also note that on March 1st the Senate voted UNANIMOUSLY in support of a no fly zone, so the idea that Obama is going off alone here just isn't reality.

-spence
You're making a point out of context and in the same post admitting it's out of context. Preemptive (or worse preventative) war isn't the same thing as an internationally legal humanitarian mission and you know it...

-spence


HUMANITARIAN MISSION?....not a WAR?

March 27th, 2011

Analysts are now saying the important battle will be for Surt, and that allied airstrikes are already paving the way.

Many people in Tripoli, including those supporting Colonel Qaddafi and those opposing him, said they were focused closely on the battle for Surt.


.................................................. ...
Ross Douthat asks some great questions in the NY Times today


What are our military objectives? The strict letter of the United Nations resolution we’re enforcing only authorizes the use of air power to protect civilian populations “under threat of attack” from Qaddafi’s forces. But we’re interpreting that mandate as liberally as possible: our strikes have cleared the way for a rebel counteroffensive, whose success is contingent on our continued air support.

If the rebels stall out short of Tripoli, though, how will we respond? With a permanent no-fly zone, effectively establishing a NATO protectorate in eastern Libya? With arms for the anti-Qaddafi forces, so they can finish the job? Either way, the logic of this conflict suggests a more open-ended commitment than the White House has been willing to admit.

Who exactly are the rebels? According to our ambassador to Libya, they have issued policy statements that include “all the right elements” — support for democracy, economic development, women’s rights, etc. According to The Los Angeles Times, they have filled what used to be Qaddafi’s prisons with “enemies of the revolution” — mostly black Africans, rounded up under suspicion of being mercenaries and awaiting revolutionary justice. According to The Daily Telegraph in London, their front-line forces include what one rebel commander calls the “patriots and good Muslims” who fought American forces in Iraq.

Perhaps Obama can clarify this picture. The rebels don’t need to be saints to represent an improvement on Qaddafi. But given that we’re dropping bombs on their behalf, it would be nice if they didn’t turn out to be Jacobins or Islamists.

Can we really hand off this mission? Officially, this is a far more multilateral venture than was, say, the invasion of Iraq. But as Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin points out, when it comes to direct military support, this war’s coalition is “smaller than any major multilateral operation since the end of the Cold War.” Officially, too, the United States is already stepping back into a supporting role, as NATO takes over the command. But as Wired’s Spencer Ackerman argues, the difference between a “high” United States involvement and a “low” military commitment may prove more semantic than meaningful.

Obama has said our involvement will be measured in “days, not weeks.” With one week down already, is this really plausible? And anyway, how responsible is it to commit American forces to a mission and then suggest, as a senior administration official did last week, that “how it turns out is not on our shoulders”?

Is Libya distracting us from more pressing American interests? While we’ve been making war on Qaddafi’s tin-pot regime, our enemies in Syria have been shooting protesters, our allies in Saudi Arabia have been crushing dissidents, Yemen’s government is teetering, there’s been an upsurge of violence in Israel, and the Muslim Brotherhood seems to be moving smoothly into an alliance with the Egyptian military. Oh, and we’re still occupying Iraq and fighting a counterinsurgency in Afghanistan and trying to contain Iran.

Last week, The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg rank-ordered Mideast trouble spots that “demand more American attention than Libya.” He came up with six: Afghanistan-Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Yemen’s Qaeda havens, post-Mubarak Egypt and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

One can quibble with Goldberg’s ordering but not his broader point. While we intervene in Libya, what is our Egypt policy? Our Yemen policy? Our Syria policy? With the entire Middle East in turmoil, does it make sense that Washington is focused so intently on who controls the highway between Ajdabiya and Surt?

It’s clear that not everyone in this White House thinks so. Defending the intervention on “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Robert Gates let slip that he believes that Libya is not a “vital interest” of the United States.

President Obama’s most pressing task tonight will be to explain why his secretary of defense is wrong — and why, appearances to the contrary, the potential payoff from our Libyan war more than justifies the risks.

Last edited by scottw; 03-28-2011 at 06:40 AM..
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2011, 08:57 AM   #148
justplugit
Registered Grandpa
iTrader: (0)
 
justplugit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: east coast
Posts: 8,589
If we wanted the rebels, whoever THEY are,not knowing scares me, the no fly zone
should have started months ago when they were showing an upper hand
not wait till now as they were being driven back.
If Gaddafi doesn't go, the last state will be worse then the first.

If the plan was to get rid of Qaddafi , who isn't a threat to us, it should have been
done by targeting him rather then having all these people who
we are now supposedly trying to protect getting killed.

This whole thing with NATO, which was formed to protect each member
if attacked by Russia, is a smoke screen for Obama not taking the blame for being the bad guy.

Suddenly we are there to defend human rights, but when the Iranian people
were rebelling we did nothing to help them. At least Iran was a direct threat to
us. The whole middle east is on fire with human rights issues. Getting involved
with Libya just doesn't make sense.

This whole thing is crazy and I guess we'll find out what it is, like when Pelosi said we would know and understand about HC, after it's all done.
What a joke, whatever the out come is, the Administration will say that was the
original plan.

Let's get our own house in order first, and stop policing the world.

Last edited by justplugit; 03-28-2011 at 12:16 PM.. Reason: addition of thought

" Choose Life "
justplugit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 02:46 AM   #149
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,567
ouch...FACT CHECK: How Obama's Libya claims fit the facts - Yahoo! News

bad headline...should read.."how Obama's claims completely distort the facts...again"
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 06:56 AM   #150
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Mission Accomplished!!! 9 years to get Saddam out????? Clinton effed up Bosnia
buckman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com