DescentBB

MARCH 19, 2011

OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...



MARCH 19, 2003

BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger...'




Are we "doing it for oil?"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12795971

Libya: French plane fires on military vehicle

article wrote:Other air forces and navies are expected to join the French.

The US would use its "unique capabilities" to reinforce the no-fly zone, said US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, warning that further delays would put more civilians at risk. However, Mrs Clinton said again that the US would not deploy ground troops in Libya.

A naval blockade is also being put in place, said Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. France is sending its Charles De Gaulle aircraft carrier to the Libyan coast, a military spokesman said.

I do not think Libya and Iraq are analogous. That said, I do not think we have any business interfering with Libya. I do not care if other countries do it, but I think this is a bad idea for America while the budget is so tight.

ThunderBunny wrote:Are we "doing it for oil?"

Sure, why not? ^_~

...we all know how much Captain America actually cares about saving the whirled ^_~

ThunderBunny wrote:MARCH 19, 2011

OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...



MARCH 19, 2003

BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger...'




Are we "doing it for oil?"

Yes, we are doing for oil, and for once I totally agree with you TB. Obama is now the second iteration of Bush. He's just another damn politician doing the bidding of his corporate and military puppet masters. We can afford to go into a third war, but not come up with funds to repair our failing infrastructure, fix health care and Social Security/Medicare or pay down the debt! I'd be amazed if Obama gets reelected. You should be happy ThunderBunny, the fall of Obama is coming in 2012!

I'd like to think countries can still be honorable and do the right thing, not just because it's better for our wallets... Especially ours.

tunnelcat wrote:Obama is now the second iteration of Bush.

Now? He's been Bush's 3rd term since the campaign started.

It's not about oil, it's about power... and DESTRUCTION ^_^

"Oh, snap... they found me... I don't know how, but they found me..."
"Who?"
"Who do you think? It's the Libyans!" ^_~

It's about plutonium? ^_~

Father wrote:In the first years of the 21st century, a third whirled war broke out. Those of us who survived knew...

^_~

Lothar wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Obama is now the second iteration of Bush.

Now? He's been Bush's 3rd term since the campaign started.

And to his credit, he campaigned as such. I think alot of liberals are mad at him because they assumed he was just "saying that stuff to get elected."

I'm really not sure why conservatives are mad at him.

Gooberman wrote:

Lothar wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Obama is now the second iteration of Bush.

Now? He's been Bush's 3rd term since the campaign started.

And to his credit, he campaigned as such.

Absolutely. I found it hilarious and pathetic when certain Liberals were all "no to McCain, we don't want a third term of Bush" when Obama spent the entire campaign explaining how he would do everything the same as Bush.

I'm really not sure why conservatives are mad at him.

Conservatives should have been mad at Bush a lot more than they were. Most of what they're mad at Obama for is legitimately stuff that should bug conservatives, they just forgot to criticize Bush when he was doing it.

Lothar wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Obama is now the second iteration of Bush.

Now? He's been Bush's 3rd term since the campaign started.

No, we got the bait and switch job with Obama. Promised all the libs he was their savior with pretty speeches before the election, then after he gets in office, he's either another pawn of the military industrial complex, Wall Street, or just another political hack in it for himself.

I find it funny listening to all the liberals in the media trying to come up with rational excuses for what Obama's doing now, when they, including me, were all griping about what Bush was doing back when he was doing the exact same thing. For example: "Oh, he's just going to be in this for a couple of days", or "We're not leading this thing", or "The coalition is in charge, not the U.S.", or "We're doing it to protect innocent civilians in a revolution" and my favorite, "We won't be sending in any ground troops". Then neither party seems to be griping about the cost of this mess either. Hypocrites with no standards. And why isn't this little "attack" on another nation unconstitutional?

The war powers act I believe…

The Magical Concept of "Commander-in-Chief"

tunnelcat wrote:
Yes, we are doing for oil, and for once I totally agree with you TB.

The problem with this flawed thinking is that we are not doing it for oil. In Iraq the same message was given, yet today the Iraqi's are in control of their oil to the point some complain we should have a share to cover our war cost. When all this is settled the new Libyan govt. will be in control and sell the oil to whom they wish. What I do find funny is Obama telling the Brazilians to "Drill Baby Drill" so we can buy from them all the while dragging his feet to allow the oil platforms back in the gulf. And while Obama says there are vast areas open to drilling here what would be the point when it is the lack of new refineries that is the real bottleneck. The sheer stupidity of the guy leading this country is astounding.

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:
Yes, we are doing for oil, and for once I totally agree with you TB.

The problem with this flawed thinking is that we are not doing it for oil. In Iraq the same message was given, yet today the Iraqi's are in control of their oil to the point some complain we should have a share to cover our war cost. When all this is settled the new Libyan govt. will be in control and sell the oil to whom they wish. What I do find funny is Obama telling the Brazilians to "Drill Baby Drill" so we can buy from them all the while dragging his feet to allow the oil platforms back in the gulf. And while Obama says there are vast areas open to drilling here what would be the point when it is the lack of new refineries that is the real bottleneck. The sheer stupidity of the guy leading this country is astounding.

x2

woodchip wrote:The problem with this flawed thinking is that we are not doing it for oil. In Iraq the same message was given, yet today the Iraqi's are in control of their oil to the point some complain we should have a share to cover our war cost. When all this is settled the new Libyan govt. will be in control and sell the oil to whom they wish.

I think you're both right. If the whole middle east sank into anarchy, it would have a large effect on the developed world, because we're so dependent on middle eastern oil. As long as we keep thing relatively stable over there, cooler, more organized heads will keep the oil flowing at reasonable prices. If a bunch of independent terrorist wackos started running everything we'd have a double-pronged problem: buying oil would be supporting them, and they'd probably only sell at ridiculous prices.

TLDR: We do it for the oil, because governments in control are a lot more reasonable than crazy terrorists.

tunnelcat wrote:

Lothar wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Obama is now the second iteration of Bush.

Now? He's been Bush's 3rd term since the campaign started.

No, we got the bait and switch job with Obama.

No, you didn't. He sounded just like Bush for the entire campaign. Every time he gave specifics, he sounded like Bush. Then he coated it with "hope and change" rhetoric, which apparently was enough to fool the vast majority of liberals into thinking he was the polar opposite of Bush even though everything concrete he said was right out of the Bush playbook.

(Whoa, deja vu... last time I wrote this argument in a different thread, a friend came over to give my mother in law a haircut. She just walked in with her haircutting supplies.)

I always get a chuckle when somebody says…”it’s about oil”

Well duh…let’s see you do without it.

It’s about food…well that’s ok…you know we all need to eat.

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:
Yes, we are doing for oil, and for once I totally agree with you TB.

The problem with this flawed thinking is that we are not doing it for oil. In Iraq the same message was given, yet today the Iraqi's are in control of their oil to the point some complain we should have a share to cover our war cost. When all this is settled the new Libyan govt. will be in control and sell the oil to whom they wish. What I do find funny is Obama telling the Brazilians to "Drill Baby Drill" so we can buy from them all the while dragging his feet to allow the oil platforms back in the gulf. And while Obama says there are vast areas open to drilling here what would be the point when it is the lack of new refineries that is the real bottleneck. The sheer stupidity of the guy leading this country is astounding.

So why didn't we go into Bahrain or Yemen? Their leaders are murdering civilians too. Maybe it's because we are "friends" with the leaders of Bahrain and Yemen would end up as another Middle East quagmire for the U.S. So either we did it for oil or because it seemed easier for us to prevail. It didn't hurt our "choice" that the Arab League hates Qaddafi anyway and wanted him to be eliminated. But guess who's paying for it? We are, at an estimated $100 million dollars a day!

Lothar, I guess I was wanting a little more "Hope and Change" from the previous administration. Obama seems to have a positive hit rate on about 2/3 of his promises so far, so technically I shouldn't be griping. I just get the impression that he's been rudderless in his direction so far.

After looking at Politifact, the failed promises are mostly due to Republican intransigence, and others because of compromise, with those same Republicans. It's those that are from compromise that sour me. The libs wanted a leader that would actually steer a course in their direction after all those years of Bush and Republicanism. To have appeased the liberal base who were counting on him, he would have had to undue far more of Bush's changes than he's done so far. He sure hasn't fought very hard in that respect. Too much kumbaya, not enough bold leadership against the Republicans and the corporate control of our government.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/pro ... er/browse/

Thunderbunny wrote:An interesting comparison...

The two big problems that I've had against the Iraq war are:
* Their democracy movement was not homespun (the practical problem)
* The people who we are claiming to be helping never asked us for a ground troop invasion (the moral problem)

But neither of these seem to be the case with Libya. They started this revolution. Moreover, although they didn't request for a ground troop invasion, we haven't provided that, and in fact they specifically requested that we don't invade; however, what we have provided, a no-fly zone, they specifically asked for our help in providing.

So a “no fly zone” also includes busting tank columns?

Say what you want about the “differences” between Iraq and Libya…the only important comparison is this…

We don’t belong in either one.

The two big problems that I've had against the Iraq war are:
* Their democracy movement was not homespun (the practical problem)
* The people who we are claiming to be helping never asked us for a ground troop invasion (the moral problem)

But neither of these seem to be the case with Libya. They started this revolution. Moreover, although they didn't request for a ground troop invasion, we haven't provided that, and in fact they specifically requested that we don't invade; however, what we have provided, a no-fly zone, they specifically asked for our help in providing.

Interesting way of justifying it. But it is basically saying: "Bush = bad, Obama = eh, well we're doing this to help 'the people' out."

Question about both: where will they end?

Spidey wrote:So a “no fly zone” also includes busting tank columns?

No. We shouldn't do that. The only reference I could find to someone doing this was by the French, but if we did it too, then I don't like that.

Spidey wrote:We don’t belong in either one.

I don't think we should be "in" Libya like we are in Iraq. But I think that we should maintain a no-fly zone over the country.

Thunderbunny wrote:But it is basically saying: "Bush = bad, Obama = eh, well we're doing this to help 'the people' out."

No, that's not at all my point. The Iraq war was also claimed to be to "help the people" out. But I think that before we invade a country or take military action to "help" someone out, that, as a "best practice," we should wait for them to ask us for help first. And if we think that they're just being shy, then we should ask. "Do you want us to invade your country?" Otherwise, how do we really know that we're helping them instead of just stepping all over their sovereignty? In this case, the Libyans have said that they don't want us to invade, and I think that it's a good idea we don't.

Joe Biden: Impeach a President Who Takes Us to War Against a Nation That Didn’t Attack Us
By Doug Powers • March 23, 2011 11:00 AM

**Written by Doug Powers

As you’ll see below in a Hardball interview back when the famous leg thrill was just a glimmer in the inseam of Chris Matthews’ slacks, in 2007, Joe Biden argued that the president had no constitutional authority to launch an attack without congressional approval against a nation that hadn’t attacked or threatened imminent attack on the United States. Biden also insisted that doing so is an impeachable offense.

Sheriff Joe agreed with Dennis Kucinich in those days, but ever since then Biden’s legal opinion has evolved with stickleback-like speed:

Jeff250 wrote:No, that's not at all my point. The Iraq war was also claimed to be to "help the people" out. But I think that before we invade a country or take military action to "help" someone out, that, as a "best practice," we should wait for them to ask us for help first. And if we think that they're just being shy, then we should ask. "Do you want us to invade your country?" Otherwise, how do we really know that we're helping them instead of just stepping all over their sovereignty? In this case, the Libyans have said that they don't want us to invade, and I think that it's a good idea we don't.

I definitely agree with this. The will of the people is not insignificant when it comes to violating a nation's sovereignty. You can be morally consistent and oppose the Iraq war and support these actions. You can be morally consistent to oppose both.

But I don't quite see how one can (still) support having invaded Iraq, but not these military actions.

Gooberman wrote:But I don't quite see how one can (still) support having invaded Iraq, but not these military actions.

Yeah, that one confuses me too.

What’s so confusing? It’s not about the war…but who is making the war.

You guys should know that.

So does “The No Fly Zone” give you a comfortable place in your mind, does it provide some isolation from the actual events taking place.

Jeff250 wrote:The Iraq war was also claimed to be to "help the people" out. But I think that before we invade a country or take military action to "help" someone out, that, as a "best practice," we should wait for them to ask us for help first

Recall that after the end of the first gulf war, the US pulled back and allowed Saddam to gank a bunch of his own people. It wasn't really realistic to expect anyone to stick their neck out and ask for help from the US given that history. Nobody wanted to be the village that started an uprising, asked for US help, and then got gassed. Whereas the people of Libya have witnessed the second gulf war, and therefore know America is willing to do things like enforce a no-fly zone or even, possibly, send in large numbers of ground troops. So it's realistic for them both to ask for help, and to ask for specific limits on that help.

Now that it's established that we will actually help, it makes sense for others to ask for help, and it makes sense to wait to help until asked. It's a "best practice" that was enabled by invading Iraq without being asked.

Just the politics of convenience and hypocrisy at work as usual. It just depends on whether the sacrifice will be of some benefit to our country that determines whether we go into some war somewhere. It's certainly not for the benefit of any particular nation's own people. It's just the "What's in it for us." syndrome the U.S. has employed in the past.There's no altruism involved at all. Even Cheney couldn't stick to one set of principles. Read the transcript of his opinions regarding the administration's unwillingness to finish what was started with the first Gulf War, about 4 paragraphs down in the article.

http://www.seattlepi.com/national/192908_cheney29.html

A lot different opinion he gave for going "all the way" during the second Gulf War, isn't it?

And now that Syria is exploding in violence, will we support our "good friend" Assad, or the people his troops are now shooting and killing. I'm betting Assad, since there isn't a lot of oil involved there and besides, we don't want to leave every leader we deal with to be left hanging in the lurch in the Middle East, do we now?.

If we aren’t really careful in the way we handle these “revolutions” things could get real bad for the United States…starting with the exposure of the fact that we support all of these dictators that oppress their people, although I’m sure most already know that. (Iraq, Libya and a few others not withstanding)

It’s a lose - lose situation, and we need to get a consistent policy, or get the hell out of the region altogether.

BTW…

No Fly Zone:

Translation…The complete destruction of a countries military.

Protecting Civilians:

Translation…The opportunity to overthrow yet another enemy of the west. (also see WMD)

No boots on the ground:

Translation…Air-Ground teams wear shoes not boots.

.

No boots on the ground:

Translation:

No Dice

I'm with Null in that I don't believe Iraq and Libya are directly comparable.

That being said, personally I believe that a sky-rocketing oil price due to paranoia and opportunistic speculation is a larger factor in US involvement in Libya than any other US domestic political consideration(s).

Bahrain and Yemen are not large oil producers compared to Libya, and most of Libya's oil goes to Russia and the CIS, IIRC.

I believe it was only after oil hit $150 a barrel that the UN voted for intervention and that the US committed their military. This makes me believe that the threat to the World's nascent economic recovery posed by petroleum at that price was too great to ignore.

This would also help explain Europe's readiness to step in on this occasion, as compared to their reticence over involvement in Iraq - and the fact that Russia abstained from voting, but didn't veto action either (...that's a bet placed both ways if I ever saw one)

Plus, when was the last time that the UN Security council moved unanimously on anything? ...with support (both moral and financial) from the Arab league of Nations for military action on Libya no less.

I want to say that the motivation was primarily humanitarian (eg: no other Arab nation began bombing unarmed civilian protesters) - but the cynic in me says it was self interest first, humanitarian interest second.

You know, when I heard about the League of Arab States asking for UN/US intervention in setting up a no-fly zone, I was reminded that many of the member states that were asking for it have their own considerable military forces, so why don't they do it? I thought if I were president I would draft a letter back... Re: No Fly Zone: "Wipe your own ass.".

I suppose they are too afraid to commit their military to anything because they need it around locally to sustain their own tyrannical dictatorship.

You're right Krom- plus they are the cheapest people in the world. They would rather someone else spend resources on fighting and horde everything they can for themselves. Greed and self preservation above all else.

Lothar wrote:Recall that after the end of the first gulf war, the US pulled back and allowed Saddam to gank a bunch of his own people. It wasn't really realistic to expect anyone to stick their neck out and ask for help from the US given that history.

Waiting until asked might have been too strict, but we didn't seem to invest much effort into seeing what everyday Iraqis thought about an invasion. If we had really wanted it, I think we could have secretly gotten a rough answer to the question, "Do you think we should invade your country?" before actually invading.

Krom wrote:You know, when I heard about the League of Arab States asking for UN/US intervention in setting up a no-fly zone, I was reminded that many of the member states that were asking for it have their own considerable military forces, so why don't they do it? I thought if I were president I would draft a letter back... Re: No Fly Zone: "Wipe your own ass." .

A fair point. I suspect that regional politics are a big part of this. Many Arab states have considerable military forces, but no-one has the clear military superiority that NATO / The US has. Any sort of long-term military confrontation from one Arab state to another would negatively impact on the balance of power in the region (even further than it is now). Hence they are asking for (relatively speaking) more impartial parties to take point on enforcing the no-fly zone. Plus, like Russia, they do not want to be seen to support either side. Asking for the no-fly zone to be enforced is not really an act of aggression on their part against Libya - something they cannot afford to do given that Gaddafi is still in power.

Also given the long acrimonious history that many (most?) Arab states in the middle east / North Africa have in dealing with each other, it makes sense from their viewpoint to have NATO do the enforcing, thus helping to avoid dragging up old arguments and further muddying some already murky waters.

Seems to me too that while the US clearly doesn't want another Iraq / Afghanistan on its hands, it cannot afford to have such instability continue in that region over the long term either. I think if the US government could have avoided entering this fight, it would have.

Lothar wrote: Recall that after the end of the first gulf war, the US pulled back and allowed Saddam to gank a bunch of his own people. It wasn't really realistic to expect anyone to stick their neck out and ask for help from the US given that history. Nobody wanted to be the village that started an uprising, asked for US help, and then got gassed. Whereas the people of Libya have witnessed the second gulf war, and therefore know America is willing to do things like enforce a no-fly zone or even, possibly, send in large numbers of ground troops. So it's realistic for them both to ask for help, and to ask for specific limits on that help.

Now that it's established that we will actually help, it makes sense for others to ask for help, and it makes sense to wait to help until asked. It's a "best practice" that was enabled by invading Iraq without being asked.

I think this is an interesting take. My initial response was that it still seems like the majority of these uprisings, still specifically ask that we not intervene, even in the case of Iran where you can argue that they lost. But it does matter, at least to me, that the Libyans asked for our help.

Ultimately, I think the source of these revolutions is simply that we have entered a communications era in which dictators are no longer able to control their message.