[VrQsgM7c]

Oh, I absolutely do.

Unfortunately, the UN Resolution was passed to protect innocent civilians, wasn't it? By arming the people who Ghadaffi is fighting, we're changing the game. Once we help the rebels, we're no longer in it to protect innocent civilians. We're in it to topple Ghadaffi, and that's very different than what we signed up for...

Well, that's all assuming that the UN intended to stay neutral.

I don't think this is entirely Obama's decision. The West in general saw an opportunity to remove Gadhafi, and they're taking it.

Granted, this method of removing him has been done time and time again by multiple administrations. Obama is obviously not the first president to arm a rebel group we have assumed acts in our interests.

Of course, this also proves that he's not an agent of change but rather just part of the status quo.

And any claims that Obama is a leftist are laughable at this point. He's clearly of the neoliberal persuasion -- which is very similar to neoconservatism as well, when it comes to foreign policy.

[avaissema]

Oh, I absolutely do.

Unfortunately, the UN Resolution was passed to protect innocent civilians, wasn't it? By arming the people who Ghadaffi is fighting, we're changing the game. Once we help the rebels, we're no longer in it to protect innocent civilians. We're in it to topple Ghadaffi, and that's very different than what we signed up for...

If Gadaffi is a threat to the Libyan people, how to we protect them without getting rid of him?

[Lån-Penge]

The right wing noise machine is going to be against whatever Obama does in Libya.

Well, that's because we shouldn't be there in the first place. It was a civil war. It should've remained that...

Their main objection is that the rebels will prevail, Qaddafi will be deposed, and that will look like Obama lead the US to a military victory, something that completely eluded the hapless tough talking pussy walking Bush Boy. Deposed?

I'd like to see him killed. Frankly, I think we should've killed him in 1989.

My main objection is that this was a civil war. It stops being a civil war once we start helping one side or the other. I object to the fact that Obama hasn't ruled out arming rebels...

[/quote]And a military victory coming before an election is as big a nightmare
for them as a recovering economy.[/QUOTE]

A military victory guarantees nothing...

[avaissema]

Of course, this also proves that he's not an agent of change but rather just part of the status quo.

And any claims that Obama is a leftist are laughable at this point. He's clearly of the neoliberal persuasion -- which is very similar to neoconservatism as well, when it comes to foreign policy.

If he actually wanted to do it, he wouldn't have bent over backwards to ask for permission.

[VrQsgM7c]

If he actually wanted to do it, he wouldn't have bent over backwards to ask for permission.

So diplomacy and approval from the UN are "bending over backwards?"

One of the saving graces to Obama is that he at least isn't playing cowboy like Bush did. He's essentially pushing the same foreign policy as Bush, but he's not quite as much of an idiot about it.

"Permission" is an important thing to pursue before getting involved.

Granted, getting involved in the first place is the problem. Both American political parties love to dick around in foreign countries they have no business being in.

And of course, the UN and the Arab League will posture back and forth about involvement since the Arab League has no spine, and the UN is too timid and fractured to be willing to accept the harsh reality that civilians die during war.

But despite all of that, at least aiming for some sort of international consensus shows that Obama understands the basic rules for intervention.

[fil_nurser]

Well, that's because we shouldn't be there in the first place. It was a civil war. It should've remained that...

There was plenty of noise about Obama not doing anything, until the bombing started, then it shifted from slamming Obama for "not doing anything" to slamming Obama for "doing too much".
We get it, you don't like Obama...

Deposed?

I'd like to see him killed. Frankly, I think we should've killed him in 1989. But we didn't, we didn't do anything in response to Lockerbie in 1989, and we welcomed Libya back into the fold of upstanding nations and removed all sanctions just a few years ago.

So now that Obama is shooting at him, why aren't you applauding?

My main objection is that this was a civil war. It stops being a civil war once we start helping one side or the other. I object to the fact that Obama hasn't ruled out arming rebels... What are the actual US interests in this case?
Do we want Qaddafi dead or imprisoned or exiled at the least?
Yes, because he actually attacked us. And it's a much better precedent to have the last official US act concerning Qaddafi to be the US assisting in his downfall, rather than the US president kissing his ass and removing sanctions in return for him giving up the remnants of a nuclear program he had abandoned 2 decades before. This is for the benefit of next dictator that has to make a decision regarding US interests, that we never forget.

Do we want to have a government in Libya that sees the West as a friend rather than as the Great Satan or as Qaddafi's enablers?
Yes, because we need the oil and the gas to flow.


Now in diplomatic circles you can't just come out and say "This is what I want to do and here is the real reason why".
But US actions here seem to be much better aligned to US long term interests, than the invasion of Iraq, which was much more closely aligned with GOP political interests than any long term US interests.

[avaissema]

"Permission" is an important thing to pursue before getting involved.

We are not asking for the car keys to go to the football teams kegger.

Asking for permission doesn't make the act right or wrong, particularly from the den of jackals and thieves that is the UN, it only determines if its popular.

[VrQsgM7c]

We are not asking for the car keys to go to the football teams kegger.

Asking for permission doesn't make the act right or wrong, particularly from the den of jackals and thieves that is the UN, it only determines if its popular.

Well, of course, it doesn't determine if it's right or wrong. The vast majority of the time, intervention is wrong to begin with.

However, the "popularity" of an intervention is vital to its long term success. While we have plenty of soldiers and equipment to spare, we need various other resources (like translators) from our allies and from countries neighboring the area being invaded.

[Arrocousa]

I knew it was only a matter of time before more questions would be raised as to our involvement. We should have stayed out of it completely. Yay for more pickles because we're surely in another one.

[avaissema]

Well, of course, it doesn't determine if it's right or wrong. The vast majority of the time, intervention is wrong to begin with.

Yeah, I know I wish Louis XVI had minded his own business.

[Lån-Penge]

There was plenty of noise about Obama not doing anything, until the bombing started, then it shifted from slamming Obama for "not doing anything" to slamming Obama for "doing too much".
We get it, you don't like Obama...

Obama did plenty initially; travelling, golfing.

Libya was experiencing a civil war. Ostensibly, we were going in to "protect civilians". Okay, I guess I can get on board with that. However, if we start assisting the rebels in any way, it ceases to be a civil war, and it becomes a war between them and us.

Do you want us involved in a third war, Goob? I sure don't...

So now that Obama is shooting at him, why aren't you applauding? Because we shouldn't be there.

How is your brain unable to process that?

Obama said we wouldn't have boot on the ground. Well, guess what? We've put intel people in Libya since this started. That certainly qualifies as "boots on the ground". Marines at Camp Pendleton are expecting to be deployed to, you guessed it, Libya.

You're supporting a third war; one which, not only we can ill-afford, but one in which we shouldn't be involved...

Now in diplomatic circles you can't just come out and say "This is what I want to do and here is the real reason why". Sure you can. It just requires a set of balls to do it.

We're reminded, on a daily basis, that Obama lacks said balls and, therefore, will never be man enough to speak the simple truth...

But US actions here seem to be much better aligned to US long term interests, than the invasion of Iraq, which was much more closely aligned with GOP political interests than any long term US interests. Jesus Christ.

This has nothing to do with Iraq. This is Obama's war, like it or not. Whether Iraq was a sound idea or not does nothing to change whether Libya is a good idea. Right now, it's not.

But, by all means, continue your tired liberal whining about Iraq and the GOP as if it might have any bearing, whatsoever, on how badly your Messiah is fucking up...

[mobbemeatiedy]

It's always okay for a liberal to do it. It's never okay for a conservative to do it.

Liberal rules of partisan politics number 36.

[enlinnyGoob]

It's always okay for a liberal to do it. It's never okay for a conservative to do it.

Liberal rules of partisan politics number 36.

Lol, but even BETTER when said liberal won the Nobel peace prize

[Beriilosal]

It's always okay for a liberal to do it. It's never okay for a conservative to do it.

Do what? Has the Obama administration armed the rebels? Or is all this hand-wringing about the fact that they are simply weighing all options?

I have a prediction. No matter their decision, the right wingnuts will criticize it.
Call it a hunch.

[miel]

Arming the rebels is just a step down the road from sending in "military advisers" and then an incident or two away from drafting young men to fight in a war that was never declared.

[miel]

Do we want to have a government in Libya that sees the West as a friend rather than as the Great Satan or as Qaddafi's enablers?

How many boots on the ground will it take to ensure they see the West as friends?

[Nikitka]

So, it now looks like we're considering arming the rebels in Libya:

Arming Rebels?

I don't know that I can think of a bigger mistake that we could make. Once we do that, any premise of our involvement to "protect civilians" becomes negated, because we will have chosen a side in the fight, and we will be arming them.

Hopefully, Obama will suffer a lucid moment, show some true leadership and refuse to do this...

Arming the rebels, we've already did that with the no fly zone and beyond. So who are you kidding. Continuing bombing is in no interest of the US, nor is providing arms to the ground troops. Period.

[jamisi]

America has a higher rate of success staying out of countries and arming rebels against it's dictators than actually stepping foot in those countries, from Africa to Central America to Afghanistan.

The option must be weighed as a matter of practical thinking, so I don't understand what makes that stupid exactly.

Arming a few thousand people who are engaged in a popular uprising that supports freedom, dignity and peace over a brutal dictator is much less costly than stepping foot in Libya ourselves, and in terms of precedent, the success rate doing that is much higher than sending in American troops.

[Beriilosal]

Arming the rebels, we've already did that with the no fly zone and beyond. So who are you kidding. Continuing bombing is in no interest of the US, nor is providing arms to the ground troops. Period.

...because a Democratic president is doing it.

Just thought I'd finish your thought for you.

[avaissema]

America has a higher rate of success staying out of countries and arming rebels against it's dictators than actually stepping foot in those countries, from Africa to Central America to Afghanistan.

The option must be weighed as a matter of practical thinking, so I don't understand what makes that stupid exactly.

Arming a few thousand people who are engaged in a popular uprising that supports freedom, dignity and peace over a brutal dictator is much less costly than stepping foot in Libya ourselves, and in terms of precedent, the success rate doing that is much higher than sending in American troops.

Umm, yeah; that worked out real well for us when Carter did that in Afghanistan.