[Winstonm]

Someone will have to explain again how this guy Obama is such a great and smart leader. I think he is manipulated by the State Department and Department of Defense when it comes to foreign policy. He is, though, pretty good at basketball handicapping, but pretty bad at handicapping wars.

The Libyan totals thus far:
120 Tomahawk missiles launched.
48 civilian deaths.
150 civilians injured.

All in the name of protecting civilians.

[ggwhiz]

Winstonm, on 2011-March-19, 21:10, said:

Someone will have to explain again how this guy Obama is such a great and smart leader. I think he is manipulated by the State Department and Department of Defense when it comes to foreign policy. He is, though, pretty good at basketball handicapping, but pretty bad at handicapping wars.

The Libyan totals thus far:
120 Tomahawk missiles launched.
48 civilian deaths.
150 civilians injured.

All in the name of protecting civilians.

If I'm not mistaken, those last two numbers come from a Ga Daffy mouthpiece.

Meanwhile he murders that many per hour. Not the kind of options I would like to choose from and I'll stick to the hook or the drop.

[hrothgar]

I'll note in passing that the Secretary of Defense was strongly opposed to military action

I'm really torn about this one and really have no idea what the right thing to do is...

In recent years, the US has established a miserable track record with foreign intervention.
Getting involved in a Civil War is never pretty.

On the other hand, Gaddafi is using a small band of loyalists and a bunch of foreign mercenaries to slaughter his own people.
It's hard to stand by and do nothing. (Then again, we're apparently perfectly happy to do so when an ally like Bahrain is doing the slaughtering)

When I'm feeling particularly cynical, I figure that this is the only way to sneak a stimulus package through the current congress...

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on 2011-March-20, 06:50, said:

I'll note in passing that the Secretary of Defense was strongly opposed to military action

I'm really torn about this one and really have no idea what the right thing to do is...

In recent years, the US has established a miserable track record with foreign intervention.
Getting involved in a Civil War is never pretty.

On the other hand, Gaddafi is using a small band of loyalists and a bunch of foreign mercenaries to slaughter his own people.
It's hard to stand by and do nothing. (Then again, we're apparently perfectly happy to do so when an ally like Bahrain is doing the slaughtering)

When I'm feeling particularly cynical, I figure that this is the only way to sneak a stimulus package through the current congress...

Richard,

I am now at the age where about the only feeling I get about government is cynicism. I am reliving those old feelings of being lied to with "Peace is at hand," when I hear Obama give his rather trite reasons for military actions.

[Winstonm]

ggwhiz, on 2011-March-19, 22:27, said:

If I'm not mistaken, those last two numbers come from a Ga Daffy mouthpiece.

Meanwhile he murders that many per hour. Not the kind of options I would like to choose from and I'll stick to the hook or the drop.

As far as the figures, it is difficult to make the argument that the U.S. DoD freely releases accurate information - much of the accurate information from Iraq and Afghanistan has been from non-U.S. sources.

As to the horrors, I think Ghadafi made a good point today when he asked Obama what he would do if thousands of Americans attacked the White House, and I am also plenty cynical enough to wonder why it is mainly oil-producing states that need our intervention.

[kenberg]

I approach it as follows: Calling this "protection of civilians" is a nice thought, and maybe not totally false, but really what we are doing is intervening in a civil war on behalf of the rebel side. This is not apt to end well, including for the Libyan rebels and the Libyan civilians, if in the end Gaddafi (Wikipedia spelling, I can't write Arabic) prevails. So the question has to be, and I hope was, asked: Will we do what has to be done to oust Gaddafi? Unless the answer is yes, this is a horrible error. And even so, I trust we might all have noticed by now that, after we topple a government, that's pretty much where the problems start, not where they end.

So I hope someone has thought this through beyond what will happen in the next week. In the abstract, getting rid of Gaddafi is hardly the worst idea in the world. In reality, what happens next?

[matmat]

hrothgar, on 2011-March-20, 06:50, said:

On the other hand, Gaddafi is using a small band of loyalists and a bunch of foreign mercenaries to slaughter his own people.

I am not really convinced that they are in fact "his own people."

[Winstonm]

It is nauseatingly laughable to me to listen to our President talk tough about protecting civilians and civilian corridors in Libya. I really don't know how he can do that with a straight face.

I wish he would just be blunt - We want to dole out Libyan oil rights to our friends. You can't do anything to stop us. So shut up and take it.

[ggwhiz]

Perhaps it will stick that this becomes an English/French/Nato operation with U.S. support? Looks like that is what they are aiming for.

Up here, our government is about to be found in contempt of Parliament and when asked how he felt about it, a man on the street said "I've been in contempt of Parliament all my life".

[Winstonm]

I think it is difficult for any other generation to understand the vastness of the disillusionment or the degree of the resulting cynacism that replaced trust that came about from being draft age through the later Vietnam years and living through the subsequent Watergate scandal. You learned as a young man to choke on the statement that, Peace is at hand, and could only shake your head and smirk at, Your President is not a crook.

And now, after 8 years of Bush and Cheney, we are back to a reset of the power structure of 1968, only now Obama comes across as even more hardened than his predecessors when it comes to government power, secrecy, and the destruction of civil rights.

This is not going to end well.

[helene_t]

I don't see how oil factors into this. If Nato wanted some good oil deals the sensible thing to do would be just to let Gadaffi slaughter the rebels and then continue business as usual afterwards.

UK, France and US are three different countries and each of them are guided by conflicting motives. So it it is probably too simplistic to say that a particular motive (be it democracy in Libya, acute humanitarian situation in Linya, Israel's security, other Arab countries's goodwill, oil deals, security of remaining westerners in Libya, etc) is what drives "The West".

Nevertheless I think it is fair to assume that some kind of concern for the Libyan people has been the major driving force for most Western politicians who backed the military actions. It may be misguided (I am not saying it is, but I know that some people with insight in these matters think it is). It may not. But I think it is largely well-intended.

[blackshoe]

"Well-intended" usually causes nothing but trouble.

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on 2011-March-19, 21:10, said:

Someone will have to explain again how this guy Obama is such a great and smart leader. I think he is manipulated by the State Department and Department of Defense when it comes to foreign policy. He is, though, pretty good at basketball handicapping, but pretty bad at handicapping wars.

The Libyan totals thus far:
120 Tomahawk missiles launched.
48 civilian deaths.
150 civilians injured.

All in the name of protecting civilians.

The fact (?) that American media are lying all the time doesn't mean that all non-American media are 100% reliable.

Those 48 were probably killed by Gadaffi's forces and then conveniently used to display the casualties from the Western strikes. You may have a look at http://www.bbc.co.uk...africa-12803282

[Gerben42]

Libya is not Iraq.

A big difference between Iraq and Libya: before the 2nd Gulf War Iraq was in peace. Libya is completely the opposite. For me, this war is about a country on Europe's doorstep in civil war. Crete are not THAT far away!

Think about it: How would the USA react if it was Cuba in civil war? It won't be about cigars.

[nigel_k]

Gerben42, on 2011-March-21, 12:02, said:

A big difference between Iraq and Libya: before the 2nd Gulf War Iraq was in peace. Libya is completely the opposite.

If that's your definition of peace then Libya would be in peace too if they would just leave Gaddafi to go about his business for another week or so.

As for the media, can you imagine what they would be saying if Bush authorized air strikes without Congressional approval or any threat to the USA and then took his family to Rio on holiday? The main lesson from this and Kosovo is that it's ok if a Democrat does it.

[Gerben42]

Quote

If that's your definition of peace then Libya would be in peace too if they would just leave Gaddafi to go about his business for another week or so.

As for the media, can you imagine what they would be saying if Bush authorized air strikes without Congressional approval or any threat to the USA and then took his family to Rio on holiday? The main lesson from this and Kosovo is that it's ok if a Democrat does it.

We can't go about invading all countries whose political strategy we disapprove of. If so, I have a LONG list of countries that urgently need a more people-friendly government. The people of Libya have taken the courage from their neighbours and stand up against their dictator. Before although we had all the reason to condemn Gadaffi's regime, there was no incentive to intervene. Now there is. And I think it was the correct move get involved. It should be our lesson from Rwanda and Bosnia that to do nothing is sometimes the worse decision.

I don't care what "they" would be saying if Bush or Obama did something. You should stop listening to "them" anyway. In a modern world, it shouldn't matter where the president is. He will be reachable everywhere. Only in case of a direct threat to the nation would it be mandatory to change travel plans.

[luke warm]

Gerben42, on 2011-March-21, 13:17, said:

I don't care what "they" would be saying if Bush or Obama did something. You should stop listening to "them" anyway.

i don't care either, but i do wonder why... well, not really... i already know why... as a general rule, i don't think the u.s. should get involved anywhere unless our national interests are at stake... this, imo, is why the vast majority of americans were (initially) in favor of the iraq war, we thought there were WMDs there... the problem is, the u.s. is hypocritical when it comes to who to jump on and who to leave alone... kinda like some bullies i know (or used to know)

[Winstonm]

Strange that the U.S. would take sides in a civil war without knowing anything at all about the side it is backing. You have to love the U.S. - if they are on our side, they are freedom fighters; otherwise, they are insurrectionists.

[Winstonm]

helene_t, on 2011-March-20, 21:42, said:

I don't see how oil factors into this. If Nato wanted some good oil deals the sensible thing to do would be just to let Gadaffi slaughter the rebels and then continue business as usual afterwards.

UK, France and US are three different countries and each of them are guided by conflicting motives. So it it is probably too simplistic to say that a particular motive (be it democracy in Libya, acute humanitarian situation in Linya, Israel's security, other Arab countries's goodwill, oil deals, security of remaining westerners in Libya, etc) is what drives "The West".

Nevertheless I think it is fair to assume that some kind of concern for the Libyan people has been the major driving force for most Western politicians who backed the military actions. It may be misguided (I am not saying it is, but I know that some people with insight in these matters think it is). It may not. But I think it is largely well-intended.

I didn't mean literally oil - I meant that this "civilian corridor" excuse is so lame that Obama may have well just said, "It's none of your business, so shut up and keep digging."

[cloa513]

matmat, on 2011-March-20, 13:18, said:

I am not really convinced that they are in fact "his own people."

So you don't count Libyans in or near their homes as under Gadaffi's rule. I guess if you are in America your president isn't Obama whether you like him or not.