A Few Thoughts on the War with Libya
We don’t know. There hasn’t been any kind of public debate about our involvement. No presidential addresses to the nation, no Congressional hearings, no “authorization of force” votes, nothing. Clinton walked into the UN and we weren’t at war with Libya, then she walked back out and we were. We just got led into a war by an outgoing secretary of State. That has got to be a first.
It’s safe to assume that we’ll be taking action before any of these debates are held — because we can’t continue to sit idly by all while all those civilians we’re now pledged to defend are still being slaughtered of Gaddafi’s rent-a-thug outfits. Or maybe an Anglo-French coalition will do the boots-on-the-ground stuff which the UN may or may not have just authorized us to do. Or will we fob this off on the Egyptians?
Is there a rebel government we recognize? Will it send a delegation to the UN? Or is Libya to become a UN protectorate until elections can be held? If so, who does the protecting? What do we do if (when!) the rebel factions turn on each other and kill civilians? Are we pledged now to protect all Libyan civilians from all attacks, or just from attacks by Gaddafi’s forces? Is this a war of necessity, Mr. President — or is it a war of choice?
Why — why haven’t we been discussing these issues since shortly after February 25?
The only thing we know for sure is that we’re at war. Again. So here’s to hoping we can win quickly and get back out just as fast.
Update: Also read up on Obama’s statement on Libya at the Tatler.
“So here’s to hoping we can win quickly and get back out just as fast.”
we have no defined strategic goal. tough to win that way, on the other hand perhaps we can simply declare victory and get out.
There’s only one way to take all necessary measures to protect the civilians: bomb and kill Gaddafi and his sons (they are heads of military units and thus legitimate targets.)
Then let the rest of the Libyans sort things out for themselves.
And if these armed “civilians” counter attack, what is the other side supposed to do, bare their throats?
The UN has no business in Libya and the US has no business in the UN. This is a complete waste of our blood and treasure.
Agree. As the left said as we were invading Iraq. . we don’t have the right to interfere in internal affairs.
This is not our problem. We keep doing this in the name of humanity. We give them money, we prop up some despot leader, he steals most of the money, the people continue living in squalor, we support an uprising, the people throw out the despot, we give them money to rebuild, they elect another despot who steals the money etc etc etc. Lets just save our money, stay out of it and let them kill each other.
And to make it simpler, lets develop our own oil & gas resources and not worry about the middle east. If we are attacked, we level the presidential palace of the country sponsoring the attackers. Problem solved.
These backwards people are incapable of democratic rule. Islam is incompatible with democracy. Quit trying to win hearts and minds and concentrate on winning the wars we choose to engage in. and if we do go in, fight to win or don’t go in.
Al, you got it!
The “civilians”, armed with artillery, helicopters, rockets, etc., are really islamic jihadists, determined to turn Ghadaffis’ secular government into an islamic jihadist force. Just as we have changed Sadam Husseins’ more or less secular government into a virile islamic jihad movement; equipped and trained by, guess who? Us!
It appears that, along with the deliberate destruction of our economy, Oscambo intends to aid and abet an islamic takeover of the USA by his moslem brothers of CAIR, et sim. They may well succeed. And then some, not all, of the ignorami supporting him will moan, “Why didn’t anybody see this coming?”
And the true answer will be: “Only because you refused to see it!”Enjoy.
Club Obama is displaying it’s weakness in intelligence and policy more and more every day.
This shall not play out well for the United States. Just wait and see.
The arrogance of Hilary Clinton is absolutely astounding, she has no right or authority to involve the US in any military action (neither does POTUS unless US is directly threatened). Please write to your Congressional reps and get this BS stopped, the last thing we need is another war!
Roger, were you aware that a war is already going on, and we are sending forces to stop it?
If you hate war so much, maybe you could show some sympathy to the thousands suffering from it right now, instead of turning your back.
Gee, life just isn’t fair now is it? Are you willing to risk YOUR son to help those suffering members of the islamic death cult?
Afghanistan harbored those who attacked us. Iraq had to be made an example of and replaced as a counter weight to Iran. . . Libya is absolutely meaningless to the US. This is a tragic mistake that will haunt us for generations.
So, now that the precedent is set for the UN to involve in the internal affairs of a sovereign country, how long until sanctions are placed against us, or even an invasion, to enforce some UN treaty to disarm civilians or some other nonesense?
JustAl – you got me there. No, I am not willing to risk my son to help suffering members of the islamic death cult. I agree with you that there would be zero support for any US lives lost.
Todd,
I’m sorry if I came off overly harsh. My son, my brother’s son, his wife’s nephew and my wife’s sister’s nephew, are all preparing to deploy once again. All are combat soldiers, all have done tours in Iraq, for one of them, this will be his second tour in Afghanistan.
If you include my nephew on my wife’s side who left the corp after three tours that means my extended family is about to start sweating out combat tours number nine, ten, eleven, and twelve. I get a little worked up when folks here and other places on the blog sphere start talking cavalierly about sending our people into harms way to protect muslims they may well have to fight some day.
Komrade Klinton’s hubby started the ball by saving the muslims in Kosovo. . . like the one who murdered two of our airmen in Germany last week. That certainly endeared us to the death cult now didn’t it? Trying to impress these tenth century barbarians with how humane and politically correct we are is getting some of the best people in our society killed and maimed for the sake of some of the weakest minded people in our society.
Todd, it’s not our war. It’s just that simple.
There is no national security risk to the United States, that emanates from the violent conflict currently in process in Libya. The United Nations Security Council has authorized a no-fly zone to be enforced on the Libyan military.
President Obama has declared his intent to employ the armed forces of the United States to participate in armed conflict to enforce this no-fly zone, despite the absence of any attack or threat to the United States.
Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution places responsibility on the Congress for the declaration of war.
Unless war has been declared by Congress, the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) permits the President to commit the armed forces only in the presence of a national emergency, when the United States, its territories or its armed forces are under attack.
Neither President Obama nor the U.N. Security Council has legitimate power to commit our military forces and the lives of our pilots to this foreign adventure. What happened to the “rule of law” that our ruling class is always prattling about?
Invade Mexico now!
Stop the invasion of Mexico’s poor, drug dealers, murderers and rapists to suck on the American tax payer tit with their demand for free heath care, Lawyers, court/jail costs, free housing with food stamps. Not to mention the diseases they bring in.
This is the real problem, not Libya. Let Briton, and Italy die for their own oil.
Not trying to be cynical, but, as far as optics go, going to war looks presidential, and statistically has boosted presidential approval numbers in most cases in the past. Is the president trying to posture as “Mr. tough guy”, by the POMD (Politics-Of-Me Doctrine) before any other consideration?
Could he be feeling that his masterful messaging is unfairly criticized by those who are confused to the point of doubting his mojo, and jumped on an opportunity to steady a look-at-me ship tossed about by a polling tempest? He has given examples of falling for that kind of calculation before.
The rightfull peacekeepers of the Arab and oil world are the well militarized other Arab neighbors. The chances of them defending the Arab brotherhood is about the same as the U.S. invading Mexico to defend the borders. Anyone willing to bet on a United-Arab world or a drug free America? Folling that line of absurdities is: the United States of Africa and the United Nations.
When ADM Nimitz came to ask President Roosevelt for permission to assassinate ADM Yamamato Roosevelt asked who would succeed him. He didn’t give his permission until he was satisfied that #2 wasn’t as good or better then #1. We have failed to ask the what comes next question in Libya.
It seems to me that what comes next is a breakdown along tribal lines that will lead to warlordism and a Club Med version of Somalia. At some point we will need to take steps to contain the disaster but make no mistake Libya is on its way to become a basket case no matter who wins.
This is another CNN led intervention that was anticipated by GEN Sir John Hackett a quarter century ago in his fictional account of a war in Europe. I had hoped that Obama would dither himself into the right decision here but it takes village to get us into another Somalia or Bosnia.
I am confused by these occasional references to FDR’s “permission” being required to “assassinate” ADM Yamamoto in WWII. Yamamoto was an enemy combatant and therefore was fair game for any private with an M-1 who happened to draw a bead on him.
The reason this mission required high-level approval was because the basic information concerning Yamamoto’s travel schedule was obtained through MAGIC, the US process for reading Japanese code traffic. There was a well-founded fear that if the US took military action based solely on MAGIC intercepts, that the Japanese would figure out that their encrypted messages were being read, and make changes which would leave us blind.
I just want to hear what the Nobel Peace Prize committee will say about their last awardee.
You guys want to make some guesses on this one?
Mine is something along the lines of a moderate ‘needed to save human lives’ tone – that of course applied to Bush to a much greater degree.
Khaddafi is of course not a butcher in Saddam’s league so it will only increase the hilarious irony to the Anti-War crowd that if war was the correct step to take with Libya, then Iraq much more so.
I think when President Obama said Gaddafi “must” go he meant it in a rhetorical sense; he is an introspective man and a deep thinker and very misunderstood – Obama would never actually DO something unless it helped black folks or kept him in office for 2 terms – don’t look for him to do the college hockey brackets anytime soon unless he scribbles it on toilet paper with the Presidential Seal on it during crappy craps.
If the Libya opposition were black folks against Gaddafi’s Arabized North Africans then you’d see some action.
In that same rhetorical sense, the Arab League’s declaration to “take all necessary measures” is really more like, if we can talk long enough maybe this will all go away; muslims really don’t react at a top government level to muslim deaths unless it is a non-muslim doing it; that’s why the Arab League would be frothing at the mouth if Jews or Americans were involved.
However, with no Jews or America there is no true interest for muslims to intercede because of this lack of a non-muslim dimension in the same way Obama is bored because there is no racial dimension for him to wrap his self-pitying legacy of slavery and Jim Crow around that in fact never affected himself or his family; but, as a rhetorical and academic imperative, black history engages him like a bitch.
The whole affair with Libya reeks of double standards but above all a sense that even governing muslims are tired of the same self-pity and fantasy that terrorist’s derive their imperatives from as perhaps does President Obama; no one wants to get involved because no matter what some morons will blow up something far from their home – the only chance to opt out of that is to turn out the lights and play golf.
With the Arab League finally forced to confront the idea that they may be left manage their own struggles because of their childish stereotypes that show the West as a picture of a man with a hate filled grimace and an oil stained bayonet in his hands and a muslim as a picture of those kids with the giant sad eyes, Arabs might be forced to actually do something proactive instead of sitting in a web of oil like Jabba the Hut and bitching.
How long can one depict the West as Crusaders for maybe 2 episodes in the middle east in a thousand years lasting around a century or more compared to Islam’s own depredations that in terms of time and space must be 2 orders of magnitude worse?
Forget about Egypt, they’ll sit this one out.
Life is about choices. You can withdraw from the world and let the future be shaped by others. You can stand by and do nothing to stop the slaughter. You could be the 6th abstention and stand by while France and Britain deal with this thug.
Or you could support the other 9 nations leading this action and play a role as Qaddafi, mindful of the fate of Saddam Hussein, declares a ceasefire within hours of the declaration of the NFZ. (And negotiates his exit with as much wealth as he can take with him).
IIRC Hussein lasted twelve years with the no-fly zones in place over Iraq…far longer, in fact, than Eurotrash politicians and businessmen were willing to eschew Hussein’s money even when it was soaked in Iraqi blood.
“Is this a war of necessity, Mr. President — or is it a war of choice?”
Didn’t we hear endless, endless, comments from candidate Obama in 2008 that Iraq was a “War of Choice,” when the “real” war was in Afghanistan? Well, I guess that was then and this is now.
Funny how nobody seems to be mentioning Afghanistan at all these days while there is a real shooting war going on over there. And who is going to pay for this new war? I thought financial times were tough in Washington? Now we have a new war to fund? And it is so easy these days for a president or, dare I say, an ambitious Secretary of State to merely send us off to war without having to bother with that pesky thing called Congress. By the way, did anybody hear any Congressmen screaming about WHY we are doing this? I guess Congressman Anthony Weiner is too busy talking about Glenn Beck and gold rather than concern himself about A WAR! Strange how you’re not hearing any Democrats “demanding” an “exit strategy” to this war, let alone allowing the United Nations to committ US armed forces to a war without Congress’ approval. My my, have times changed.
This is an insane idea. We have NO national interest in Libya and payback for the Lockerbie bombing should have taken place 25 years ago, NOT today. Today this makes us look very dumb and very confused when it comes to foreign policy.
And to all the folks in Congress who dares read this (which I doubt), I guess two wars in the Middle East isn’t good enough for you. And I also guess that, from now on, the Secretary of State or the president can send us off to war without Congress saying a word about it. Oh, I’m sorry, Congress has now been replaced in this country, by the United Nations. How silly of me to think that we were still a sovereign nation.
This whole fiasco is Obama’s doing. The minute he stated that Gaddafi should step down and be tried before international courts, he guaranteed this bloodshed. Now, when it is almost too late, he is going to spend American blood and treasure on Libya? Why? What exactly is American interests in Libya? How do current events threaten American security? How will placing American troops in danger in Libya going to strengthen or protect American security? Congress better do its job and demand a vote.
Kevin and Libertyship: Everyone agrees there is no direct US interest in Libya. One’s personal support for this operation depends on how you define ‘interest’.
Mine is in seeing dictators blown to crap, and the world gradually being made a better place as the western rule of law continues to spread. I’m sure you guys would agree in principle, but that the means is harmful to US interests in the short term.
Here is the benefit: As Terry says above, “Qaddafi, mindful of the fate of Saddam Hussein, declares a ceasefire within hours of the declaration of the NFZ.”
This is a longterm benefit that has now already reaped a dividend from Iraq – another place where we did the right thing at too high a cost. But I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that the sacrifices in Iraq, and the success that resulted eventually, brought about the entire Arab uprising of today and certainly took care of Qaddafi quickly.
It is lot harder to guess the lives and freedom saved as a result, than to to tabulate the immediate cost.
Todd:
I’m happy to see dictators go too, but this can’t be the basis of foreign policy. If it is, when do we invade Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria, et al.?
The basis for invading Iraq wasn’t to expand freedom; it was that Saddam was a direct threat American interests and security. I don’t see how anyone can make that claim about Gaddafi today. My point in my original post, though it may not have been clear, was that Obama closed the door to any “face-saving” exit by Gaddafi by threatening prosection before international courts. Given the choice between trial and killing thousands, I can’t imagine any dictator opting for trial. Even George Bush gave Saddam an out before troops entered Iraq.
Kevin that is an excellent point I didn’t know. Pretty stunningly stupid if Qaddafi was not given an out. And thank you for being one of those not afraid to post his real name for posterity and stand by his words.
Hey, Libya is not Iran. Libya gave up its nuke program, has no air force to speak of, and has no jungles for cover and concealment. It’s a one man one tribe going criminal concern against all the other tribes, and even NATO wants to get involved for the sake of the oil–after all the Lockerbie bomber was given a humanitarian release to die in peace in sweet home Libya, where he still lives. Truly it’s an Arab Spring, even the rest of the Arabs want Kaddafi gone! Who needs a strategy and congressional authorization? The U.N. approved it; it’s the no fly zone for oil program.
Sounds like a job for the French Foreign Legion.
We don’t know we are at war. I think Obama never believed Hillary would get the UN resolution; Russia and China abstained because they want to see what Obama will do. The answere is, nothing. We not only have no stratagy or any authorization from CDongress (and does not that make this an illegal war in the eyes of Obama and his supporterrs?) but we have made no prepeations. Obama bloviated and now his bluff has been called. Worst President Ever.
Dean,
Neither did I! Something’s up… .
He’s on vacation now.
Somebody else will have to handle the details.
“…America gets wars and now we’re in a third one…”
Steve , I agree with most of your arguements, but can we please just stop with this rediculous practice of defining every single individual action by our armed forces as its own separate “war”?
If we accept the (predominantly lefist) whine that we are currently fighting “two wars” with troops Afgainistan and Iraq, then what on EARTH should we have called that Global Dust-Up of the 1940′s, generally referred to as WORLD WAR TWO?
We opposed both Germany and Japan simultaneously, yet it wasnt called the “Two World Wars”by anyone….neither was it called called the “five” wars, or the “seven” wars…or “thirteen” or “sixty-seven” for that matter.
Even though one can easily find LARGE SCALE American casualties, and major losses in hard assets (aircraft carries, cargo ships, planes, tanks etc) all over the world, all at THE SAME TIME.
In and UNDER the Pacific, In and UNDER the Atlantic, off the coast of New Jersey, and on asian corral atols…Across North Africa, in the skies above and the ground below France, up the boot of Italy, flying supplies across the Himaylayas into Burma… ALL AT THE SAME TIME
And no one dared to consider it “two” wars, much less three.
Get serious….how many Aircraft carriers did we lose in the “Battle of The Afgan Sea”, while at the same time storming “Fortress Sadam” and losing thousands KIA’d in one morning. How many disaterous DEFEATS like Wake Island, The Phillipines, or Kasserine pass, or the start of The Bulge have we suffered to the souring of public support for the effort?
Answer: Zero, and NONE.
Please, just STOP calling this thing “two wars” and dont even THINK of adding Libya as a “third”….
Its Just Plain Embarassing.
The thing you’re most upset about this afternoon is semantics?
Sorry Mr. Green,
I guess I’m taking it out on you (A blogger I admire) for adding to the nearly decade long annoyance of this “wars” phrase being used so inappropriately.
Its been one of the pet talking points of the hysterical left: “not one, but TWO wars!” to overly dramatize the indignation they feel for policy they disaree with. They milked it for all it was worth, and helped the media fan the flames of this the unwarrented nonesense about us being “overstretched” and “vulnerable” because of “two wars”.
So…I get angry when folks I normally agree with give their contemptable nonesense further ligitimacy by using similar phrase.
My Father fought in the Pacific, my uncles in Europe.
“Pop-Pop” was Doughboy
My older brother was in Viet Nam.
Back when I was a salty 20 year Lance-Corporal-old-know-it-all, I had a rude awakening one October Morning, helping fill 240 body bags in Lebannon.
My family has a pretty good idea what a “war” is, in scale and scope. My Niece and Nephew, who between them have 2 History Degrees AND 7 tours of the recent “Sandbox(es)” can attest:
“Sucks, people gettin killed..but this aint nothing like a “real war”.
Calling it two, or now adding (potential) actions in Libya as a third, is just not an honest assesment of whats going on.
BTW, I know “Beirut” isnt spelled with two “O”s..
But us salty kids from 3/8 felt we needed to coin a phrase similar to “the ‘Nam” since to us, THAT was the “real shit”.
Thanks for letting me vent.
“Root”;
First of all, let me thank you and your relatives, for your service.
And secondly, that was a very calibrated ‘vent’.
I’ve stated the same thing; These are nothing but skirmishes with local gangs.
In Florida, after hurricane Andrew, a group of National Guard troops were driven out of a neighborhood in Homestead because the gang had live ammo and the Guard didn’t. Never heard if local authorities went back to do a clean up or not. But, this is not too dissimilar to battles in Iraq and Afghanistan.
With the predominance of politics in our military today, I don’t think we are ready for a real war. We certainly don’t have the leadership for it.
I fear the next ‘war’ will be fought with bullets, bombs, and shells that are fitted with radio transmitters and cameras that can positively identify the victim as an enemy combatant so the U.S. can send condolences and reparations to the victims families. Onboard cameras on every weapon will document all action engaged, and will be shown on the nightly news for censorship by the media and citizens.
The word ‘battle’ has been denigrated to mean battling traffic, your internet service provider, the opposing political party, anyone with a differing political viewpoint.
But, a real WAR? I’m sure you, or any of your loved ones or friends, do not want to be in a REAL WAR. If we can keep it as ‘innocent’ as it has been, we’re on the plus side.
Geezer…”skirmish” ? Best humor I’ve read all day.
Lets see now! Skirmish isn’t mentioned in the constitution so I guess that when the U.S. decides to go get in a skirmish with another nation such decision is left for the States to decide…you know that little constitutional thing…right?
Regardless, the constitution only addresses [war] authorities In Article I, Section 8. The fact of the matter is, that even pre-emptive military strikes are literally unconstitutional. IF you’re a constitutionalist such abusive congressional authority granted the President would be of great concern for you….along with the fact that the UN can circumvent our nations constitution so long as a President is willing.
There is no such thing as a skirmish authority in the U.S.!
T.T.Thomas:
(My interpretation is that the President can order a ‘skirmish’, ‘spat’, ‘clash’, or ‘conflict’, if he wants. And ‘retaliation’ is specifically granted.)
Root, the different theaters in WW2 were linked strategically and logistically. Decisions made about Italy impacted the Allied strategy in Southeast Asia, and decisions made about OVERLORD impacted Mediterranean operations.
The original Allied strategy defined Germany as the primary objective -forcing a defensive strategy in the Pacific- yet Admiral King insisted on a defensive/offensive in the Solomons to keep a bad situation from getting worse.
Several bomber wings originally task for the Eigth Air Force (as well as several P-38 fighter groups) were re-directed to North Africa. And so it goes. Assigning to one theater steals from another. There was an imperative need to set goals one or two years ahead in order to set the proper manufacturing priorities and quotas. What happened in one theater had significant repercussions in other theaters.
Iraq and Afghanistan, on the other hand, are widely disparate geologically, strategically, logistically, and politically. Strategies and and time-lines set for one theater have little to do with the other.
So while I appreciate your position that these are two theaters in the global war on terrorism, for all practical purposes they can be considered two distinct & separate wars.
Imagine me in my Jerry Lewis ‘Nutty Professor’ guise arguing on about who put the ‘p’ in ‘pedant’.
Last week, the Arab League provided us with the political cover necessary to impose the NFZ. But now the League doesn’t want anyone going “too far.”
Let the Arab League impose the NFZ. We won’t be “fobbing this off” on anyone. It was never our responsibility. Sovereignty carries a burden. It’s time the Arabs bore theirs. In this case, keep dithering, Mr. President. This situation doesn’t call for American “leadership”. Libyans are complaining that we’re not there and they’ll call for our heads the moment something goes wrong, if we’re foolish enough to involve ourselves. America can’t win in this situation. There’s no point in trying.
Ours isn’t the only air force in the world. Let others do their share.
Pretty gross – what MSNBC is doing to get an interview with Qaddafi:
http://www.moonbattery.com/Gaddafi-big.jpg
Now that the UN is involved it will be interesting to watch what Gaddafi Duck will do to win.
I suspect it will involve have something to do with passing a Security Council condemnation against Israel.
The goal is not “regime change”:
“It’s not designed to have him go. That’s not the purpose,” the official said. “The purpose of the military action is to prevent massive humanitarian loss of life, to stop the violence. If the violence stops, then you shouldn’t leap to say then the military action will continue until he leaves.”
The ultimate aim of U.S. policy, the administration official said, remains to force Gadhafi step down. But to accomplish that, the administration’s strategy hinges on “sequencing.”
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/18/us.libya.no.fly/
Attack Kahadaffi?
And where is Obama going to draw the line?
The whole Middle East is a collection of racist, oppressive, totalitarian states run by dictators, autocrats and religious madman.
Didn’t Obama goes to Egypt and sing the praises of islam?
Did he not bow to the king of Saudi Arabia?
Dit he not say; “So let me be clear: no system of government (Democracy) can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.”?
Just until a few months ago Gadhaffi was Obama’s best friend and now he is out of grace..
Why is that?
What is the difference between Khadaffi and King Abdullah?
Or between Khadaffi, Asif Ali Zardari, Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa or Ali Abdullah Saleh?
Isn’t Saudi Arabia the country that has send troops to Bahrein to kill and beat up protesters?
But he bows, takes advice and praises the king of Saudi Arabia, the dictatorial ruler of an Islamofascist state.
Why is Obama prepared to take action against Libya gives billions of dollars to Pakistan?
Why is Obama prepared to take action against Libya but not against Saudi Arabia?
Saudi Arabia where political parties are banned, the freedom of speech and the press are restricted and people are forbidden to criticize the government. Trade unions and political organizations are banned and public demonstrations are forbidden. The government of Saudi Arabia oppresses religious and political minorities, homosexuals, and women. Punishment for homosexuality, cross-dressing, or being involved with anything that hints at the existence of an organized gay community will range from imprisonment, lashes, and sometimes execution. The treatment of women has been referred to as “Sex segregation” and “gender apartheid”. Freedom of religion does not exist and Saudi Arabia even prohibits Jewish people from entering the country.
They have an atrocious record on human rights issues and that while only a fraction of all the abuse is uncovered. Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz even defended Saudi Arabia’s abysmal human rights record and rejected reforms by saying “It is absurd to impose on an individual or a society rights that are alien to its beliefs or principles.”
(Compare that stement with the one of Obama above…)
Saudi Arabia defends the public executions by beheading, amputations and floggings it carries out under Sharia by stating that it will keep to its “legal traditions” held since the inception of Islam 1,400 years ago and rejects interference in its legal system.
The laws in Nazi Germany were benevolent compared to those in Saudi Arabia.
And the same can be said for almost any Middle Eastern (muslim) country.
Why attack a dictator in Libya and support and all the others?
Andy you know the reasons why Saddam and Qaddafi have been attacked. And we all agree on our opinions about what Saudi and other Islamic cultures do to human beings. And why it should not be tolerated.
However, sverything has been going great these last few months. They are cleaning their own houses for the first time in centuries, if not for the very first time. What could be better? We don’t get blamed. Israel doesn’t get blamed. They are actually standing up and taking part in their future, as opposed to viciously killing innocents of opposing tribes. Purple thumbs began in Iraq thanks to us, and now that enlightenment is spreading.
Arabs and Iranians I know here are the ideological opposite of those we read about, and at least some of this trickles back to sow the seeds of what we’ve seen this year.
I think right now it ain’t broke, and things are really moving the right direction likely because we have chosen our battles carefully in order to win the war.
I hope you are correct Todd. All I read are more devout Islamists wanting to take over. The Muslim brotherhood, and Al Qieda.
It appears to me, this is why we should not be involved. A NFZ will not stop the blood shed. We have large problems at home like the Mexican invasion.
It is time we came home from Afganistan too. If those folks do not want to protect their own country, I think ten years is long enough. Pakistand is just going to continue to hide the enemy.
Anyway, I do hope you are correct, but it is Islam we are talking about.
Leatherneck yes every program I watch on Afghanistan, I’m just amazed at the stone age Afghanistanis who just don’t seem to be at the top of the Bell Curve. They appear to lack any kind of passion or capability for much of anything except complaining about others who do.
Perhaps the Taliban are the most effective Afghanistanis around; regular Rennaissance Men in their country. They at least have a fire under their butt to get something accomplished besides tea.
Many commentators have already said this.
Why should the US attack Libya?
It is of no real strategic interest to the US.
Libya (to my knowledge) doesn’t actively support international terrorism any more, thanks to Reagan.
Is because Obama wants to bring down a dictator, harming his own people?
If this is the case where does he draw the line?
Now take countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan…..
The governments of those countries also oppress and kill their own people AND (Often behind the scenes) aid and abet terrorist groups and special interest groups that DO harm US interests.
Saudi Arabia funds thousands of militant Islamic fundamentalist madrassas and mosques all over the world. It supports organisations like CAIR, ADC, MSA, MPAC, etc., organisations which in turn support terrorist organisations such as Hamas, the muslim brotherhood and Hizbollah. Those Saudi funded organisations also call for the introduction of sharia in the US.
The Pakistani secret service supports the Taliban, killing coalition troops in Afghanistan. It harbours Al Queda terrorists and its citizens, fed on radical islam (Again funded by Saudi Arabia) often call for the destruction of the US.
Remember that all the 9\11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, with the exception of Fayez Banihammad. The London bombers were all from Pakistan and were supported by Pakistan.
The Times Square bomber was from Pakistan and got his terrorist training there.
The US seems eager to get involved in Libya but reluctant to tackle its REAL enemies. To make matters worse, it actively supports them (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan)!
Obama can’t even make up his mind about Iran, another terrorist state that opresses its own people and exports terrorism.
While he condems its rulers, he is reluctant to support the opposition movement.
Does this all makes sense?
Maybe to Obama…………
In the mean time, today in Yemen, snipers hidden on rooftops fire on Yemeni protesters while police seal off a key escape route with a wall of burning tires, turning the largest of a month of anti-government demonstrations into a killing field in which at least 46 people perished.
What does Obama do?
Invade?
Call for President Ali Abdullah Saleh to step down?
No, he gives him hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid and tells him should honour his pledge to allow peaceful demonstrations.
Remember, Yemen is also home to the U.S.-born radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, believed to have offered inspiration to those attacking the U.S.
Again, why intervene in Libya and not in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Yemen?
Far too often of late the Arab world has put up a wail over this or that Bad Man – and the non-Arab world responds with man and machine – treasure and lives to take out Bad Man (see Iraq/Kuwait 1990 – and 2003 when the Saudis persuaded Bush to take out the Bad Man for good). And we get repaid with their ‘heart-felt thanks’ by adding another dollar per gallon at the pump. F*ck em I say – let them take out Quadaffi Duck on their own. I don’t see any Arab nations offering to supply men or machines – or money and oil to help the (idiotic IMHO) nations that are willing to sacrifice so much for so little.
The likely outcome? Another dollar at the pump.
We need to let the Arabs begin policing their own and leave us out of it. If Europe wants to jump in – have at it. If oil quits flowing and it brings us to our economic knees then so be it – it’ll bring down the Arabs right along with us. They need us more than we need them at this point in time. And they know it.
American ingenuity will be hard pressed to fill the void but I’d bet on that over any favorable outcome at the pump from the Arabs’ ‘heart-felt thanks’.
How often do you suppose the Saudi king whispered into any world leaders’ ear who might listen – to do something about Iran’s despots? Yet they would not lift one finger on their own to move against them.
Add another dollar at the pump – it’ll show up in a year or less.
Obama must be delighted as a pig in mud to see them pump prices rising thinking we are finally going to jump on the green energy bandwagon. But all that will do is put $s into the pockets of GE and the other high roller companies that have bankrolled this fools rise to power.
No matter the outcome in Libya or elsewhere all it will mean to me is another dollar at the pump.
You can bet on it.
If Iran want’s to take over Libya, why in the hell are we considering helping them?
Hillary was one of the people who urged Bill to bomb bomb bomb Serbia. Hillary seems to prefer wars in which the US has little-to-no strategic interests (although, arguably, we have greater strategic interests in Libya than we did in the Balkans).
This morning, a British newspaper opines Obama is the weakest president American has ever had.
This afternoon, our narcissistic president authorizes a new war to which he is not committed.
“Hail to the TWIT. He’s the leader of the land….”
God save us and our republic from this little boy dressed in men’s clothing.
You have got that wrong Harvard Yard Conservative.
Us mere mortals just cannot grasp the infinite wisdom and moral clarity of the Anointed One.
As one of his disciples just posted at the Huffington Post:
“President Obama knows our history and knows that our most successful Presidents didn’t jump every time some wimp from right or left yelled chicken. Just because he is Black, every white man and woman in America over 45 has been trained to believe that they, not he, should be in charge. Everybody tries to pretend that what is going on is about spending or deficits; it’s not. All the Union busting is an effort to make Obama’s reelection impossible. But that won’t succeed either because workers know that we cannot trust the Citizens United crowd to look out for us. Obama is the best chance we have.”
Yep, we are just a bunch of ignorant racist wimps…..
Wow, they actually said that? Sounds like something you’d read on Huff…oh, nevermind
Yep….
You couldn’t make it up if you tried.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/heartsick/obama-libya-speech-friday_n_837680_81223755.html
All of this must be terribly confusing to those Iranians who thought we’d help them get rid of Ahmamadnutjob.
I guess the Iranian people don’t have ‘kick em while they’re down’ in their lexicon.
Obama conveniently waited until the rest of the world moved in on Qaddafi before getting into the fray. ‘Pile on’ must be one of the more important phrases in his lexicon.
Obama’s gone above and beyond the U.N. resolution in confronting Ghadaffi in a personal manner, making himself look like a “LEADER”!!!!!!????
Could this be a “CRISIS”?
I’d like to see Ghadaffi challenge Barracky boy to a basketball game or golf shootout.
Or even a debate between press secretaries!
Article from the BBC:
Why is US backing force in Libya but not Bahrain, Yemen?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12792637
Because there is a very nice 6,224 yd course at the Tripoli Golf Club
Maybe Sarkozy could run for US President in ’12. Do we have one now? O’something?
When american’s get informed enough and have enough of this UN and U.S. sanctioned nation building and an UN open charter for preemptive military strikes on soverign nations while circumventing our constitution….maybe all this nonsense will come to a screaming halt.
The U.S. in times when they were more intelligent, devised a strategy to essentially bankrupt the old USSR through military expansion and investment and now the U.S. is falling victim of its own strategy for the USSR. Ten years in costly unconventional warfare, dog tired troops, our war assests on the verge of being worn out, and our nation so far in debt we’re drowning in IOU’s, our peoples are experiencing high unemployment, and our traditional economies long gone, forced to foreign shores.
Now, we’re yet again, engaging our military in a losing strategy in other nation in an attempt to effect nation build. A no-fly-zone strategy is useless without troops on the ground to bring to fruition, the desired nation building outcome.
Anybody want to discuss the constitutional issues of all this nonsense?
Following the French into war without even a Congressional resolution is an impeachable offense.
Their is one action Obama could take that would be impeach-proof. He could send the military after Gadaffi himself in retaliation for the Lockerbie bombing. That would make a “no fly zone” unnecessary and be a whole lot cheaper!
Why are the Euro’s so worked up over Libya? Oil! Virtually all of Libya’s production goes to Europe! So what? Yes, they can buy it from Saudi, or Venezuela, but their crude is dirtier and more difficult to refine. They are figuring if they can put a new guy in there they can get a better deal. It’s all good everyone hates Ka-Daffy! If he should retain control, he still has to deal to have enough money to pay his Mercs. So, it’s still all good.
My favorite idea is to go realpolitik on Libya; give Egypt a free hand (under the table, natch) to establish a protectorate over Libya.
If there is something positive about the conflict in Libya it is the fact that the world leaders have been able to forge a coalition because this used to be one of the major problems in the past and all those disputes only contributed to the atrocities committed in the 1990s for example in former Yugoslavia.
Let’s see. In Egypt we stayed out of it because the rebels were winning. In other words NO HELP for the Egyptian head of state or the rebels since the rebels were winning.
Now, the Libyan government is (was) winning so the USA says we can’t let the ruler of Libya win. So they gave assistance to the rebels.
What are we doing?
Intervention in a civil war! It is none of our business.
Look what happen in Yugoslavia. The United States was on the side of the ethnic Albanians AKA Muslims. Why? so the ethnic Albanians could win in Bosnia? I always thought the United States of America was the good guys!
There are other incidents too.
The Bosniaks — Bosnian Muslims — are about as devoutly Muslim as I am.
“Stephen Green
The Bosniaks — Bosnian Muslims — are about as devoutly Muslim as I am.”
So, Steve, killed any American airmen lately? One of the “Boseniaks” did in Germany just last week.
There are already reports that the people we are “supporting” in Bengazi include those who kidnapped and torgured Bulgarian nurses of eight years. There’s even an article right here on PJM about the Al Quida cells in Bengazi.
We had no business in Yugoslavia, we have no business in Libya. In Yugoslavia, we helped the wrong people, and have no “right” people to help in Libya.
Classic “wag the dog”.