Win Win
President Obama will explain the Libyan adventure early Monday evening. Most people support limited military action to take out the bad guy and prevent the killing of civilians, especially if it doesn’t drag on for years and cost hundreds of billions. It seems to me that for the first time in I-don’t-know-how-many-decades, U.S. military action is actually up to something half-good.
Given the rest of Obama’s dithering, compromised record, I am far less inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. And I must say, I don’t think we will ever have sane policies in America until “take out the bad guy” is eliminated from the lexicon. Taking out bad guys does not seem to have significantly diminished the number of bad guys cropping up, but it does appear to have significantly diminished the prosperity and honorability of countries who maintain it as foreign policy.
And are you going to suggest that it’s, once again, not about oil? How, then, are the cases made for non-intervention elsewhere? I’m not theoretically against the job of “global policeman,” but then take it on; we should not just answer calls from troubled countries with resources we want to go on exploiting.
Or, if it’s about “democracy” now, we’ve had democracy for centuries, and a worsening parade of assholes and fucktards in political office could hardly be imagined. Based on the U.S. experiment democracy is not the answer, either, although I will admit that with some major tweaking (which is not going to happen) it could be a lot better.
One thing’s for sure. Any “war” taken on by France, Canada & a liberal American president won’t be for neo-colonial reasons.
Obama is 100% correct to allow the French and British to lead the way on this one – they have the most strategic interest in the outcome.
Jeff, I wonder if we should apply your logic for U.S. involvement in Libya to Chavez? Wouldn’t that be a hoot?
No, no, no…Hugo Chavez is basically an okay guy. A strong Bolivarian!
Jeff: You do know Chavez defended Gadaffi, right? I think it’s more hypocritical of Farrakhan doing it, though, because for years, he’s been trying to use the anti-Semitism card to equate black oppression with that of Arab oppression, and now he’s trying to justify the latter because of his own conflict of interest. Fortunately, that’ll finally bring both of them down without us having to do anything.
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.
Please note, there’s a period at the end of that sentence. You wouldn’t argue with a constitutional scholar, would you?
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/
Qaddafi is a bad guy. I hope he hangs. BUT…
If we had to go to war– we didn’t– we should have debated this in Congress instead of behind close doors in the UN– we didn’t– and we should have gone to war weeks ago when Qaddafi was on the run– we didn’t– and now that we’re at war we should have the courage to publicly (rather than privately) lead the effort– we don’t– and we should depose Qadaffi to prevent his inevitable vengeance– we won’t.
But at least we have a coalition in place this time. The smallest coalition the U.S. has fought with in decades, but *this* coalition has France, Qatar, and Al Qaeda as part of it, so it must be legitimate.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html
Other than all that, yeah, it’s a win-win.
This week’s edition of “Whatever Obama’s for, we’re against” from the GOP has been extra hilarious as Gringrich and others surely slipped some discs as they had to reverse themselves in the span of 3 weeks.
Maher’s right about the Right: they’re infantile Meth heads.
“Most people support limited military action to take out the bad guy and prevent the killing of civilians”
Imagine that I just posted links to about 90% of the posts here over the last decade to prove how untrue this is.
“Or, if it’s about “democracy” now, we’ve had democracy for centuries, and a worsening parade of assholes and fucktards in political office could hardly be imagined. Based on the U.S. experiment democracy is not the answer, either, although I will admit that with some major tweaking (which is not going to happen) it could be a lot better.”
I’m with you, Quality. I don’t think democracy is the answer for everyone. And it is definitely not perfect either. Look at Japan. Democracy and capitalism sure didn’t work very well for them. Now look at China. They’re taking a much more regulated approach to capitalism and you know what–I bet they have a much better system than we do. At the very least, they probably won’t have this Wall Street fiasco.
JAODIAW: “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.”
Well, unfortunately, him destroying our oil supplies is a threat. And you could further argue that if Gadaffi wins, he might be empowered to pull another Lockerbie as retribution for (mostly)international support for the protestors.
I think Moore’s got the worst arguments against the war, though. He hasn’t been this wrong since Yugoslavia. That’s why the left has always been considered out there, because while it’s true that war is generally immoral, sometimes it *is* justified. And if they protest every war, then it dilutes the importance of the ones which *were* unjustified, which is partly why the American public was so quick to forget about Vietnam. Everything was *not* fine until now, or the Libyans wouldn’t be losing. We stayed out of the way this long, and
they’re *still* out-gunned. And we finally have a chance to be on the right side of history again, or at least the more popular side, and these peaceniks[Well, unless it's Israel, then rockets and bombs against civilians are "justified".] are now trying to second-guess the will of the people in these countries, just because it disagrees with their own ideology.
BTW, if I’m always wrong, does that mean you agree with Farrakhan?
400blows: “They’re taking a much more regulated approach to capitalism and you know what–I bet they have a much better system than we do.”
Yes, having a Nobel Peace Prize winner rotting in jail is truly noble. I mean, it worked for South Africa, after all.
*against Israel*, I mean
DeathTongue wrote-
“This week’s edition of “Whatever Obama’s for, we’re against” from the GOP has been extra hilarious as Gringrich and others surely slipped some discs as they had to reverse themselves in the span of 3 weeks.”
You’re absolutely right. (case in point, Hannity) Now, if you’d agree that the same goes in reverse, you’d be on to something. (hint: look no further than Jeffrey’s support of this military engagement to “take out the bad guy and prevent the killing of civilians”) And suddenly Rachel Maddow is a hawk. (“oh, but THIS is different….”)
In short, that’s why politics are so maddeningly ridiculous.
Times like this I actually have respect for kooks like Code Pink and Dennis Kucinich. At least they’re consistent.
actionlover: Yeah, but as I noted, they’re consistent to the point that they thought stopping Milosevic and Pol Pot were bad ideas.
“Most people support limited military action to take out the bad guy and prevent the killing of civilians”
Imagine that I just posted links to about 90% of the posts here over the last decade to prove how untrue this is.
Well, unfortunately, him destroying our oil supplies is a threat.
A war for oil is okay *now*. Got it, thanks.
BTW, “our” oil supplies? The U.S. just went back into the Libyan oil market in 1995. The vast majority of Libya’s oil exports go to European companies including– surprise– the French.
And you could further argue that if Gadaffi wins, he might be empowered to pull another Lockerbie as retribution for (mostly)international support for the protestors.
In 2003 I could also have argued that Saddam Hussein was empowered to invade other countries, attempt assassinations of former presidents, harbor known terrorists and evade seventeen United Nations resolutions as retribution for (mostly) international support for the Kurds and southern Shiites, so why not take *him* out?
I didn’t expect this week’s edition of “Whatever Obama’s for, we’re for” to be so entertaining.
edit: 2005.
“Please note, there’s a period at the end of that sentence.”
On the other hand, under the War Powers Resolution, the president has the ability to send troops anywhere he wants as long as he notifies Congress within 48 hours and the troops don’t spend more than 60 days there. You wouldn’t argue with a recognized act of law that has been the basis of the war in Iraq and many other military actions since Vietnam, would you?
“Qaddafi is a bad guy. I hope he hangs. BUT…”
Well, we aren’t leading it. We’ve used cruise missiles, yes, but other than that, we’re not doing anything. We’re not enforcing a no-fly zone, we’re not using any troops, and we’re not surveying the country to help maintain that no-fly zone. Hell, we’re preparing to step back soon and let the other countries do everything. So, to put it bluntly, you’re wrong about everything in that paragraph.
“Al Qaeda as part of it, so it must be legitimate.”
It doesn’t mean that they’re fighting to make Libya an Al Qaeda haven. I’m sure that there are Al Qaeda and Taliban members who were in the Tunisia and Egyptian revolutions. These people are trying to take down a dictator and get a democracy going, which is no different than what’s going on in Iraq, Afghanistan and so many other Middle Eastern countries.
“Hell, we’re preparing to step back soon and let the other countries do everything.”.
Well, color me reassured. Thanks, the thing!
JAODIAW: “A war for oil is okay *now*. Got it, thanks.”
I didn’t say it was “ok”, but given the fact that the Sauds have indirectly declared hitting peak oil, Gadaffi’s clearly not helping things. Personally, I think we shouldn’t have re-opened trade ties with him in the *first* place. But if he’s going to use our money to murder people again and fuck up our new deals, then we clearly have a personal interest in stopping him.
“BTW, “our” oil supplies? The U.S. just went back into the Libyan oil market in 1995.”
Actually, we renewed ties with them in ’03.
“In 2003 I could also have argued that Saddam Hussein was empowered to invade other countries, attempt assassinations of former presidents, harbor known terrorists and evade seventeen United Nations resolutions as retribution for (mostly) international support for the Kurds and southern Shiites, so why not take *him* out?”
Except Gadaffi’s had a *history* of terrorism and, unlike Saddam, seems ready to take everyone down with him if he doesn’t get what he wants.
“I didn’t expect this week’s edition of “Whatever Obama’s for, we’re for” to be so entertaining.”
I’m not for *everything* he’s for, but he’s in the right so far on this issue. I don’t really get the liberal backlash against this, either. We’re finally overthrowing one of the fascist thugs who’s profited off of the military-industrial-oil complex for far too long-and with the support of that country’s people, to boot-and it’s *still* wrong in your eyes. So what would you rather do? Wait it out, have Guhdaffy crush the opposition, and then
fund other oppressive movements in that region?
What I’d rather do is spend American money in America on Americans.
All you full of shit bleeding hearts, you do know that if we cut only defense spending and end these illegal wars, we could have enough money so no cuts to Medicare or Social Security would ever have to be made? If we close all those unnecessary bases we have around the world, we don’t need to cut a single social safety net.
But no, let’s spend our tax dollars helping out some shitbag country with a two bit dictator. WHO CARES ABOUT LIBYA OR LIBYANS! It has NOTHING to do with us, just as Iraq had nothing to do with us. This war is illegal, and Obama needs to be held accountable. The U.N. does not send us into war, Congress does.
And enough about the oil shit. Libya is not even in the top ten of countries we import our oil from. We get less than 5% of our oil from them. This is a European problem that should be fought by the Europeans. NOT OUR PROBLEM!!!
‘If we had to go to war– we didn’t– we should have debated this in Congress instead of behind close doors in the UN– we didn’t– and we should have gone to war weeks ago when Qaddafi was on the run– we didn’t-’
So weeks ago with Q on the run, we should have had a debate in the Republican House? Have you seen how Tea Baggers debate? That ‘debate’ would have taken months and probably would have revolved around ‘Obama is a secret Muslim’, the new Black Panther party and George Soros. Seems like there was a serious time constraint, if the air strikes hadn’t happened when they did, it would all be over now but the crying. Congress is too dysfunctional to handle that debate in a timely fashion, especially now that white conservatives are in a white hot cultural panic.
Policies aren’t really an issue for these hillbillies, there isn’t a single policy that they wouldn’t flip flop on if the Left suddenly decided it was good policy. The end of white Christian cultural hegemony is upon us, soon whites will be a majority minority, and as long as the Left allows black, Hispanics, Muslims and gays a voice, the Right will always hate them. That’s it. That’s the only issue. There’s a black man in office and the Hispanic population is exploding and the gheys are EVERYWHERE.
All that said, I am extremely worried about this venture. Things look good now, but they could go bad. This is an extraordinary time with what’s going on in the ME.
Deep, Licentious. Really deep, man.
actionlover, don’t how deep, but its true and you know it.
Duluoz: “This is a European problem that should be fought by the Europeans. NOT OUR PROBLEM!!!”
Yeah, but they’re really bad at fighting.
Licentious: That’s true. I mean, the Repugs were considered more “moderate” in the Clinton years, and they still wasted time on Whitewater and Monica while Oklahoma City and the U.S.S. Cole were being blown up. Hell, the last time Barry “consulted” with them, we had a massive oil spill in the Gulf.
Yeah, they’ve been in power in the House for 3 months and apparently the big problems facing this country are: Muslim and mosques, gay marriage, gays in the military and the new Black Panther Party. I guess it’s just a coincidence that all the big conservative issues revolve around non whites, non Christians and non heteros. Big coincidence.
Before it begins, you know Fox News will be against it. Just keep repeating this: Thank God McCain is not president.
Those teabagging Repugnantcans would be all for attacking Libya if it were filled with black people and gay people, because they hate black people and gay people and would like to see them dead! Fuck them and their Faux news.
Wanjialistone is a Kerb stone, Granite tombstone , Grey Granite factory .Many things are worth considering like granite countertop, Black Granite.You also can see other things,May be Granite Monument, Granite Paver or Shell mosaic,G635.Silmilar such as G684, Granite monuments and Culture Stone, Gray Granite.
payment model change imminent
Hey you have a very nice blog
Download gta iv