Author Topic: Obama's illegal war  (Read 66705 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39256
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #75 on: March 22, 2011, 05:30:47 AM »
John Hawkins
7 Questions For Liberals About Obama's Libyan War
Email John Hawkins


http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2011/03/22/7_questions_for_liberals_about_obamas_libyan_war/page/full






It seems like it was just yesterday when we had an "imperialist warmonger" in the White House who was going to be replaced by a peace-loving Democrat who promised "hope" and "change" instead. It's funny how that worked out, isn't it? We still have troops in Iraq, we've escalated the war in Afghanistan, and now we're bombing everything that moves in Libya. Yet, the same liberals who were protesting in the streets and calling George Bush a war criminal have mostly been meek and quiet about the fact that the President they supported has been following in George Bush's footsteps.

So, the obvious question is, “Did you lefties believe ANY of the crap you were spewing about the war on terrorism before Obama got into office?” If so, maybe you could answer a few questions prompted by the things liberals were saying during the Bush years.

1) Isn't this is a rush to war? There were 17 UN resolutions regarding Iraq, Bush talked about going to war for a full year before we actually invaded, and he received Congressional approval first. After all that, liberals STILL shouted that it was a "rush to war." Meanwhile, Obama decided to bomb Libya in between making his Final Four picks and planning out a vacation to Brazil, probably because Hillary yelled at him. How about applying the same standards to Obama that you applied to Bush?

2) Is Obama invading Libya because Gaddafi insulted him? Liberals claimed George Bush invaded Iraq because Saddam tried to assassinate his father. Using that same line of thinking, could the notoriously thin-skinned Obama be bombing Libya because he's still angry that Gaddafi once said this about him?

We fear that Obama will feel that, because he is black with an inferiority complex, this will make him behave worse than the whites. This will be a tragedy. We tell him to be proud of himself as a black and feel that all Africa is behind him because if he sticks to this inferiority complex he will have a worse foreign policy than the whites had in the past.

Obama doesn't have much use for anyone who criticizes him. Even his spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright learned all about what the underside of a bus looks like after he dared to criticize Obama. Is that Obama's real motivation? Hmmmmmmm, liberals?

3) Is this a war for oil? What was it liberals kept saying over and over about Iraq? Oh yeah, it was "No blood for oil!" What was the rationale for claiming the war in Iraq was about oil? Iraq had oil; we were going to war there; so obviously it just MUST be about oil. That was it. So, Libya has oil and unlike Hussein, Gaddafi has been cooperative of late; so there's no compelling reason for America to invade....except perhaps, to safeguard all that Texas T. flowing beneath the sand. So, when do we have liberals in the streets shouting "No blood for oil?"

4) Where are the massive protests? Can't you just see it? The Communist Party, Code Pink, the black bloc, and the free Mumia wackjobs all joining together with the Tea Party to protest Obama. Wouldn't that be fun? I mean personally, I've been waiting for years to wear a "No Blood For Oil" sign while I carry around a giant puppet head. Someone call the commies and union members who organize all these hippie shindigs for the Left and let's do this thing!

5) Shouldn't we have tried to talk it out with Gaddafi instead? I thought that the Muslim world loves and respects America since Barack Obama became President? So, why not try to talk it out with Gaddaffi? Perhaps Obama should have been humble, realized he didn't have all the answers, and then he could have had a conversation with Gaddafi instead of threatening him? Maybe he should have considered the possibility that Libya's culture is a little different than ours. Had he perhaps met with Gaddafi and bowed to him to show his respect, this could have probably been worked out without violence. Oh, why, why must we be so arrogant and so ignorant of other nations’ rich cultural traditions, which in Libya apparently consist of murdering everyone who opposes you?

6) Aren't we just starting a cycle of violence by bombing Libya? You know what they say, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind!” We drop bombs on them, they get angry, and next thing you know, they turn into terrorists to get us back! That was what we heard from the Left over and over during the Bush years, wasn't it? That we were creating terrorists?

That's why liberals like Richard Gere suggested brilliant strategies like this to deal with Al-Qaeda:

In a situation like this, of course you identify with everyone who's suffering. (But we must also think about) the terrorists who are creating such horrible future lives for themselves because of the negativity of this karma. It's all of our jobs to keep our minds as expansive as possible. If you can see (the terrorists) as a relative who's dangerously sick and we have to give them medicine, and the medicine is love and compassion. There's nothing better.

Maybe instead of bombing Libya, Obama needs to engage in a little more love and compassion by hugging Gaddafi into submission!

7) Isn't Barack Obama a chickenhawk? Barack Obama has never served in the military; yet he just decided to engage in a "war of choice" in Libya. Even if you chalk up Iraq and Afghanistan to Obama cleaning up after Bush, this one is all on him. If American soliders die, it's because Obama chose to put them in harm's way. If Libyan civilians are killed by American weapons, it's because Barack Obama gave the order to attack. So, can we all agree that Barack Obama is a squawking, yellow bellied chickenhawk?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39256
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #76 on: March 22, 2011, 05:51:29 AM »

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #77 on: March 22, 2011, 06:19:51 AM »
of course its an illegal war.

is anyone really arguing that?

however, the president has, for the last 10 years, done whatever the fck he wants, without consequence.

Bush practically let 911 happen, invaded iraq on some BS, deleted 4 million emails, lost trillions on 9/10/2001, and did a bunch of other shit - and he just plain got away with it.

Obama looked at it and bitched for years - then realized "Hey, I can abuse power too, and people can't do jack shit!"

So, this is what you get, shitheads.  You laughed when bush did whatever the hell he wanted, just because it got the libs all pissy.  Now the libs are laughing as King Obama shits on the economy and does whatever he wants on libya.  He's just using the leash that bush left behind. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39256
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #78 on: March 22, 2011, 06:28:15 AM »
of course its an illegal war.

is anyone really arguing that?

however, the president has, for the last 10 years, done whatever the fck he wants, without consequence.

Bush practically let 911 happen, invaded iraq on some BS, deleted 4 million emails, lost trillions on 9/10/2001, and did a bunch of other shit - and he just plain got away with it.

Obama looked at it and bitched for years - then realized "Hey, I can abuse power too, and people can't do jack shit!"

So, this is what you get, shitheads.  You laughed when bush did whatever the hell he wanted, just because it got the libs all pissy.  Now the libs are laughing as King Obama shits on the economy and does whatever he wants on libya.  He's just using the leash that bush left behind. 


Like i said


bush palin bush palin bush palin bush palin bush palin bush palin.   

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #79 on: March 22, 2011, 06:34:13 AM »
Like i said
bush palin bush palin bush palin bush palin bush palin bush palin.   


actually, reagan did a shitload of dirt.  Bush1, lol...
CLinton?  you know the CTs
Bush did whatever the fck he wanted.
Obama just doing what the rest of em did.

it is what it is.  All you're doing is whining about the same shit everyone does.  kinda pointless.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39256
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #80 on: March 22, 2011, 06:51:15 AM »
From Iraq to Libya, Obama Becomes a Hypocrite
Townhall.com ^ | March 22, 2011 | Mona Charen


________________________ ________________________ _____


In the Democratic primary campaign of 2008, candidate Barack Obama scored points because he, unlike many Democrats, had opposed the Iraq War from the start. Though a state senator at the time of the 2002 congressional vote authorizing military action, Obama had delivered a speech to an anti-war rally in Chicago.

He said, "I don't oppose all wars ... What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."

Regarding the justifications for war with Iraq, state Sen. Obama was unpersuaded: "I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity ... But ... Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors ..."

As American forces join the war against Moammar Gadhafi, the nation is entitled to an explanation. How is the case for war against Gadhafi smarter (remember, Obama is only against "dumb" wars) or less "ideological" or more prudent than that for war against Saddam Hussein?

Certainly, with an army of only 50,000, Gadhafi represents far less of a threat to his neighbors or to us than did Saddam, who commanded an army estimated at 350,000. As for humanitarian concerns, what Gadhafi is doing to the rebels in Libya is exactly what Saddam did to his domestic enemies, but on a reduced scale. As Obama himself said, Saddam was "a ruthless man ... who butchers his own people to secure his power." Yet that didn't justify a war, state Sen. Obama told us.

Sen. Obama did not believe that Saddam posed a danger to the United States or to his neighbors -- though he had attacked or invaded three of his neighbors: Iran, Kuwait, and Israel. Yet Gadhafi has hardly ranged beyond his own borders.

While Obama (like the rest of the world) was convinced that Saddam had "developed chemical and biological weapons" -- and though he knew that Saddam had actually attacked his own people from the air with chemical weapons -- he didn't think that his possession of those weapons warranted war. In Gadhafi's case, there is no threat of WMD, as the dictator flamboyantly relinquished his WMD program after seeing Saddam's fate.

How are Obama's motives regarding military action against Moammar Gadhafi less "cynical" than those he was so contemptuous of in Wolfowitz and Perle? What "ideological agenda" was the Bush administration "shoving down our throats" that Obama is not himself duplicating? Is he opposed to the freedom agenda? What, exactly, was so obnoxious about the Bush program?

How has Obama concluded that a war against another Middle East villain is now justified and not "dumb" or "rash"? And on what principle can President Obama now decline to intervene on behalf of other freedom fighters around the globe?

We don't know, because unlike George Bush, who took his case for war to the American people through a vote in the United States Congress (with 110 Democrats voting in favor), President Obama has acted unilaterally -- putting our forces into harm's way based solely on his power as commander in chief. (Code Pink -- call your office!) If he is relying upon the vote in the United Nations as his mandate for military action, he is establishing a new principle of diminished U.S. sovereignty. American forces can now be ordered into action by the president and the U.N. but without the U.S. Congress?

On most of the foreign and security policy issues he preened himself about -- the folly of deposing despots, closing the prison at Guantanamo, using military tribunals to try terrorists, and withdrawing from Iraq, President Obama has reversed himself.

He has performed these reversals without explanation and without apology for his shrill condemnation of his predecessor. He condemned Bush's "ideology," but his own foreign policy seems to have amounted to marketing the image of himself as the first African-American president and the first Muslim-sympathetic president. Image-making is easier than policymaking -- and when it came time for decisions, President Obama dissolved into incoherence.


Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #81 on: March 22, 2011, 06:52:51 AM »

Like i said


bush palin bush palin bush palin bush palin bush palin bush palin.   

It's pretty sad. I can't think of a single instance since Obama was elected that 240 has actually criticized his messiah without justifying his actions by comparing him to Bush or Palin.

"Of course I don't support Obama's decision but Bush did this, this, and this so it's OK."  ::)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39256
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #82 on: March 22, 2011, 07:30:31 AM »
March 22, 2011
America's Descent Into Strategic Dementia
By Caroline Glick

www.realclearpolitics.co m




What the US foreign policy fights regarding Egypt and Libya indicate is that currently, a discussion about how events impact core US regional interests is completely absent from the discussion.

The US's new war against Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi is the latest sign of its steady regional decline. In media interviews over the weekend, US military chief Adm. Michael Mullen was hard-pressed to explain either the goal of the military strikes in Libya or their strategic rationale.

 
 Receive news alerts

Sign Up   
Caroline Glick RealClearPolitics
Egypt Middle East

foreign policy Barack Obama
Libya

  • More

 
Mullen's difficulty explaining the purpose of this new war was indicative of the increasing irrationality of US foreign policy.

Traditionally, states have crafted their foreign policy to expand their wealth and bolster their national security. In this context, US foreign policy in the Middle East has traditionally been directed towards advancing three goals: Guaranteeing the free flow of inexpensive petroleum products from the Middle East to global market; strengthening regimes and governments that are in a position to advance this core US goal at the expense of US enemies; and fighting against regional forces like the pan-Arabists and the jihadists that advance a political program inherently hostile to US power.


Other competing interests have periodically interfered with US Middle East policy. And these have to greater or lesser degrees impaired the US's ability to formulate and implement rational policies in the region.

These competing interests have included the desire to placate somewhat friendly Arab regimes that are stressed by or dominated by anti-US forces; a desire to foster good relations with Europe; and a desire to win the support of the US media.

Under the Obama administration, these competing interests have not merely influenced US policy in the Middle East. They have dominated it. Core American interests have been thrown to the wayside.

Before considering the deleterious impact this descent into strategic dementia has had on US interests, it is necessary to consider the motivations of the various sides to the foreign policy debate in the US today.

All of the sides have contributed to the fact that US Middle East policy is now firmly submerged in a morass of strategic insanity.

The first side in the debate is the anti-imperialist camp, represented by President Barack Obama himself. Since taking office, Obama has made clear that he views the US as an imperialist power on the world stage. As a result, the overarching goal of Obama's foreign policy has been to end US global hegemony.

Obama looks to the UN as a vehicle for tethering the US superpower. He views US allies in the Middle East and around the world with suspicion because he feels that as US allies, they are complicit with US imperialism.

Given his view, Obama's instincts dictate that he do nothing to advance the US's core interests in the Middle East. Consider his policies towards Iran. The Iranian regime threatens all of the US's core regional interests.

And yet, Obama has refused to lift a finger against the mullahs.

Operating under the assumption that US enemies are right to hate America due to its global hegemony, when the mullahs stole the 2009 presidential elections for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and then violently repressed the pro-Western opposition Green Movement, Obama sided with the mullahs.

Aside from its imperative to lash out at Israel, Obama's ideological predisposition would permit him to happily sit on the sidelines and do nothing against US foe or friend alike. But given Obama's basic suspicion of US allies, to the extent he has bowed to pressure to take action in the Middle East, he has always done so to the detriment of US allies.

Obama's treatment of ousted Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak is case in point.

When the Muslim Brotherhood-backed opposition protests began in late January, Obama was perfectly happy to do nothing despite the US's overwhelming national interest in preserving Mubarak in power. But when faced with domestic pressure to intervene against Mubarak, he did so with a vengeance.

Not only did Obama force Mubarak to resign. He prevented Mubarak from resigning in September and so ensured that the Brotherhood would dominate the transition period to the new regime.

Obama's most outspoken opponents in the US foreign policy debate are the neoconservatives.

Like Obama, the neoconservatives are not motivated to act by concern for the US's core regional interests. What motivates them is their belief that the US must always oppose tyranny.

In some cases, like Iran and Iraq, the neoconservatives' view was in consonance with US strategic interests and so their policy recommendation of siding with regime opponents against the regimes was rational.

The problem with the neoconservative position is that it makes no distinction between liberal regime opponents and illiberal regime opponents. It can see no difference between pro-US despots and anti-US despots.

If there is noticeable opposition to tyrants, then the US must support that opposition.

This view is what informed the neoconservative bid to oust Mubarak last month and Gaddafi this month.

The fracture between the Obama camp and the neoconservative camp came to a head with Libya. Obama wished to sit on the sidelines and the neoconservatives pushed for intervention.

To an even greater degree than in Egypt, the debate was settled by the third US foreign policy camp - the opportunists. Led today by Clinton, the opportunist camp supports whoever they believe is going to make them most popular with the media and Europe.

In the case of Libya, the opportunist interests dictated military intervention against Gaddafi. Europe opposes Gaddafi because the French and the British bet early on that his opponents were winning. France recognized the opposition as the legitimate government two weeks ago.

Once Gaddafi's counteroffensive began, France and Britain realized they would be harmed politically and economically if Gaddafi maintained power so they began calling for military strikes to overthrow him.

As for the media, they were quick to romanticize the amorphous "opposition" as freedom fighters.

Seeing the direction of the wind, Clinton jumped on the European-media bandwagon and forced Obama to agree to a military operation whose goal no one can define.

Wwhat the US foreign policy fights regarding Egypt and Libya indicate is that currently, a discussion about how events impact core US regional interests is completely absent from the discussion. Consequently, it should surprise no one that none of the policies the US is implementing in the region advance those core interests in any way. Indeed, they are being severely damaged.

Under Mubarak, Egypt advanced US interests in two main ways. First, by waging war against the Muslim Brotherhood and opposing the rise of Iranian power in the region, Mubarak weakened the regional forces that most threatened US interests. Second, by managing the Suez Canal in conformance with international maritime law, Egypt facilitated the smooth transport of petroleum products to global markets and prevented Iran from operating in the Mediterranean Sea.

Since Mubarak was ousted, the ruling military junta has taken actions that signal that Egypt is no longer interested in behaving in a manner that advances US interests.

Domestically, the junta has embarked on a course that all but guarantees the Muslim Brotherhood's rise to power in the fall.

Saturday's referendum on constitutional amendments was a huge victory for the Brotherhood on two counts. First, it cemented Islamic law as the primary source of legislation and so paved the way for the Brotherhood's transformation of Egypt into an Islamic state. Under Mubarak, that constitutional article meant nothing. Under the Brotherhood, it means everything.

Second, it set the date for parliamentary elections for September. Only the Brotherhood, and remnants of Mubarak's National Democratic Party will be ready to stand for election so soon. The liberals have no chance of mounting a coherent campaign in just six months.

In anticipation of the Brotherhood's rise to power, the military has begun realigning Egypt into the Iranian camp. This realignment is seen most openly in Egypt's new support for Hamas. Mubarak opposed Hamas because it is part of the Brotherhood.

The junta supports it for the same reason. Newly appointed Foreign Minister Nabil el-Araby has already called for the opening of Egypt's border with Hamasruled Gaza.

There can be little doubt Hamas's massive rocket barrage against Israel on Saturday was the product of its sense that Egypt is now on its side.

As for the Suez Canal, the junta's behavior so far is a cause for alarm. Binding UN Security Council Resolution 1747 from 2007 bars Iran from shipping arms. Yet last month the junta thumbed its nose at international law and permitted two Iranian naval ships to traverse the canal without being inspected.

According to military sources, one of the ships carried advanced armaments. These were illicitly transferred to the German merchant ship Victoria at Syria's Latakia port. Last week, IDF naval commandos interdicted the Victoria with its Iranian weaponry en route to Gaza via Alexandria.

Add to that Egypt's decision to abrogate its contractual obligation to supply Israel with natural gas and we see that the junta is willing to suspend its commitment to international law in order to realign its foreign policy with Iran.

On every level, a post-Mubarak Egypt threatens the US core interests that Mubarak advanced.

Then there is Libya. One of the most astounding aspects of the US debate on Libya in recent weeks has been the scant attention paid to the nature of the rebels.

The rebels are reportedly represented by the so-called National Transitional Council led by several of Gaddafi's former ministers.

But while these men - who are themselves competing for the leadership mantle - are the face of the NTC, it is unclear who stands behind them. Only nine of the NTC's 31 members have been identified.

Unfortunately, available data suggest that the rebels championed as freedom fighters by the neoconservatives, the opportunists, the Europeans and the Western media alike are not exactly liberal democrats. Indeed, the data indicate that Gaddafi's opponents are more aligned with al-Qaida than with the US.

Under jihadist commander Abu Yahya Al- Libi, Libyan jihadists staged anti-regime uprisings in the mid-1990s. Like today, those uprisings' central hubs were Benghazi and Darnah.

In 2007 Al-Libi merged his forces into al- Qaida. On March 18, while denouncing the US, France and Britain, Al-Libi called on his forces to overthrow Gaddafi.

A 2007 US Military Academy study of information on al-Qaida forces in Iraq indicate that by far, Eastern Libya made the largest per capita contribution to al-Qaida forces in Iraq.

None of this proves that the US is now assisting an al-Qaida takeover of Libya. But it certainly indicates that the forces being assisted by the US in Libya are probably no more sympathetic to US interests than Gaddafi is. At a minimum, the data indicate the US has no compelling national interest in helping the rebels in overthrow Gaddafi.

The significance of the US's descent into strategic irrationality bodes ill not just for US allies, but for America itself. Until the US foreign policy community is again able to recognize and work to advance the US's core interests in the Middle East, America's policies will threaten both its allies and itself.


caroline@carolineglick.com

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39256
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #83 on: March 22, 2011, 07:37:18 AM »
The Horrible Libya Hypocrisies
by Leslie H. Gelb
March 21, 2011 | 10:40pm
www.thedailybeast.com



Neocons and liberal interventionists stampeded Obama into imposing a no-fly zone against Libya—despite the absence of vital U.S. interests there. Leslie H. Gelb on the hypocrisy among world leaders and how the experts abuse historical analogies.

There's nothing like a foreign-policy crisis, real or imagined, to ignite the worst among world leaders and foreign-policy experts. Out pop the nuclear weapons of the trade: phony analogies and unabashed hypocrisy. The manufactured crisis in Libya is a prime case in point. No foreign states have vital interests at stake in Libya. Events in this rather odd and isolated land have little bearing on the rest of the tumultuous Mideast region. Also not to be dismissed, there are far, far worse humanitarian horrors elsewhere. Yet, U.S. neoconservatives and liberal humanitarian interventionists have trapped another U.S. president into acting as if the opposite were true.

 Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP Photo; Luca Bruno / AP Photo
Once this terrible duo starts tossing out words like "slaughter" and "genocide," the media goes crazy. Then, the chorus begins to sing of heartless inaction by the U.S. president, blaming him for the deaths. White House common sense crumbles into insanity. The reason why neither President Obama nor his coalition partners in Britain and France can state a coherent goal for Libya is that none of them have any central interest in the outcome there. It is only when a nation has a clear vital interest that it can state a clear objective for war. They've all simply been carried away by their own rhetoric.

The drama usually starts when leaders and thinkers are seduced by the feeling they must do good. Sometimes, they essentially ignore the killings, even as deaths climb into the hundreds of thousands, as in Rwanda and millions as in Congo. Other times, the deaths number in the hundreds or so, as in Libya—and the guy doing the killing is someone they have good reason to dislike, and so they want to do good and stop him. It was just so with the irresistible trio of Senators—John McCain, John Kerry, and Lindsay Graham—and with their counterparts in foreign-policy land.

The kneejerk reaction among interventionists is to see the blood and insist that the United States act right away. There's no time to deliberate, they say. Don't find out about who the rebels are. Don't worry about who else will help. Just do it! In the case of Libya, the call to action took flight as a "no-fly zone." They spoke of it like a pill that could cure cancer. At the time they first proposed it, the rebels in fact were winning the war and Col. Muammar Gaddafi had just begun to retaliate with planes and tanks. There was yet no endorsement to counter him from the Arab League or from the U.N. Security Council, but the interventionists screamed for action anyway. Imagine what the reaction would have been had Western bombs and missiles fell upon Libya without that prior approval.

No one should have deluded himself into believing that chasing Gaddafi's planes from the air would, by itself, save civilians on the ground. Saving those lives always depended mainly on hitting Gaddafi's ground forces—his tanks, artillery, and combat troops. Thus, imposing only a no-fly zone would have been largely symbolic. When it failed to stop Gaddafi's onslaught, voices would have been raised for escalation, for hitting ground targets—precisely as has happened in the last few days. If the goal was to stop Gaddafi from killing his own people, there never was an alternative to impairing or destroying his ground force capability.

The reason why neither President Obama nor his coalition partners in Britain and France can state a coherent goal for Libya is that none of them have any central interest in the outcome there.

But it becomes increasingly difficult to nail down reality, especially when slogans like "no-fly zones" and "act now" are ennobled by reference to Shakespeare. For example, interventionists whose memories of the Bard have frayed might be tempted to compare themselves to Macbeth, a man of action, and portray Obama as Hamlet, a man of self-doubt and delay. Remember Macbeth's line about killing the king: "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well/ It were done quickly." So, Macbeth grabbed his dagger and killed the king right off. And boy did his quick action produce great results: The kingdom was shaken to its roots, his wife went crazy with guilt, and predictably, he was killed by a more rightful heir to the throne. And just as Macbeth's formidable decision-making process receives perennial praise, so does Hamlet get trashed for his supposed indecision and hesitation. Forget the fact that Hamlet's famous indecision was about killing himself ("To be, or not to be"), and not about whether he would seek vengeance on the king who had killed Hamlet's father and married his mother. But to today's foreign-policy experts, Hamlet committed an unforgivable sin: He waited for evidence that the new king had actually killed his father. Thus, he concocted the idea of a play within a play to draw out the new king's guilt. In other words, he violated the first principle of modern American foreign-policymaking: He sought hard evidence.

Historical analogies do as much damage to policymaking. Thus, inevitably, erupts the game the current crisis resembles. Foreign-policy experts rush to compare Libya to Bosnia, the Punic Wars, Iraq, Kosovo, Thermopylae, and so forth. Take, for example, the difficulties of imposing a no-fly zone in Libya as opposed to Iraq or Bosnia. Well, it might be noticed that the terrain, cultures, leaders, peoples, and most elements of these situations were quite different from one another. It's not just a matter of sending U.S. aircraft up here and there and expecting the same results. The no-fly zone the U.S. enforced over Kurdistan after the first Gulf war worked just fine. But the one declared for the Shiite southern part of Iraq didn't. That's mainly because the U.S. government said the no-fly dictum applied only to fixed-wing aircraft, not to helicopters. And what Saddam Hussein used to put down the revolt in the south was helicopters, tanks, and ground troops.

That's precisely what would happen in Libya if the no-fly zone pertained only to fixed-wing aircraft. Because Gaddafi's main power flows from helicopters, tanks and troops, no-fly by itself would have been of very limited value. If the goal is to save civilians, there is no choice other than hitting all military targets.

So now comes the ultimate hypocrisy—the one of intoning that a sin is so mortal and a threat so deadly that only somebody else can do the job. Remember the West's joy after the Arab League's blessing of a no-fly zone? Foreign policy experts reacted as if Arabs were putting aside their Arab-first cloak and actually joining the hated Westerners in humanitarian military action. In reality, however, they were just saying, "You do it." Thus, it is no surprise that those Arabs are nowhere to be found when it comes to translating their heroic rhetoric into action. So far, it appears that their contributions will be limited to Egypt providing some arms to the Libyan "freedom fighters," four Qatari jets flying over Libya (as fast as they can, I assume), some cash payments to the Western devils, and other unspecified considerations. Just in case the self-delusory Westerners didn't get the point, the Arab League head Amr Moussa set them straight on Sunday. He criticized the Western devils for killing Libyan civilians in no-fly zone operations. Apparently, the League thought that an effective no-fly zone was like flying kites—just a beautiful thing to watch with no one being injured. Westerners must have been confused and actually believed that the Arab League desired the no-fly operation to reduce Gaddafi's killing Libyan civilians. Apparently, only some Arabs are permitted to kill certain other Arabs. In which event, the Arabs should have gone and flown their own planes against Gaddafi's in the first place. Which is precisely what I advocated in the first place—and still do.

President Obama erred initially by saying that Gaddafi "must go." Maybe he meant of his own accord or by being overthrown by his own cohorts, but he didn't specify. Then, properly, he stiff-armed those demanding an immediate no-fly operation. Instead, and properly again, he waited upon Arab League and U.N. resolutions, and upon agreements from America's overeager French and British allies on their assuming major responsibility for military action over Libya in few days. Pray that he sticks to that course and puts America in a strictly supporting role. Pray he is not drawn deeper into the Libyan snake pit by events or the hypocritical oratory of world leaders and foreign policy experts.

Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.

For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.

dario73

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6467
  • Getbig!
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #84 on: March 22, 2011, 07:52:19 AM »
It's pretty sad. I can't think of a single instance since Obama was elected that 240 has actually criticized his messiah without justifying his actions by comparing him to Bush or Palin.

"Of course I don't support Obama's decision but Bush did this, this, and this so it's OK."  ::)

That is why Democrats and the left can be diagnosed as having a mental disease.

To all you douchebags on the left, Democrats and idiots who voted for Obama:

You can not justify Obama by bringing up Bush, his father or Reagan. It is given that Republicans won't blink an eye in using the military. BUT, and stay with me here you stupid drones.  OBAMA WAS SUPPOSED TO BE DIFFERENT. He was going to close GITMO. He was going to bring all the soldiers back from Iraq and Afghanistan. He wasn't going to be so quick to flex the military might of the USA and bring us into unnecessary military conflicts. The whole world was going to love us. HOPE AND CHANGE. Remember that? You morons voted for CHANGE. Key word here is CHANGE. And he ran on that and stated HE WOULD BE DIFFERENT. He hasn't been different. He is doing the same things Bush did. Gitmo is still open and will continue to be open for a long time. No end in sight for Iraq and Afghanistan. And now he has brought America into the Libyan civil war.  If Bush was a war criminal, so is Obama.  The joke was on you. You tried to avoid a "third Bush term" by not voting for McCain, but you got it anyway with the incompetent Obama.

whork25

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1653
  • Getbig!
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #85 on: March 22, 2011, 08:02:41 AM »
If they voted for change you must have voted for status quo then?

So we are at war again just like under Bush so whats your complaint?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39256
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #86 on: March 22, 2011, 08:05:14 AM »
If they voted for change you must have voted for status quo then?

So we are at war again just like under Bush so whats your complaint?

I voted for McCain for the following reasons: 

1.  Obama has no business at 1600 PA Ave. under any circumstances
2.  Supreme Court picks
3.  I liked and still like Palin. 

whork25

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1653
  • Getbig!
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #87 on: March 22, 2011, 08:07:19 AM »
I now you hate Obama and im not a big fan either but he is doing his thing here.

We can agree or disagree but i have a lot more respect for his commitment now

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39256
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #88 on: March 22, 2011, 08:08:49 AM »
I now you hate Obama and im not a big fan either but he is doing his thing here.

We can agree or disagree but i have a lot more respect for his commitment now

 ::)  ::)

Yeah, ok - why are we not doing the same in Bahraine, Yemen, ivory Coast, the Congo, Somali, Darfur, etc? 

whork25

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1653
  • Getbig!
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #89 on: March 22, 2011, 08:15:19 AM »
How the hell should i know??

You claimed Obama and Gaddafi were on the same page, Gaddafi calling Obama son etc..
And now you are complaining that he is attacking? Make up your mind

dario73

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6467
  • Getbig!
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #90 on: March 22, 2011, 08:17:33 AM »
If they voted for change you must have voted for status quo then?

So we are at war again just like under Bush so whats your complaint?

I voted to prevent a nightmare from taking over the oval office. Don't be upset that I saw what you or others were too dumb to see. That Obama is clueless.

My complaint is idiots defending Obama. The same idiots who condemned Bush. Somehow, Bush was wrong at everything he did. But, Obama doing the same things that Bush did is somehow correct and exempt from any criticism.

I want the left who so much ridiculed Bush, to step up and put Obama through the same ordeal.  The liberal media is no where to be found.  That is my complaint.

Should I draw you pictures in order for you to understand?

whork25

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1653
  • Getbig!
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #91 on: March 22, 2011, 08:25:41 AM »
"Somehow, Bush was wrong at everything he did. But, Obama doing the same things that Bush did is somehow correct and exempt from any criticism."
You nailed it here. Unfortunetly you are blinded in the same way these people are just the other way around.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39256
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #92 on: March 22, 2011, 08:28:12 AM »
Yeah, so lets keep repeating the same mistakes and failures just because its Obama and not bush, that makes it ok now. 

Unfucking real how blind and delusional you obama cultists are   

whork25

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1653
  • Getbig!
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #93 on: March 22, 2011, 08:32:36 AM »
People are blind on both sides that was my point

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #94 on: March 22, 2011, 08:54:15 AM »
It's not illegal, but it's goddam stupid.

Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #95 on: March 22, 2011, 09:51:59 AM »
U.S. Bombs Libya, Helps... Jihadists?!

America is now at war to protect a Libyan province that's been an epicenter of anti-American jihad.

In recent years, at mosques throughout eastern Libya, radical imams have been "urging worshippers to support jihad in Iraq and elsewhere," according to WikiLeaked cables. More troubling: The city of Derna, east of Benghazi, was a "wellspring" of suicide bombers that targeted U.S. troops in Iraq.

By imposing a no-fly zone over Eastern Libya, the U.S. and its coalition partners have effectively embraced the breakaway republic of Cyrenaica. As you can see on the map above, Libya is a mashup of three historically distinct provinces. As recently as the 1940s, Cyrenaica was an independent emirate, with its capital in Benghazi.

The emnity between Cyrenaica and Tripolitania runs deep. The Emir of Cyrenaica awkwardly cobbled together modern Libya and ruled as its monarch. This is the same king that Qaddafi deposed in his coup of 1969. And the Qaddafi regime has seen the former king's homeland as a threat ever since, as this Wikileaked cable from our Tripoli embassy explains:

Eastern Libya had suffered ... from a lack of investment and government resources, part of a campaign by the al-Qadhafi regime to keep the area poor and, theoretically, less likely to develop as a viable alternative locus of power to Tripoli.

Another cable reports that the disrespect is mutual:

Residents of eastern Libya ... view the al-Qadhafa clan [Qaddafi's tribe] as uneducated, uncouth interlopers from an inconsequential part of the country who have "stolen" the right to rule in Libya.

That's the background. Flash forward to 2008: A West Point analysis of a cache of al Qaeda records discovered that nearly 20 percent of foreign fighters in Iraq were Libyans, and that on a per-capita basis Libya nearly doubled Saudi Arabia as the top source of foreign fighters.

The word "fighter" here is misleading. For the most part, Libyans didn't go to Iraq to fight; they went to blow themselves up — along with American G.I.'s. (Among those whose "work" was detailed in the al Qaeda records, 85 percent of the Libyans were listed as suicide bombers.) Overwhelmingly, these militants came "from cities in North‐East Libya, an area long known for Jihadi‐linked militancy."

A WikiLeaked cable from 2008 explained that Cyrenaicans were waging jihad against U.S. troops as "a last act of defiance against the Qadhafi regime." After the U.S. normalized relations with Qaddaffi in 2006, Cyrenacians believed they no longer had any shot at toppling him:

Many easterners feared the U.S. would not allow Qadhafi's regime to fall and therefore viewed direct confrontation with the GOL [Government of Libya] in the near-term as a fool's errand.... Fighting against U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq represented a way for frustrated young radicals to strike a blow against both Qadhafi and against his perceived American backers.

The epicenter of Libyan jihadism is the city of Derna — the hometown of more than half of Libya's foreign fighters, according the West Point analysis. The city of 80,000 has a history of violent resistance to occupying powers — including Americans, who captured the city in the First Barbary War.

A surprisingly readable cable titled "Die Hard in Derna" makes clear that the city "takes great pride" in having sent so many of its sons to kill American soldiers in Iraq, quoting one resident as saying: "It's jihad — it's our duty, and you're talking about people who don't have much else to be proud of."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/u-s-bombs-libya-helps-jihadists-20110321


Even liberal Rolling Stone has admitted that we're aiding terrorists and jihadists.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39256
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #96 on: March 22, 2011, 09:53:18 AM »
Wow BF.   Case freaking closed. 


I want just one brain dead lib to tell me that they are ok losing a relative for those scumbags.   


andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #97 on: March 22, 2011, 09:54:17 AM »
How the hell should i know??

You claimed Obama and Gaddafi were on the same page, Gaddafi calling Obama son etc..
And now you are complaining that he is attacking? Make up your mind

3333 has no mind

Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #98 on: March 22, 2011, 09:55:25 AM »
Wow BF.   Case freaking closed. 


I want just one brain dead lib to tell me that they are ok losing a relative for those scumbags.   



From 2006 to 2007, Libya sent more fighters to Iraq than any other country besides Saudi Arabia. And the eastern town of Darnah (population: 80,000) sent more fighters to Iraq than any other city or town on the planet (#2 was Riyadh, with a population of 4 million).

We're working alongside terrorists, jihadists and other vehemently anti-American peoples.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #99 on: March 22, 2011, 09:57:47 AM »
From 2006 to 2007, Libya sent more fighters to Iraq than any other country besides Saudi Arabia. And the eastern town of Darnah (population: 80,000) sent more fighters to Iraq than any other city or town on the planet (#2 was Riyadh, with a population of 4 million).

We're working alongside terrorists, jihadists and other vehemently anti-American peoples.
]

I saw that today.  That's HUGE.