WAR NO. 3: US FIRES MISSILES INTO LIBYA - Part 3

As the conflict rages on…the thread takes a new turn…

For the record, I do not support this “military” action of the current American regime.

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]As the conflict rages on…the thread takes a new turn…

For the record, I do not support this “military” action of the current American regime.[/quote]

So we went from “current Administration” to “current American regime”. subtle.

It looks like I’m not the only one questioning Obomber’s pretext for intervention!

“The borking of Qaddafi”? Surely “Obomber’s Rovian Electoral War Room” would be a better title.

[quote=“Tigerman”]It looks like I’m not the only one questioning Obomber’s pretext for intervention![/quote]You and a blogger at Redstate. I know you can do better than that. Let me help…you know, lest anyone accuse you of total partisanship :laughing: :

[quote=“LA Times”]Now comes some polling data on Americans’ collective reactions: In short, not good for the good talker. His speech didn’t muster support. In fact, his approval on national security has fallen since he spoke. A year ago, 45% of American voters rated the president positively on national security and 32% poorly.

After he attacked Libya but before he explained it, while he toured South America with his family, 43% of American voters gave President Obama positive marks for his handling of national security issues. Only about a third (34%) rated him poorly in that area.

However, after Obama explained himself and his decision, the numbers basically reversed: The good or excellent rating fell to 37%, while the poor grade jumped to 40%.[/quote]

The realpolitik in me says that it’s not ok to use force for idealistic reasons. Vietnam and Libya are those pointless interventions waged by liberals that don’t affect our national security and interests.

We might be worse off under the rebels than Qaddafi. By supporting the rebels, we might be opening a can of worms that will provide an unstable environment for terrorists to thrive. How do we know whether the rebels are opportunistic fighters (like the mujahideen in Afghanistan) or whether they are committed to humane/democratic governance? We don’t even know where they stand when it comes to governance.

We should be concentrating on Egypt, the heart of the Arab world, rather than Libya. Egypt is a far more important country than Libya ever will be.

As far as I know, all of our recent wars were waged by the nation’s center-right establishment, which as Gore Vidal once pointed out, has two wings, the lower-classes-can-be-safely-screwed wing, and the lower-classes-must-be-bought-off wing, popularly known as the Republicans and Democrats. Currently the former wing is in ascendancy. Labels like “liberal” and “conservative” mean little when applied to the elites that decide when to benefit large US corporations by splashing money all over them and bombs all over little brown people.

Vorkosigan

Yugoslavia caught a fair number of bombs and yet has not many ‘little brown people’.

That’s a fairly vile way of stating a nasty opinion.

Yugoslavia caught a fair number of bombs and yet has not many ‘little brown people’.

That’s a fairly vile way of stating a nasty opinion.[/quote]

It’s a fairly vile thing, maiming and killing other human beings to generate profits for corporations. It can only be described in terms that are equally vile.

Yugoslavia caught a fair number of bombs and yet has not many ‘little brown people’.

That’s a fairly vile way of stating a nasty opinion.[/quote]

It’s a fairly vile thing, maiming and killing other human beings to generate profits for corporations. It can only be described in terms that are equally vile.[/quote]

Sure, warfare is all about corporate profits. Politics has nothing to do with it… :loco: :unamused:

The funny thing about what you say about liberal and conservatives meaning little when applied to elites is it is only half right. It means little in the sum total of U.S. politics full stop. Both terms have been so corrupted from their proper meaning they really are nothing but labels. Also, blame the ‘elites’ all you like but the fact of the matter is you have the so called little people who follow their selected leader slavishly and without any independent thought. I’m reasonably confindent that you could have Obama come out a say he is for shrinking government and privatizing the US post office and having McCain advocate gun control and tomorrow FOX new would be running stories on out of control gun crimes and the need for control while MSNBC would be running a story advocating the invasion of Iran.

:ponder: I think I know what you were trying to get at there…didn’t quite work out in the end. I agree that the terms have become meaningless and I try to avoid using them (though I do slip from time to time). But this is a little OT.

It’s more clear that the terms become meaningless in a situation like this. On the surface, a conservative (Ron Paul) and liberal (Kucinich) should have nothing in common, right? But in the case of Libya, they are on the same page. It remains to be seen how either of these two, being on the fringes of their own parties, can gain support for their bill to defund the invasion. Most partisans are too busy trying to make sure they are distinct from their rivals to actually think too carefully about the issue at hand…just look at the mess with the pending government shutdown and the countless times bipartisan commissions have come up with smart solutions to real problems, only to be shut down because neither side can claim credit/blame the other. They are not just labels because each side buys into it to keep the distinctions alive so that they can feel more relevant.

So, how’s Obomber’s smart war going?


Libyan rebels near Ajdabiya ‘killed in NATO air strike’

Ooooh… That’s not good. What was it Obomber said about air raids? So, now we’re thinking of putting boots on the ground?


The United States may consider sending troops into Libya with a possible international ground force that could aid the rebels, according to the general who led the military mission until NATO took over.

Wonder how that will affect the coalition?

What’s this? Even smart wars are expensive?


A Democratic lawmaker said Thursday that the White House is “dramatically underestimating” the cost of the nation’s military involvement in Libya by relying on misleading accounting.

Obomber’s administration is the most transparent administration ever! Hush! Don’t start talking about a quagmire, already!


NATO Fears War without End in Libya

What Obomber is against, is a dumb war!

Hahaha. It’s all so predictable, isn’t it?

this just in: His birth certificate is from Libya, that’s why he is bombing Libya. This all makes sense now. we can all rest in pieces.

Hmmm… :ponder:

[quote]
Prospects fade for military overthrow of Gaddafi…
[/quote]


The front in Libya is barely moving as the country remains split between rebels and Gadhafi’s troops. The rebels are complaining of not receiving enough air support, but NATO is hardly in a position to ramp it up after the withdrawal of US fighter jets. The resulting stalemate underscores the lack of a clear strategy for the allies in Libya.

What Obomber doesn’t like, is a dumb war…

Is it true that NATO can’t do enough without the U.S.? Either that’s a pretty sad reflection of how dependent Europe is on the U.S. (and how hypocritical they are in constantly complaining about its hegemony) or they’re just playing a little game here because they don’t want to have to put their collective money where their collective mouth is.

I’m beginning to think that Tigerman may have a point. Obama may be almost just as retarded as Bush. Hard to believe.

Once in a while you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right… (at 1:52 of the video below)

:slight_smile:

Almost. If he sends ground troops and spends as much as Bush did in Iraq, I will say he is just as retarded. Until then, Bush gets the retard award, with Obama coming in second, Reagan an ultra close third, with Clinton and Bush I tied for fourth. (The only presidents I can remember)

I wouldn’t put either George the First or Clinton in the top ten. Bush is without question the worst president in the nation’s history, and was a world-historical catastrophe. Future generations will wonder at the eight years in which America took stupid pills, at least until they are boiled to death in the global warming that Bush inaction and venality handed down to them. Obama is merely a local disaster that bears close watching because he is threatening to exceed Bush. But if he leaves office in 2016 with as little done on the urgent necessities like global warming, he’ll certainly be number 2 behind Bush…

Vorkosigan