kucinich is Wrong on Obama's Order to Attack Libya

obtuseobserver · Mar 22, 2011

Kucinich is a tool and wrong to boot about the President's authority to authorize attacks.

Whether the choice was wise or not I have no clue. But it is his to make.

http://obtuseobserver.com/?p=2167

DodgeFB · Mar 22, 2011

I don't like him, but it is true that he is " consistent". I do think some of the Obamma base will turn on him over this. He promised to get us out of wars, not back into a new one.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51766.html

David · Mar 22, 2011

DodgeFB said:
I don't like him, but it is true that he is " consistent". I do think some of the Obamma base will turn on him over this. He promised to get us out of wars, not back into a new one.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51766.html

1. He has 90 days.
2. We're a junior partner in this and will likely get out once NATO and the AL decide who's going to be running the op.
3. Stopping the wholesale slaughter of civilians by a military junta led by a mad man is bad how?

DodgeFB · Mar 23, 2011

David said:
1. He has 90 days.
2. We're a junior partner in this and will likely get out once NATO and the AL decide who's going to be running the op.
3. Stopping the wholesale slaughter of civilians by a military junta led by a mad man is bad how?

I never said it is bad even if we can't afford it. And I don't really believe him. They are already having problems with not agreeing on why they are there. I think it is just a rerun of a bad movie with a new "star". How many time have we heard this????

myp · Mar 23, 2011

David said:
1. He has 90 days.
2. We're a junior partner in this and will likely get out once NATO and the AL decide who's going to be running the op.
3. Stopping the wholesale slaughter of civilians by a military junta led by a mad man is bad how?

There comes a time when we need to stop policing the world. This sort of thing will continue to happen- let others step up and do something if they feel the need for once.

DodgeFB · Mar 23, 2011

myp said:
There comes a time when we need to stop policing the world. This sort of thing will continue to happen- let others step up and do something if they feel the need for once.

Agreed! Other countries have about sucked the US dry. They cut their defense budgets and call us war-mongers. But then when they want something done they want us to carry most of the load.

David · Mar 23, 2011

myp said:
There comes a time when we need to stop policing the world. This sort of thing will continue to happen- let others step up and do something if they feel the need for once.

Which is why we're leaving, we only took the lead because we had the ability to pretty much blast away whatever we wanted with impunity (we have stealth) plus the naval assets. Now that Libya has gotten it's ass handed to it and it's now simply a matter of patrolling the skies, we're out... Except the Euros/Arabs can't seem to decide who takes over from us.

myp · Mar 23, 2011

David said:
Which is why we're leaving, we only took the lead because we had the ability to pretty much blast away whatever we wanted with impunity (we have stealth) plus the naval assets. Now that Libya has gotten it's ass handed to it and it's now simply a matter of patrolling the skies, we're out... Except the Euros/Arabs can't seem to decide who takes over from us.

I am not as optimistic as you. We'll see what happens.

Either way, I would have preferred us staying out of it. It still cost us money and it will surely increase the possibility of blowback as well.

EDIT: And it surely isn't any trivial cost: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/23/us-libya-usa-costs-idUSTRE72L7WH20110323

David · Mar 23, 2011

myp said:
I am not as optimistic as you. We'll see what happens.

Either way, I would have preferred us staying out of it. It still cost us money and it will surely increase the possibility of blowback as well.

And not doing anything would of caused even more blowback. Hamas and their ilk would of latched on to it and said, "Look, the US doesn't care about Muslims!" As it stands, the AL and the rebels both asked us to come in. sure a few innocents will get caught in the crossfire and yes our rivals (and I stress the word rivals) will use it to bash the US but our enemies don't have any credible reason to blow their usual hot air so long as we don't put boots on the ground and if the rebels win we're in the clear.

myp · Mar 23, 2011

David said:
And not doing anything would of caused even more blowback. Hamas and their ilk would of latched on to it and said, "Look, the US doesn't care about Muslims!" As it stands, the AL and the rebels both asked us to come in. sure a few innocents will get caught in the crossfire and yes our rivals (and I stress the word rivals) will use it to bash the US but our enemies don't have any credible reason to blow their usual hot air so long as we don't put boots on the ground and if the rebels win we're in the clear.

Since when did we start taking military orders from foreign groups? Us not getting involved when they want us AND when they don't want us means we are minding our own business and reduces blowback.

David · Mar 23, 2011

myp said:
Since when did we start taking military orders from foreign groups? Us not getting involved when they want us AND when they don't want us means we are minding our own business and reduces blowback.

We ignored Afghanistan after the Soviets left. You know as well as I what happened as a result.

obtuseobserver · Mar 23, 2011

David said:
1. He has 90 days.
2. We're a junior partner in this and will likely get out once NATO and the AL decide who's going to be running the op.
3. Stopping the wholesale slaughter of civilians by a military junta led by a mad man is bad how?

1) 90 days? huh?

2) true but the US being a junior partner is not flattering

3) it isn't. Is that what we stopped?

obtuseobserver · Mar 23, 2011

myp said:
There comes a time when we need to stop policing the world. This sort of thing will continue to happen- let others step up and do something if they feel the need for once.

When they either do not or do and are ineffective... then what?

I'm not saying we should be bombing Libya - I'm responding to the world police point.

I agree. Thge next question is this: if not us then whom?

Are you prepared to accept the answer?

If not, then what?

Step in to reestablish our position or wait and make it harder while world stability (especially for our friends) crumbles?

Some jobs suck but are necessary.

How to do it? That needs to be addressed.

obtuseobserver · Mar 23, 2011

myp said:
I am not as optimistic as you. We'll see what happens.

Either way, I would have preferred us staying out of it. It still cost us money and it will surely increase the possibility of blowback as well.

EDIT: And it surely isn't any trivial cost: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/23/us-libya-usa-costs-idUSTRE72L7WH20110323

As with most (if not all of NA) if the current regime is toppled there are two alternatives that will most likely succeed and of them 1 is most likely.

1) Muslim Brotherhood coalition hostile to the US

2) Military dictatorship with allegience for sale

#2 is happening in Egypt. The military basically stood by to allow the people to toss Mubarak's son. They are now reconsolidated and in charge... just like Mubarak did.

obtuseobserver · Mar 23, 2011

David said:
And not doing anything would of caused even more blowback.

It is hard for America hating jihadis to blame the US for not helping them. Claiming victim for want of our protection is an insult to them.

They prefer lots of blood that they can blame on the west. Our absence makes that impossible.

David said:
Hamas and their ilk would of latched on to it and said, "Look, the US doesn't care about Muslims!" As it stands, the AL and the rebels both asked us to come in.

And now the AL condemns us

David said:
sure a few innocents will get caught in the crossfire and yes our rivals (and I stress the word rivals) will use it to bash the US but our enemies don't have any credible reason to blow their usual hot air so long as we don't put boots on the ground and if the rebels win we're in the clear.

enemies? the toppled regimes suck.. but they toed the American party line

the rebels hate the US as much as the despots they are fighting

our enemies need no credible reason to bash us

DodgeFB · Mar 24, 2011

As helpful as we like to think we are, how many countries are really our friend?
I think we can easily count them on one hand and still have fingers left. In my opinion the US is used and abused by "friendly" countries. Much as a pretty woman may date a ugly (or an old) man because of lifestyle. (And yes I know that can go both ways.)

David · Mar 24, 2011

obtuseobserver said:
1) 90 days? huh?

2) true but the US being a junior partner is not flattering

3) it isn't. Is that what we stopped?

He has 90 days to get in and get out before he has to get an okay from Congress.

You're point? We're not trying to be flattered here.

Ground fighting is still going on, a no-fly zone wouldn't have an effect on that but civilians aren't getting carpet bombed anymore and the rebels have managed to start advancing again.

obtuseobserver · Mar 24, 2011

David said:
He has 90 days to get in and get out before he has to get an okay from Congress.

You're point? We're not trying to be flattered here.

Ground fighting is still going on, a no-fly zone wouldn't have an effect on that but civilians aren't getting carpet bombed anymore and the rebels have managed to start advancing again.

1) Where in the world did you get that bunch of nonsense from?

2) Our reputation matters

3) Ground fighting isn't going on as I understand it. The point was to stop Qadafi from attacking.

David · Mar 24, 2011

obtuseobserver said:
1) Where in the world did you get that bunch of nonsense from?

2) Our reputation matters

3) Ground fighting isn't going on as I understand it. The point was to stop Qadafi from attacking.

War Powers Act, 60 days to fight, 30 days to get out.

Which is why we're not running this, to stop the usual 'American Empire' BS.

I'm pretty sure rebel forces are shooting up every gov't target they can get at... I don't know about you but I'd call that a fight.

obtuseobserver · Mar 25, 2011

David said:
War Powers Act, 60 days to fight, 30 days to get out.

Which is why we're not running this, to stop the usual 'American Empire' BS.

I'm pretty sure rebel forces are shooting up every gov't target they can get at... I don't know about you but I'd call that a fight.

1) You're thinking of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (the war powers act is WWII). The resolution is unconstitutional and uneforceable. Relying that piece of paper will bring you frustration.***

2) lol

3) I should have been clearer - Qadafi isn't shooting people afaik. That's what the attacks were meant to do. Make him stop - not the other guys.

*** read my blog for a background on why Kucinich is wrong and the WPR is worthless

kucinich is Wrong on Obama's Order to Attack Libya

Similar threads