Quote :

""successfully""

Yes - successfully invaded and occupied. We won't ever achieve victory in any true sense. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan will have to do that on their own.

Quote :

"Strictly speaking...well, yeah. My original long answer that got deleted had a reference to NATO. If the Russkis had started bombing Paris and London, would you want the President to go to congress and say, "Hey guys, sorry to get you together on such short notice, but would you please authorize me to do this thing that you already authorized me to do a while ago?""

Yeah, I kind of would, because I doubt it would be as simple as you make it out to be. You hawks have no problem bringing up U.S. interests - why would we not consider them before going into war? I mean, if NATO did something objectionable, we should just break the treaty and refuse to go. The fact that you're more worried about honoring the treaty than doing the right thing is pretty troubling to me.

Quote :

"I agree that it is awful. I do not believe it is the most awful of all things. Wanton slaughter of noncombatants springs to mind as more awful."

Great. Let's institute a no-fly zone in Saudi Arabia, then. China, as well - they like to execute non-violent offenders.

Quote :

"This is viable -- to a point. So far we're not on any faction's side so much as we're preventing the massacre of people who can't defend themselves. Possibly Libya will end up more fucked than it already is. Possibly it will end up semi-stable and pseudo-democratic. I don't know. But again, this line of reasoning boils down to "Is the action smart or dumb?" and not "Is the action legal?""

Right, and even if you say that it's legal, we need to start thinking about the real consequences of this use of force.

Quote :

"For a second I thought you had to be a troll, but if you are, you're quite convincing. China and Russia aren't going to sway anybody. Russia thought it was a good idea to invade Georgia. China's oppressive as hell and about as far from your big-L libertarian point of view as it comes. At least you could have gone with Germany here."

I don't approve of the Russian and Chinese governments, but they are forces to be reckoned with regardless. Their objections are valid.

Quote :

"We spend vastly more on the military than China overall, both in absolute terms and relative to GDP. It took me fifteen seconds to verify that, and my internet connection is fucking up."

In 2009, yes, on paper. Maybe even 2010. We know China keeps a tight grip on information, though, and in the past year, China has really been dumping money into their military.

Quote :

"Muslims get stirred up when a single hack in Florida burns the Koran...caring about whether they get pissed off at any action we take is falling down on my list of concerns. I'm beginning to be of the opinion that we could get out of all foreign wars and they'd still find reasons to control their people and have them suicide bomb shit."

They'd probably sooner do it to their neighbors. They're not crashing planes into Mexico or Canada.

Quote :

"You act like that is some honorable thing they do. The reason they don't so much as criticize even the most blatantly corrupt and violent regimes is because they've decided that doing business in those countries is a higher priority. This does not put them on some kind of moral high ground."

In other words, they've learned that it's better to maintain friendly business relations with other countries, instead of invading them and telling them what kind of government they're allowed to have. We could learn from them.

Quote :

"Continued trade between authoritarian governments is the surest path to peace... for authoritarian governments."

Dude. We put people in jail here for smoking and selling marijuana. Who's got an authoritarian government, again?

[Edited on March 23, 2011 at 12:27 PM. Reason : ]

3/23/2011 12:16:50 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, I kind of would, because I doubt it would be as simple as you make it out to be. You hawks have no problem bringing up U.S. interests - why would we not consider them before going into war?"

It may well be prudent but it isn't legally necessary. In accepting the UN charter, congress accepted military actions that may come about as a result. When I signed my lease, I agreed to to pay rent every month. When the 1st of the month rolls around I don't consult with my friends and family about whether or not I should pony up the check.

Quote :

"Great. Let's institute a no-fly zone in Saudi Arabia, then. China, as well - they like to execute non-violent offenders."

I'd love to. But we have to act within the limits of practicality. As you've pointed out, we're broke and militarily overstretched at the moment. Fortunately our involvement to Libya has been cheap and easy, relatively speaking.

Quote :

"Right, and even if you say that it's legal, we need to start thinking about the real consequences of this use of force."

Yeah. And we need to think of the consequences of not using it. Before the air strikes began it looked like the rebels were bound to lose. Everything Khadaffi has ever done tells us that even after the fighting stopped there would be very, very bloody reprisals, probably whole families and villages exterminated because of the actions of one (which Libyan law specifically allows, incidentally). I'll take a possible clusterfuck over a certain genocide any day of the week.

Quote :

"I don't approve of the Russian and Chinese governments, but they are forces to be reckoned with regardless."

So? A guy being big and strong is not necessarily a guy who knows what he's talking about. The Russians and Chinese say that every military action is reckless, unless they're the ones launching it.

Quote :

"In 2009, yes, on paper. Maybe even 2010. We know China keeps a tight grip on information, though, and in the past year, China has really been dumping money into their military."

It must be really easy to say, "No source that contradicts me can be trusted."

US: $663,255,000,000
China: $98,800,000,000

We spend almost seven times as much as them. Even assuming a massive Chinese buildup and some serious underestimation on our part, I don't think they've closed that gap in two years.

3/23/2011 1:43:21 PM

Quote :

"When I signed my lease, I agreed to to pay rent every month. When the 1st of the month rolls around I don't consult with my friends and family about whether or not I should pony up the check."

When you sign the lease, you agree to exchange a certain amount of money for a place. Within that lease, there are various stipulations that outline when the lease can broken and under what circumstances. If the landlord doesn't hold up his end of the deal, you can leave the lease without penalty.

It's a stupid analogy to begin with, but NATO (something that I actually do oppose, at least our involvement in it) doesn't mean we back them up (whoever) no matter what. This is not something as simple as payment or non-payment. A treaty is not a binding contract to commit American lives and money, regardless of the circumstances. I don't really want to continue arguing over whether this action was strictly legal. I don't think it is, you think it is, but we really need to begin talking about why we're getting involved.

Quote :

"I'd love to. But we have to act within the limits of practicality. As you've pointed out, we're broke and militarily overstretched at the moment. Fortunately our involvement to Libya has been cheap and easy, relatively speaking."

That's alarming. "We should bomb and invade every country with a country that doesn't respect human rights, but we can't get away with doing it against the big guys, so we'll just pick on the little guys." You fully buy into the "TEAM AMERICA" mentality.

It's been cheap and easy so far, according to you, but we've yet to see what it will lead to. That's my concern.

Quote :

"Yeah. And we need to think of the consequences of not using it. Before the air strikes began it looked like the rebels were bound to lose. Everything Khadaffi has ever done tells us that even after the fighting stopped there would be very, very bloody reprisals, probably whole families and villages exterminated because of the actions of one (which Libyan law specifically allows, incidentally). I'll take a possible clusterfuck over a certain genocide any day of the week."

It wasn't certain genocide. Yes, every mainstream American media outlet is saying that Gaddafi was going to commit a wholesale slaughter of civilians, and our involvement is purely in the interests of preventing that. It's just not true, and it makes me sick to hear these fucking generals on the radio spreading propaganda, talking about what a success is it and how awesome we are for saving these people. We're essentially intervening in a civil war. We've picked the side of the rebels, who in no way want a Western-style democracy. This is not akin to Tunisia and Egypt. Both sides want to destroy the other side. Read that zerohedge article I posted.

The point about military expenditures is that we spend more on military than anyone else, and China is the only country that even approaches us. Some guy was suggesting that we need to remind the world of our military might, and I was pointing out that the absurdity of the notion that anyone could have forgotten.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The coalition is now falling apart. None of the member states really know what the end goal here is. You hawks should agree here: there's not going to be victory without troops on the ground and overwhelming force. We can cripple their air capabilities, but we're not going to succeed in getting rid of Gaddafi without ground troops.

That's why I (and anyone with any sense of foresight) warned against a no-fly zone: one thing leads to another.

3/23/2011 6:35:56 PM

Quote :

"If the landlord doesn't hold up his end of the deal, you can leave the lease without penalty."

Since the same is essentially true of NATO, your concern about a member country doing "something objectionable" would seem moot, wouldn't it?

Quote :

"A treaty is not a binding contract to commit American lives and money, regardless of the circumstances."

The only way it isn't binding is in the sense that nobody can make us abide it very easily. Legally we have an obligation to abide. We can ignore that obligation -- we've done it many times before with treaties -- but that doesn't make our decision legal.

Quote :

"That's alarming. "We should bomb and invade every country with a country that doesn't respect human rights, but we can't get away with doing it against the big guys, so we'll just pick on the little guys.""

All actions are restrained by the bounds of practicality. In international politics there are a lot of variables to consider in this regard. We've wanted -- and had good reasons for wanting -- Kadhaffi gone for decades now, but a lot of factors made it impractical. Now, we have an opportunity to exploit an existing internal ground force as well as international will to do what we've wanted.

Quote :

"It wasn't certain genocide. Yes, every mainstream American media outlet is saying that Gaddafi was going to commit a wholesale slaughter of civilians"

Tell me, is there a reputable non-mainstream outlet saying that Muamar wants to be hugs and kisses with these people if he wins?

3/23/2011 9:11:54 PM

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/24/president-obama-has-lost-his-legitimacy-to-remain-/

Obama’s impeachable war

Quote :

"President Obama has lost his legitimacy to remain in office. The Libyan war has exposed the administration’s lawlessness and rampant criminality. If Republicans and conservatives are serious about restoring constitutional government, they will demand that Mr. Obama be impeached. ..."

pretty funny article

3/24/2011 8:58:40 PM

If we hadn't gone in with the UK and France, they would've started calling it "Freedom Football" over there and we can't have that.

3/25/2011 9:21:43 AM

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0426/1224295458130.html

Anybody see this in the news?

Bombs hit Gadaffi's compound.

4/25/2011 7:59:04 PM

^Did notice this:

Quote :

"Gadafy"

What's up with that?

4/25/2011 8:42:39 PM

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/81/81hnews.phtml

Quote :

"Announcer: And now, "SNL Newsbreak", with anchor Brian Doyle-Murray. Brian Doyle-Murray: Good evening, I'm Brian Doyle-Murray. Our top story tonight: This man, Libyan leader, Col. Moammar Kadaffi, has been the study of intense news coverage this week by every major news origanization in America. However, every time his name appears in print, it has a different spelling. The Chicago Tribune spells it K-H-A-D-A-F-Y; The Los Angeles Times spells it K-A-D-A-F-I; Newsweek Magazine, K-A-D-D-A-F-I; Time Magazine, G-A-D-D-A-F-I; The Wall Street Journal, Q-A-D-H-A-F-I; The Washington Post, Q-A-D-D-A-F-I; The New York Times, el-Qaddafi. My personal favorite is from the comic book publishers - Kadaffy Duck. Brian Doyle-Murray: How do you spell Kadaffi? Let us know. [ news screen scroll many weird spellings of Kadaffi ] Our news research department has determined that no two people spell it alike. Send us your spelling of Kadaffi, and remember, it can't be the same as any of these spellings you're seeing on the screen right now. The most original spelling of the Libyan leader's name will be awarded a one-way ticket to Tripoli - that is, if your passport allows you to go there. so, send that in, let us know how you spell Kadaffi! "

4/25/2011 10:09:53 PM

Obama's Quick and effective war. Unlike Dumbya's

10/23/2011 1:48:24 PM

How do you know it was effective? Only time will tell.

10/23/2011 2:05:59 PM

Mission Accomplished

10/23/2011 6:20:08 PM