View Full Version : War by Comittee
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-23-11, 10:24
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20110322/twl-france-says-new-non-nato-body-to-lea-3fd0ae9.html
They can't even agree on who is in charge, let alone what to do.
I'd like to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and think that he is trying to get the rest of the world to step-up and actually get do something. At this rate, people around the world will be missing the America that made problems go away. Have to think it emboldens people like China though. Do they really think that Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam and the Philippines would band together to keep China from expanding in the Spraytly area?
I'd like to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and think that he is trying to get the rest of the world to step-up and actually get do something.
He's grandstanding. The war in Lybia is going to be won one way or another by the Rebels, so he's using it as a farce to try to prove to constituents that he's "not afraid to go to war," while doing so in the name of humanity for his liberal party.
Don't think for one second he's doing it because he actually cares about freedom or international stability.
Don't think for one second he's doing it because he actually cares about freedom or international stability.
Oh he cares very much for international stability, because that means market stability.
Oh he cares very much for international stability, because that means market stability.
I'm of the unique belief that obama ultimately wants market instability and is purposely trying to cause crisis in order to implement emergency action.
That's purely my opinion based on his actions.
Suwannee Tim
03-23-11, 13:39
Last I heard Qaddafi's forces were working a hurt on the rebels. Even if the rebels win there is no certainty that they will be better than Qaddafi who has been very quiet in the last few years. If Qaddafi wins I expect him to resume supporting terrorism in a big way.
I'm still confused as to why Libya is being attacked.
"The President does not have Power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the Nation." Senator Barrak Obama Dec 20 2007
I'm still confused as to why Libya is being attacked.
Because it allows Obama to claim he is for freedom, "democracy," and against oppression. An attempt to look "center"
What I mean is, why did the UN/NATO forces like france, uk, us, etc, start to attack Gaddafi's armed forces wholesale when Gaddafi was initially dealing with an armed rebellion? Even though Gaddafi is not an upstanding type of dude, doesn't he have the right to defend the country/status quo from armed rebels?
I don't believe this attack against Gaddafi had anything to do with protecting civilians. It doesn't make sense.
I mean Gaddafi's air force is destroyed, and know NATO/UN forces are targeting Gaddafi's ground forces.
How is this legal?
How is this legal?
(This answer does not at all condone or condemn the ongoing actions -- it is agnostic to the actual events)
Why would you think it is illegal?
What laws is it breaking?
What is the "controlling legal authority"?
My point is, when it comes down to relations between states, it is no longer about legal or illegal.
What I mean is, why did the these UN/NATO forces like france, uk, us, etc, start to attack Gaddafi's armed forces wholesale when Gaddafi was initially dealing with an armed rebellion? Even though Gaddafi is not an upstanding type of dude, doesn't he have the right to defend the country/status quo from armed rebels?
I don't believe this attack against Gaddafi had anything to do with protecting civilians. It doesn't make sense.
I mean Gaddafi's air force is destroyed, and know NATO/UN forces are targeting Gaddafi's ground forces.
How is this legal?
The truth? That's democracy - mob rule. If the world thinks you're bad, then you get attacked. It's why our founding fathers were specifically against democracy and instead chose us to be a republic and its why we should fight cries for "democracy" at all costs. Democracy is not inherently good (in fact, it's usually bad), it just means the public gets what the majority wants. If the majority are scared by the media, then everyone gets ruled by fear-mongering. Fact: you won't find "democracy" anywhere in our founding documents.
I'm of the unique belief that obama ultimately wants market instability and is purposely trying to cause crisis in order to implement emergency action.
That's purely my opinion based on his actions.
It's not exactly a unique belief. I'm also of the opinion that the longer the economy stays down, the more he benefits.
Also...war by committee...isn't that one of the factors that ****ed us up in Vietnam, the cabals of politicians telling the warfighters how to fight the war?
What I mean is, why did the these UN/NATO forces like france, uk, us, etc, start to attack Gaddafi's armed forces wholesale when Gaddafi was initially dealing with an armed rebellion? Even though Gaddafi is not an upstanding type of dude, doesn't he have the right to defend the country/status quo from armed rebels?
I don't believe that a dictator has moral authority to defend his position by killing his own people, no.
As far as whether it is legal for us to attack him or not I am a little conflicted on this one. President is CINC, according to the Constitution, but Congress declares war. We are certainly not engaging in self defense, but Congress has not been asked to vote to declare war or authorize use of force against Libya. Obama was too busy vacationing in Rio to do what he is supposed to.
rickrock305
03-23-11, 19:43
I'm of the unique belief that obama ultimately wants market instability and is purposely trying to cause crisis in order to implement emergency action.
That's purely my opinion based on his actions.
Motive?
Motive?
Read what you quoted again. It was at the end of the first sentence.
rickrock305
03-23-11, 19:56
I was looking for something beyond vague hyperbole
I was looking for something beyond vague hyperbole
How is
in order to implement emergency action. hyperbole?
rickrock305
03-23-11, 20:05
you'll argue about anything... :rolleyes:
variablebinary
03-23-11, 20:08
I'm still confused as to why Libya is being attacked.
Delayed reaction
http://www.the-bastard.com/images/articles/2901.jpg
John_Wayne777
03-23-11, 22:56
The Lybia situation is one of those situations that a real chief executive has to face on occasion. There are times when you are damned if you do, damned if you don't. Do nothing and see all the rebels get slaughtered by Ghadaffi and everyone is mad at you, and you pay a price. Do something and everyone is mad at you, and you pay a price.
If America steps up to the plate and leads then you are being a unilateralist dickface that doesn't care about the opinions or interests of other nations. Try to take a more backseat role and you are criticized for not exhibiting leadership or taking the problem seriously.
There are no easy answers to this kind of problem, and I'm generally inclined to cut a chief executive a lot of slack given that significant chunks of the world will be pissed off at us no matter what we do because they have the luxury of being able to play the contrarian with the most benevolent hegemon in the history of humanity. The United States is the spine and much of the muscle of the civilized world. The simple truth of the matter is that if we don't seriously make an attempt to do things, then things just don't get done.
Thus the world which frequently bitches when we do things gets cold feet and looks to preserve their own narrow interests and resent the hell out of us if we don't invest our credibility and resources fully in the effort. When we do, they bitch at us for doing so and want to put bizarre limits on our action.
This is the normal situation that the President faces. Ordinarily the person in the oval office would receive at least some measure of sympathy because frequently in that position there are no good options available to you. In this case, however, I find a certain level of satisfaction in watching this man, who was supposed to be the best and brightest of us, (after all, he was awarded the Nobel prize for his future leadership) struggle with the same issues every other mortal occupant of the office has had to deal with. It's somewhat gratifying to see him learn day by day that the burden of real leadership is much heavier than he conceived of while sitting on the sidelines lobbing grenades.
The world is a difficult place. Those who want politicians to be messiahs are fools. Those politicians who flirt with the idea that they really are a messiah are damnable fools. Damnable fools rarely make a bad situation any better.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-23-11, 23:02
Just out of curiosity, has a Nobel Peace Prize winner ever bombed anyone before. Trying to be serious.
Just out of curiosity, has a Nobel Peace Prize winner ever bombed anyone before. Trying to be serious.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Yasser-arafat-1999-2.jpg/225px-Yasser-arafat-1999-2.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/Henry_Kissinger.jpg/225px-Henry_Kissinger.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Yasser-arafat-1999-2.jpg/225px-Yasser-arafat-1999-2.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/Henry_Kissinger.jpg/225px-Henry_Kissinger.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Nelson_Mandela-2008_%28edit%29.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Theodore_Roosevelt_circa_1902.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Thomas_Woodrow_Wilson%2C_Harris_%26_Ewing_bw_photo_portrait%2C_1919.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Anwar_Sadat_cropped.jpg
montanadave
03-24-11, 06:10
While I might not share John_Wayne777's sense of schadenfreude viz-a-viz the current situation in Libya, I agree with the crux of his remarks.
"Damned if you do, damned if you don't" pretty much sums it up.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.