Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<TRIPOLI, Libya — French fighter jets struck an air base deep inside Libya and downed one of Moammar Gadhafi's planes Thursday, and NATO ships patrolled the coast to block the flow of arms and mercenaries. Other coalition bombers struck artillery, arms depots and parked helicopters, officials said Thursday.>> Sounds like it's getting pretty darned close to me! Be sure to let me know when it is.
Originally Posted By ecdc Call it whatever you feel like, it's not Iraq and therefore saying the "United States is engaged in three wars" is a gross oversimplification of what's happening in Libya.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Iraq wasn't going to be Iraq. It was going to be go in, dump Saddam, be welcomed as heroes and go home. Mission accomplished. Didn't quite work out that way. I hope you are right, but color me skeptical.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 True, but that STARTED as a full-scale invasion. This has not, and still has the potential to be far more limited. I share your skepticism, and things don't always go as foreseen (obviously). But so far this ain't even close to Iraq.
Originally Posted By ecdc An agreement has been announced to have NATO take control of the Libyan mission in two days.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I'm glad to hear we are turning over control, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not a war... just not OUR war. Frankly, it either needs to turn in to a war or everything done will be wasted. The rebels are still having a helluva time contending with Gadhafi's better-trained and equipped forces. Eventually ground forces will need to go in to unseat Gadhafi. He won't be "shocked and awed" out of power any more than Saddam was.
Originally Posted By gadzuux For me, this news is somewhat heartening. I don't want to see us entangled in this any more than is absolutely necessary. If that means we're there in an advisory or support role, that's not so bad. I'm uneasy about exactly who these rebels are. The old 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' mindset is too simplistic. Just because these people share our desire to see Gadhafi deposed doesn't mean that they're aligned with the US or our interests. Also, as has been pointed out elsewhere, there are plenty of dictators and atrocities to go around (Somolia, Sudan Bahrain), and we're not doing much about any of these others. The denizens of the middle east have been battling and killing each other since the beginning of time, and we're not going to end that with a few bombs and cruise missiles. My other concern centers around my healthy mistrust of the "military industrial complex". These powerful entities are financially incented to create conflict - it's good for business. And they hold enormous sway in DC and the pentagon. As a result, any time our military engages in battle, the motive is ALWAYS going to be suspect. And finally, my general disgust with all things republican. For weeks, they've been bashing the president for "dithering" over Libya. Now - within hours of him taking action - they're bashing him for being preemptory and rash. These people have no actual convictions at all - just a need to tear down any president that they don't like. They'll say anything, they'll do anything. Credibility means nothing to them - only attacking the president and undermining his ability to lead.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper You have to admit that he/his administration have not handled this well. You can't say that "Gadahfi must go" in one breath and then say you are simply protecting civilians in the next. Even the President's most ardent supporters are giving him an earful over this. I'm not saying we shouldn't be there...but there are a lot of civilians in a lot of other countries being killed by their so-called governments.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>You can't say that "Gadahfi must go" in one breath and then say you are simply protecting civilians in the next.<< Why not? Wanting "Ghadafi to go" has been official US policy of every administration as far back as I can remember, at least to Reagan, probably before. Before Saddam and bin Laden came along, Ghadafi was the guy we hated most in the middle east. So it isn't exactly some new notion that we want him gone. And it's one that -- prior to this administration -- has never been a controversial thing regardless of party. But I sometimes forget, this is the administration that stirs up angst by making outlandish suggestions like kids should eat more veggies. The GOP has no morals whatsoever any more. Their blind hatred of Obama trumps all else. They'd be against breathing if he made a speech in favor of it. Really, they would.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 And the Dems hatred of W trumped all else also -- so sad the state of politics in our country. However if this was W still in office some of those cutting Obama slack would not be..let's face it, that is a fact too. I did not vote for Obama - have made it very clear from his days in Chicago politics I don't trust him ( bit there are people in both parties I feel exactly the same way about) - but I support him as our president. He is a bright man and if he felt this was the way to go..I will support it. The blanket statements about the GOP are ridiculous--do they apply to some members? - you bet..to all no. It never works that easy on either side. I don't judge every Democrat by Nancy Pelosi just as I don't judge every GOP member by Karl Rove. Missing out on a lot of good people on both sides by doing that.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Respectfully, I think people look at him with blinders on. No one can tell me they didn't expect more from President Obama. December, 2007: "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." -Then Candidate Barack Obama in an interview with the Boston Globe.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>However if this was W still in office some of those cutting Obama slack would not be..let's face it, that is a fact too.<< Except we already know that's an inaccurate comparison. Bush (who I voted for in 2000) earned my loathing through incompetence and bad policies. Conversely, Republicans hate Obama over phantom crap like socialism, birth certificates, and a vague "loss of freedom." Comparing the two is a total fallacy. As already noted, Obama is taking a lot of heat from the left on this. Can you fathom the right's sycophantic response if it had been Bush? They'd call anyone who disagrees with the "war" an unpatriotic traitor.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>No one can tell me they didn't expect more from President Obama.<< I expect more of the American people. The hysteria when he does, well, anything, is ridiculous. I stand by that. And I think it is unprecedented except for perhaps the era of Lincoln. And why shouldn't I stand by my blanket condemnation of the current GOP? They want to be seen as a single-minded entity these days, dancing to the tea party's tune and standing fast against Obama. So, if they're all in, they're all the same. Tell me how to differentiate.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan They'd call anyone who disagrees with the "war" an unpatriotic traitor.<< And they did. ecdc and I supported Bush early on. A mistake in hindsight perhaps, but we gave him our trust. Show me any current Republican who has been supportive of this president on just about anything, and i'll show you a person who has been branded a RINO at best.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip >>No one can tell me they didn't expect more from President Obama.<< I expected more from Obama, but that is largely because I didn't think that Republicans would fight him every step of the way on everything. Given the circumstances, he's done as well as anyone could. People tend to forget what disastrous shape this country was in Fall 08. Many intelligent people seriously though we were heading to another Great Depression. Now the most anyone can complain about is a jobless recovery, and that is starting to turn around too.
Originally Posted By Longhorn12 >As already noted, Obama is taking a lot of heat from the left on this. Can you fathom the right's sycophantic response if it had been Bush? They'd call anyone who disagrees with the "war" an unpatriotic traitor. < The right is being super awesome about this. They moaned on national TV for a no-fly zone, and when Obama gave them that they moaned that we shouldn't be involved. This was within a week of each other.
Originally Posted By Labuda "Bush (who I voted for in 2000)" OMG, ecdc. I had no idea, but THANK YOU for letting me see that I'm not the only die hard liberal here who made that mistake in the past. If you were here right now, I'd hug ya! And +1 for your entire post! And, Trippy, regarding post 15 - nice to see you saying that, since I always fear you're much more conservative than I'd like you to be.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<And, Trippy, regarding post 15 - nice to see you saying that, since I always fear you're much more conservative than I'd like you to be. >> That's the problem with being a moderate in a sharply divided political climate. The people on the very conservative Branson Board where I post think I'm a lefty socialist. The folks here think I'm a John Bircher.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "Why not? Wanting "Ghadafi to go" has been official US policy of every administration as far back as I can remember, at least to Reagan, probably before" Exactly. And remember how some on the right here gleefully posted 90's quotes from Clinton and Gore about how they'd like to see Saddam gone? Well of course they would have. But that doesn't mean that they thought it wise to invade and occupy the country, and of course they didnt, so it was a bogus attempt at equivalence. What's happening now is not nothing, and I retain my reservations. But it ain't Iraq.
Originally Posted By Longhorn12 >What's happening now is not nothing, and I retain my reservations. But it ain't Iraq. < Obama stated that his giving control to the Libyans by this weekend. Looks like a wrap folks...
