Libya

Jetmech_63

As many of you know I've made a living the past 14 years on active duty but even this boggles my mind to no end. How was firing 112+ Tomahawk Land Attack Missles into a country, without provocation, not an act of war? That was not our fight. Doesn't suprised me one bit they shot down our F15(mechanical failure my ass... I'm a jet mechanic). I am so sick of us using the UN to completley bypass congress and the constitution. The last time we declared war was WW2... Fact. And the "war on terror" doesn't count.... Declaring war on a self sustaining ideal..... Please don't touch that, that a whole diffrent thread. Now is the rest of the world going to think if they can publicize the injustice that is happening intheir countries, organize a half ass rebellion then uncle Sam will be right there to support it with firepower in the name of freedom and democracy for all? I find it harder and harder every day to support and defend the document that were not even using anymore. If anyone can tell me how that was not an act of war, I'm all ears.... Because I can't come up with any.

Amos_Umwhat

Seems like war to me. We've been using convenient excuses to circumvent the Constitution for so long it's become convention. Maybe people are truly just happier with an elected King, than a constitutional government. Certainly there was effort to consolidate power in the executive branch all through the first decade of this century, with little regard as to long term outcome.

lilwing88

Obama was too scared to declare actual war without congressional approval cuz Joe Biden might impeach him. So, he tricked Biden and was like, "No way, Joe. It's not war. The UN says its cool, man" To which Joe chuckled and wiped his brow dramatic like and said "Phew!"

Nuthin to see here folks. Move along.......

rossdavey2

I just think of history repeating. about 200 years ago if the French didn't support the rebels in the US we would still be under the royal family over here. Now the French didn't do it out the goodness of their hearts, but for future gain and to bloody the nose of an enemy.

Now we have the US helping the Lib's, and I'm sure have some demands for certain things once the dust has settled, and settling the score the English didn't (the Lockaby bombing).

I ain't saying I am for this "war", but if the US wants to keep calling its self the leader of the free world. Things like this are going to happen. Just world history the powerful nations romp all over till they extend to far and fall down a little, get a sense not to stick their noses into things that go boom, then another big kid comes around and starts again.

I'm just praying for our men and woman serving and their families and that we get our arses out before we get stuck down again.

Theedge

What these countries lack are great spokespeople. I don’t see anyone standing up to declare that they have some framework they want to put into place, that is better than the one they have. How about some document at least declaring all men/women equal? Freedom of religion? The press? Something? Anything? Give me some reason to believe that the new leaders will be benevolent.

rossdavey2

Theedge:

What these countries lack are great spokespeople. I don’t see anyone standing up to declare that they have some framework they want to put into place, that is better than the one they have. How about some document at least declaring all men/women equal? Freedom of religion? The press? Something? Anything? Give me some reason to believe that the new leaders will be benevolent.

Good point.

Vulchor

I agree with you Jet-----and Wing, can we have any discussion without having to make it a political debate? I can name plenty of instances where the Right Wing has used force against an ememy as well, so why do you incessantly see the need to turn something political when it is really a statement about the country and consituation as a whole...not an attack on one person or party, or another?

lilwing88

Vulchor:

I agree with you Jet-----and Wing, can we have any discussion without having to make it a political debate? I can name plenty of instances where the Right Wing has used force against an ememy as well, so why do you incessantly see the need to turn something political when it is really a statement about the country and consituation as a whole...not an attack on one person or party, or another?

Just a joke, Vulch. Just a joke....

But it's hard to not bring politics into this when our elected officials are the ones making the decisions in these matters. They bring it upon themselves. I woulda made the same joke about Bush or any other politician, for that matter. And I don't see how my joke was "political". Just pointing out the obvious that everyone is aware of. As far as the discussion: Is this a war? I don't know. Seems kinda like it. And like Ross points out, there is probably an "end game" here for us to get involved. Which is politics at it's finest. When it comes to war or military action, politics will be involved and fingers will be pointed. Nature of the beast, I guess.

In other words: "Don't hate tha playa, hate tha game...."

Vulchor

I understand it was a joke---though lets be honest, it really wasnt as the Obama feelings you have a true there---but it was cloaked as a joke. That being said, I joke more than anyone and am not trying to say not to. Im just saying this is a very important and good discussion to have in the broad spectrum, and not something that needs to turn into another worn out left vs right B.S.

As for the topic-----War is War. Elected officials, as they have done forever, have found a way to give multiple meanings, ways to achieve, and purposes to the word to fit their own agendas or for the sake of humankind (depending on who is asking). What is the ulitimate goal here? To me it seems the same thing we have been trying to do since WWII, and this is the "spead of democracy". Which, seemlingly all to often when we get invovled, leads to dictators--failure----endless quagmires...or a combo of the three.

Amos_Umwhat

rossdavey2:

Theedge:

What these countries lack are great spokespeople. I don’t see anyone standing up to declare that they have some framework they want to put into place, that is better than the one they have. How about some document at least declaring all men/women equal? Freedom of religion? The press? Something? Anything? Give me some reason to believe that the new leaders will be benevolent.

Good point.

Very good point, a little clarity might help us in choosing who we support. What I like, is that these people are standing up for themselves, instead of waiting for "liberators" to arrive and tell them what to do. What is dangerous, is; who the heck are we to support? how do we avoid repeating the mistakes we've made time and time again in the past?

lilwing88

Vulchor:

I understand it was a joke---though lets be honest, it really wasnt as the Obama feelings you have a true there---but it was cloaked as a joke. That being said, I joke more than anyone and am not trying to say not to. Im just saying this is a very important and good discussion to have in the broad spectrum, and not something that needs to turn into another worn out left vs right B.S.

As for the topic-----War is War. Elected officials, as they have done forever, have found a way to give multiple meanings, ways to achieve, and purposes to the word to fit their own agendas or for the sake of humankind (depending on who is asking). What is the ulitimate goal here? To me it seems the same thing we have been trying to do since WWII, and this is the "spead of democracy". Which, seemlingly all to often when we get invovled, leads to dictators--failure----endless quagmires...or a combo of the three.

Touche..... You're right. I'm no fan of Obama's policies or his administration. Any shot I can take at him or his administration, I'm gonna go for. Is it a Right vs Left thing? I guess. Maybe. But like I said, they bring it upon themselves when they tend to contradict themselves or their so-called values. If we're being honest here, the "Peaceful President" is turning out to be anything but...... I don't know what it is. Obama seems to make the wrong decision regarding every conflict going on in the ME. Is it bad luck? Poor judgment? Misinformation? Yo no se.....

To expand on the discussion a little, look at how the situation in Egypt has progressed. The Muslim Brotherhood, you know, the tiny group that everyone said was insignificant and not to be worried about, are now in cahoots with the Egyptian military and seem to be calling the shots now. The youth, the poor frustrated youth that took to the streets, the internet and the media to fight for their rights are now just an afterthought. Now the NYT is reporting that the MB and the military struck a deal long before Mubarek stepped down. Hmmmmmm....

Or what about Palestine vs Israel? How many more rockets need to be launched in Gaza before we declare a no-fly zone there? Why can't Obama and Netanyahu get on the same page? I think Israel deserves our full support. If ever there's a case to be made for a country in the ME who's intentions are true democracy, Israel is it. So, what's the problem there? In my opinion, it's an ego thing. Netanyahu won't kiss the proverbial ring on Obamas hand. As a guy who's been involved in the peace process in the ME for many decades, why should he have to give in to some nobody from Hawaii? So, I can't blame him for not jumping on the "Peaceful President" bandwagon. He has a country to protect.

The coalition-led whatever you wanna call it in Libya is just the tip of the iceberg in the ME. How it unfolds over the next few days or weeks, is anyone's guess. I just worry about which side our President will choose and where we'll stand as a nation when the dust settles.

xmacro

But . . . but . . . but . . . Obama says its not a war, it's just a kinetic military operation

lilwing88

xmacro:

But . . . but . . . but . . . Obama says its not a war, it's just a kinetic military operation

Yea! And Michelle approves cuz it's "organic"!!! LOL!

jr_p951

You know...I do follow whats going on in the world but after a while of hearing about those types of things, I just tune it out. Either way I'd be going if they told me to. I'd rather read and follow about natural disasters or who we're helping over who's butt I'll be kicking next. I'm currently on my 5th combat tour in the 3rd different country. Making is a 6th combat tour in a 4th different country is just another day. I still lace up my boots and grab my pack. As long as I get paid on the 1st and 15th, its my job to serve and thats what I'll do. But we do have a right to an opinion on things and i see what your saying.

lilwing88

jr_p951:

You know...I do follow whats going on in the world but after a while of hearing about those types of things, I just tune it out. Either way I'd be going if they told me to. I'd rather read and follow about natural disasters or who we're helping over who's butt I'll be kicking next. I'm currently on my 5th combat tour in the 3rd different country. Making is a 6th combat tour in a 4th different country is just another day. I still lace up my boots and grab my pack. As long as I get paid on the 1st and 15th, its my job to serve and thats what I'll do. But we do have a right to an opinion on things and i see what your saying.

Thank you for your service and your input.

JCizzle

jr_p951:

As long as I get paid on the 1st and 15th...

+1 This is job security for a lot of folks.

Krieg

So I watched Obama's speech last night...did you happen to notice that the rationale that Obama gave last night for his decision to send the American military into action in Libya pretty much parallel the reasons that George W. Bush gave for sending our jets and our troops to both Iraqi and Afghanistan? Now of course the Obama supporters are going to say that this simply isn't so. Detractors will say oh yeah it is. Just find a transcript of the speech somewhere and try to read it with an open mind and then compared to the statements made by Bush years ago.

Perhaps the one aspect of Obama's speech that bothered me the most was the realization that virtually all of the reasons Obama gave for intervening in Libya could well have been applied to Iran and several other middle-eastern countries. When the people of Iran rose up against their own Muslim dictators, Barack Obama decided we didn't have a camel in that fight. Why was it so different in Libya? Now that's what I would've liked to have heard last night ... Obama telling the American people why it was so important that we spend what will amount to over $1 billion to help the rebels in Libya when it was not important at all that we step forward to help the rebels in Iran. Perhaps the reason he didn't make a distinction between the two is because there is none.

So where do we stand now? Well, we can spend endless hours arguing about whether or not Obama should have sent our military into action in support of the Libyan rebels. A better idea would be to save that particular debate until this is over. The fact is our military is now engaged on the side of the rebels, whoever they happen to be, against the Libyan dictator. We must see this through. If this little adventure ends with anything less than the death or the exile of Qaddafi, America will be seen as weak, and other Mideast Islamic tyrants will be strengthened in their resolve to resist any effort at reform.

I'm still of the opinion that Libya presented no threat to any vital American interests, and that this is essentially a civil war. That matters not at this point. America is in, let's do the job and get out. And then maybe we can ask questions as to why Barack Obama didn't lend the same level of support to the rebels in Iran that he did to those in Libya. After all, Qaddafi eliminated his nuclear program -- and Iran's is still going strong.

stephen_hannibal

+1 Krieg

Vidarien

Krieg:

Perhaps the one aspect of Obama's speech that bothered me the most was the realization that virtually all of the reasons Obama gave for intervening in Libya could well have been applied to Iran and several other middle-eastern countries. When the people of Iran rose up against their own Muslim dictators, Barack Obama decided we didn't have a camel in that fight. Why was it so different in Libya? Now that's what I would've liked to have heard last night ... Obama telling the American people why it was so important that we spend what will amount to over $1 billion to help the rebels in Libya when it was not important at all that we step forward to help the rebels in Iran. Perhaps the reason he didn't make a distinction between the two is because there is none.

The people in Iran "kinda" rose. There was no armed rebellion, there were marches/demonstrations, which the Grand Ayatollah put down with fairly extreme prejudice. But beyond that, Libya is a place where we can launch a few hundred tomahawks, run some air patrols and see what happens. Iran, on the other hand...thats an "all in" situation. Theres no hedging there, its Iraq on steroids. They are fanatic, devout, and have a rather large guard that will burn the country down before seeing the theocracy fall. It would require air, sea, and boots on the ground...lots. Far more than we used in Afghanistan or Iraq. The Sunni Muslims are relatively westernized as is, but the Shiites, of which Iran is the core,....they're cutthroats and theyd Vietnam us. I dont think we'll ever go play in Iran unless theres simply no other way (Israel unilaterally knocks out Irans facilities if they get too close to the bomb...Iran retaliates...we're forced in..etc)

Amos_Umwhat

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that putting boots on the ground in Iran would be about as smart as drinking gasoline and lighting farts.

Vulchor

I agree with the point of your post Krieg totally, and that is my belief that we have no business there, or just about anywhere else. I am pretty close to an isolationist and am tired of losing lives and spending money to help people hundreds of years behind the civilized world that I have no belief in their ability to form anything civilized and keep it that way (hello there Iraq).

I will take a bit of issue, as Im sure you figured I would, with the Obama part. I think this is unfair to him because I think a Republican president would have taken the same action. This is obsviously true, since we went to war in Iraq in basically the same fashion. Additionally, days before be went into Libya many on the right (Mr. Hannity) were screaming at Obama for allowing people to die and he does nothing----so hes caught in the political game and news cycle here as well. At the end of the day-----the chance to flex militatary muscles, justify the contracts for the military inductrial complex, and worries about the already astronomical price of oil (relatively speaking) was too much to not do anything. This is no different that any president we have has since Dwight Eisnhower....dont blame Obama (or at least not solely), blame the system and the fact we allow it.

Schrooz

Why are we meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation? If the citiizens of Lybia have the gumption to take on their governing powers let them go at it on their own. Why did we have to get involved? I am curious also.

clearlysuspect

Vulchor:

What is the ulitimate goal here? To me it seems the same thing we have been trying to do since WWII, and this is the "spead of democracy". Which, seemlingly all to often when we get invovled, leads to dictators--failure----endless quagmires...or a combo of the three.

My only problem with the "spread of democracy" deal is when you actually get down to it and define democracy. Democracy doesn't mean just one thing. It's definition is comprised by the people within the democracy. It's not the same thing in America or China as it is in Egypt, Libya, or anywhere else. So what happens when everyone in Egypt get together and vote and 85% of the people vote that homosexuals should be stoned to death, when 75% of the people vote women who claim to be raped and don't have 4 witnesses should be stoned to death, when 90% of the people vote that thieves should have their hands cut off, and 73% of the people believe that punishment for detaching from Islam should be death. How does that "democracy" look now? (note: didn't get these #'s from any particular pole, but it's pretty close to right in Egypt... point is it's definately more than 51%)

There is a reason why our founders rejected democracy and went with a constitutional republic. Democracy leads to mob rule which leads to the suppression of the minority, not the protection of the minority. Without a constitution setting out basic rights as humans and citizens, whoever gets the most votes can do whatever they want.

Sorry. Call me what you want, but I don't view anyone who believes in Sharia Law as human (or humane, if you like that word better) and certainly not worth fighting for.

I agree with Theedge. Most of the people in the middle east don't have anywhere close to the same values as we have in the west. Why are we fighting for them? I fought in Operation Iraqi Freedom and I never really like the explainations that Bush gave for going over there. All he really had to say is "Look how they treat their women," and most of the soldiers I knew and I would have been glad to lace it up and go kick some butt.