American lives> Public outrage> Troops get pulled from all sandboxes.

 

How are we justified to think what is right and what is wrong. It's their country, let them kill each other.

Quite a bit of it going around that I can see, particularly on the Twitter. I've also seen it on Fark and Facebook. 

Also, the level of paranoid in this thread, on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being an AM radio personality on a cocktail of cocaine and Vyvanse, is currently at about an 8.3. 

I was referring to impulse mostly. 

If anything this is most like the Balkans in the 90s with Clinton. It seems like our contribution is going to be blasting some missiles. 

Wars (Or military exercises, what have you) have honeymoons. If you'll recall, the NYT has been heavily criticized for essentially being an executive lapdog for most of 2003-2004, just accepting the claims of WMD stockpiles as truth and never questioning harshly any alternative motives for entering Iraq. 

 

And you didn't even see the post I deleted.

Woops forgot the http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110319/EDM_libya_110319/20110319/?hub=EdmontonHome -

It's a hell of a lot more than a no fly zone. Our CF-18s haven't done air to mud ops since Kosovo in 1999...

U.S., Britain, Canada, France, Spain, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Belgium, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Greece, Turkey, and just for giggles, the Dutch.

 

Why in the world, is the US there? It seems like we are not needed.

 

So when we take control of Libya, are we going to divide it up among each other. Will the countries who spent the most money, get bigger and better portions?

You really don't know a whole lot about any of what you're talking about, do you?

 

So we took out there air defenses. It's all done, we go home? We let the rebels rebuild the country and start their own goverment? We come in, help the people rebuild their country and goverment? We try to rebuild but have a onslaught of "insurgency" from the rebels? We stay for years to come trying to restore order?

 

What happens next?

Even that course of events would be worth it to prevent Ghaddafi waging war on his own population.

His attacks are continuing, by the way. Ghaddafi's forces are assaulting Misrata, and are expected to hit Zintan tonight.

Put it this way- if you saw the guy down the street beating his fourteen year old son around the front lawn with a baseball bat, would you not step in and stop it because you might take a few licks?

The people wanted a revolution, if they can't accomplish it, they can't accomplish it. They will need to feel the consequences of trying to over throw a government.

So I read a story the rebels ran out of weapons. Did the CIA somehow mess up the delivery?

As time passes, more liberties are stripped. Most recently the Patriot Act. We will give away all liberties for a sense of security.

There is no single entity in the US with the kind of power, that would require a revolution? Homeland Security is getting to that point. 

Frog in the pot theory at play.

I'm getting the distinct impression that you're one of those poor, oh-so-political creatures who will read and accept anything he's fed so long as it conforms to his ideology. I imagine you also believe we're in Afghanistan for the oil  natural gas lithium?

You speak so very coldly to 'if they try to have a revolution and fail, they deserve the consequences'. Bull, and frankly I consider you a moral coward for your stance. A state has the unique capability of amassing coercive force under its legitimate auspices. A civilian population likely cannot. You seem to sugegst that any state that CAN brutally repress its own is justified in doing so, because it means we don't need to intervene. Might makes right; a purely Hobbesian view of international politics; the weaker you are, the nastier, harder, more brutal and short your political life should be.

I think you would be advised to ask the serving military members on this board just what the government would - or more properly, COULD - do to suppress popular revolt. The 'government' is nothing; it relies on its citizens in voluntary service to enforce its will. I say this as someone in uniform myself, for whom the consideration of deadly force is NOT merely something I've juggled with academically.

If your politics can justify a 'head in the sand' approach to a population trying to overthrow 40 years of dictatorship, well, you're welcome to it I guess. That's your right. But you'll not convince me or anyone else with a global view that you're peddling anything but wind.

People vanishing for speaking out against the Patriot Act? No reason, everyone knows what the Patriot Act, it's not a secret. 

I'm not saying our government is in a position of tyranny, yet. But people need to be diligent on asking, why? A event/catastrophe happens, the gov. gets an excuse to for more control. Some argue the event was no accident (9/11, 7/7 bombings, Katrina). There is no point of debating that issue, it will only end in hurt feelings.

People need to stop being spoon fed. Watch something other than Faux news and CNN.

You keep shifting the topic away form whichever of your points are specifically contested, and isntead throwing out vague accusations against the government that are purely hypothetical, and thus cannot be disproven.

I ask again- what are your specific critiques with regards to Libya, what alternative course of action would you prefer, and what ulterior motives do you contend are being served?

Why does the UN pick and choose who they are going to help? Do you really think, and I mean honestly think. We use military force, to protect civilians? Why don't we go after North Korea? Why don't we go after Iran?

No because those conflicts would cost TOO much money. Libya will be a fraction of the cost, and we will have control over the country in a shorter period of time.

Do you really think Ghadafi is going to say "Hey, sorry guys. I'm sad you blew up my stuff, but I forgive it. I was in the wrong, I will treat my people better. Thanks for the lesson"

Ghadafi already stated this is going to be "a long war". I.E. He will be kicking and screaming to remove him from power. We WILL have troops on the ground. We WILL have troops get killed and injured. Mostly going to be US and British troops doing the grunt work. It will be the US and British coming home in wooden boxes. 

What I think the U.S. should do? Nothing, let France and Canada prove how big their <egos> are, not us.

No, I pretty much agree with you. It's a case, I would suspect, of it just being easier to do it the way everyone has done it since LBJ than trying to either 1) Going through congress or 2) Only using the executive ability to move troops when the country is under duress, which is what he claimed as a senator. 

If you're - being Obama - going to make a claim that you'd do it differently, you really aught do it differently. 

Now, that said, because of LBJ, Obama is well with the legal established rights to launch as many things at Libya as he wants. But, ethically, he said he wouldn't, which is where the rub comes in. 

Also, for OS, I'm consistently hearing the same people who complained about Iraq for the sake of it being aggravated war complaining about our involvement in Libya. Although I doubt that will stop the right-wing from asking where all the outrage is. It's been established that it will be the talking point du jour. 

OMG my opinion differs? Stop the presses, I went beyond FE. 

For an intervention to be justifiable it must be legitimate, the goals must be achievable, and it must not cause more harm that it would stop. The latter two in particular rule out most otherwise justifiable interventions.

The unwillingness or the inefficacy of intervention elsewhere does not negate the legitimacy or efficacy of this one, however.

What Ghadaffi says is all well and good. It's moot if the rest of his army changes sides, or if allied air power allows the rebels to achieve success, his words are merely those. In any case, his armies continue to assault rebel cities at this moment, and hopefully our forces are in the air ready to help fight off the attacks.

As for 'we will have control' over Libya? Pure bunk, They'll establish their own new government.

But why does the U.S. have to partake? I don't see Germany in the names of the coalitions. Do they have a doctors note?

Bringing the U.S. into ANOTHER conflict. Is like bringing a broke college student to a steak house, and expecting him to pick up the bill.

We keep getting fronted money from China. They have been a been cool about it, like a lazy drug dealer. But one of these days he's going to get pissed, and start breaking knee caps.

Germany voted against the resolution and chose not to take part. I have already noted the long list of countries who are involved.

China can't do anything about U.S. debt. If you think 'kneecaps' are in play in international sovereign debt at that level, you truly lack a clue.

They wished not to partake because they realized the retarded decision of going into Afghanistan? Good for Germany, and even better for their troops. They truly despise being that that country. And I don't blame them. 

So when the rebels take over, are they going to pay us back? Or just let us put in some military bases?

Why is being 'paid back' necessary? There is occasionally recognition by the nations of the world that there is merit in doing something for humanitarian grounds. You could also argue that the 'payback' is political, in that it helps to rebuild some of America's credibility after Iraq.

As for the Germans, their troops in Afghanistan pretty much entirely stay inside their camps or at a small provincial reconstruction team. Their involvement is not at all alike that of the Americans, Brits, Canadians, French, or others taking part in combat operations. I do not believe Afghanistan is a reason they've chosen not to take part in Libya; they simply have a strong reticence to get involved in international military operations in general.

Again, you're the one coming in here claiming ulterior motives for Libya. What do YOU postulate those ulterior motives are?

I'm asking because it seems like you have answers. 

The whole time I was writing that, the movie Green Zone came to mind. Speaking with a buddy of mine, who is a reservist public affairs soldier; he said that movie was almost to the T accurate. If you have not seen the movie, I highly suggest you rent it. 

Libya- the rebel ARE 'the people'. A good chunk of them, anyway. They'll need to institute a system of government whereby the population in its entirety is able to live with it.

Failing that, a government that does NOT wage war on its own population will still be a marked improvement. If after the current regime collapses it should appear likely to descend into generalized civil war, at that point we're likely to see a much more traditional peacekeeping mission in place. I doubt that will be the case, however.

It's so refreshing to have one on the forum. FE and OS have played the part-time capitalist thing for so long, it's kind of amazing to have a real live John Galt on TandO. 

Impulse, I want to know, what do you think about the '64 Civil Rights Act? 

You really think the "people" of Libya will come together, and set up a government they can all agree on? You do not think there will be any outside influence? 

If the new government were disarm the population, would you agree with that?

Do you think there was any outside influence to spark the uprising? Do you believe any foreign country helped fund and supply the rebels?

Atlas Shrugged is still on my to read list. I believe the movie is coming out soon also.

What about the Civil Rights Act? To enable american citizens to the rights and liberties protected by the Constitution? Seems right to me, although it should not have taken that long to finally happen.

They don't need to all agree on it. None of the rest of us do. They just need to agree not to kill each other over it, which after the current events will I think be something they'll all be pretty willing to agree to..

And no, I do not believe it was foreign influenced. The rebels certainly were not at all well equipped until some of the army jumped sides over to them. 

Aww. I guess I was wrong on the call of a pure Randian objectivist. 

A purist's opinion would be that it should be up to individual businesses to decide who they serve, not the government. 

I apologize for the mislabeling, kind sir. 

I was basing it more on de-segging the PUBLIC schools.

I agree with the right to refuse service to anyone. If your stupid enough to not take someones money because they are a different color, then you deserve to lose money.

I was wrong again. Got us a genuine Randian. I am so excited about this. 

I know the thread got mightily derailed but I'd like to take a second to respond to this.

I don't know enough about the politics of war to have the most informed opinion about the situation, but I've looked a bit into history and one thing is certain: After election, a new president discovers a whole world he couldn't possibly have imagined previously. Aside from prior insider knowledge, I don't think anything can prepare them for the massive change in perspective they experience in their pre-inaugural briefings. 

They will reverse opinions and beliefs and some sense of morality - not because their pre-office ideas were wrong or inconsistent with their true nature - but because they see problems and corresponding solutions they never knew to exist before taking the oath.

I'm sure there are many things we don't know about the Iraq War that may have justified GWB to enter the country. The opposite could also be true, that there were zero justifications and that GWB was a fool. Either way, the president knows things that no other man on earth does. I don't think we can really judge them about the conflicts they enter with any sort of truly informed opinion. The only thing we can really look at is how the entire ordeal is handled beginning to end.

 

Of course the reports say mechanical failure. What happened to the crew? Captured, rescued, died?

 

What happened to the crew?

Also: an interesting illustration of coalition air power.

Really.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/22/libya-downed-airmen-rescue - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/22/libya-downed-airmen-rescue

Well, there's yer problem

'another go it alone ground war'?

The Libyan rebels are very numerous. They have all the manpower necessary, *if* they're properly supported.

 

Maybe the U.S. does need to be there after all.

 

Well that was wasteful. Now we have to supply the rebels ammo? Hope reloading components don't go up in price.

 

Why thank you.

 

I have heard it all now.