PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues Libya -- what do we do


Amnorix
03-09-2011, 01:53 PM
So we've seen a couple of dictatorships fall, and Libya is now in utter turmoil. We have sniping between McCain and the Chairman of the JCOS and the SecDef over what we know, when we knew it, and whether we should enforce some kind of no fly zone.

We historically hated Khadafy/Quaddafi (however the hell you spell it, I've seen it a million ways overt he years), but over the last 10 or so he's actually been kinda ok for us to deal with. Of course, he's an unabashed dictator and doesn't seem above killing his own people.

But then again, he's just an ordinary nutcase dictator, not some kind of religious nut job, and we hate those more than ordinary nutcase dictators, so long as they aren't too anti-American, which he hasn't been for, again, the last 10 years or so (more or less).

So what say the CP Membership. Do we support the rebels directly? Enforce a nofly zone over Libya? Use Saudi Arabia to arm the rebels? Support Khadafi? Sit on our hands and let their internal politics play out?

Does Obama get blamed if Khadafi falls? If he doesn't fall? Only if some Muslim nutcake group takes over the country? If we aren't able to build a large military base in Libya within 10 years to further Pax Americana?

Donger
03-09-2011, 01:59 PM
Stay out of it.

mlyonsd
03-09-2011, 02:01 PM
Ugly questions with no real clear cut answers.

I say we only take part in a no fly zone if the UN sanctions it and other countries are involved.

blaise
03-09-2011, 02:04 PM
Give one side guns and weapons that they'll then use against us in a few years.

HonestChieffan
03-09-2011, 02:09 PM
Trust Obama

go bowe
03-09-2011, 02:10 PM
Give one side guns and weapons that they'll then use against us in a few years.maybe so, but it's more likely that they will appreciate the help...

at the very least, we should give them a few anti-aircaraft weapons to stop the continuing attacks against the rebels and more recently, attacks on oil facilties..

a few anti-tank weapons would be good also...

make it a fair fight and let the best men win...

Amnorix
03-09-2011, 02:12 PM
Trust Obama

What a pathetic dodge. What do you think we should do. Those who can't tell us can't sit there and throw peanuts later if things don't work out.

No opinion means no spine. I'm not sure there is ANY "good" move here for us.

blaise
03-09-2011, 02:13 PM
We should have a Bonnarroo festival there and bring everyone together with the power of music.

Amnorix
03-09-2011, 02:14 PM
maybe so, but it's more likely that they will appreciate the help...

at the very least, we should give them a few anti-aircaraft weapons to stop the continuing attacks against the rebels and more recently, attacks on oil facilties..

a few anti-tank weapons would be good also...

make it a fair fight and let the best men win...

How many weapons do you need to give them so they win?

What happens if you end up witha Taliban-like faction arising, which we armed/supported now, but they turn against us?

What happens if Khadafy wins and decides to rededicate himself to an Anti-American campaign funded by huge oil revenues?

Isn't it better to stop being perceived as meddling everywhere in the Middle East?

go bowe
03-09-2011, 02:14 PM
Trust Obamaoh bullpuckey...

he has no clue how to support the uprising without getting directly involved...

i still think some stingers would do a better job of establishing a no fly zone of their own...

then we wouldn't have to attack ghaddafi's air defense system or aircraft...

let the rebels take care of business i say...

Hydrae
03-09-2011, 02:14 PM
Stay out of it.

I concur whole-heartedly.

go bowe
03-09-2011, 02:22 PM
How many weapons do you need to give them so they win?

What happens if you end up witha Taliban-like faction arising, which we armed/supported now, but they turn against us?

What happens if Khadafy wins and decides to rededicate himself to an Anti-American campaign funded by huge oil revenues?

Isn't it better to stop being perceived as meddling everywhere in the Middle East?as i've said, a limited number of anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons would make it more of a fair fight...

the chances of ghaddafi winning are pretty slim, imo, and the chances of a radical muslim takeover are even slimmer...

but even with those risks, we should be on the side of freedom when we can assist without direct military intervention...

same with being perceived as meddling... better to arm the rebels than invade like we did with iraq, which is an example of extreme meddling...

other than some radicals, most of the people on the arab street will support our arming the rebels who are fighting for freedom...

freedom has become the central rallying point for ordinary arabs throughout the region, and we should do whatever we can, short of direct intervention, to help the forces of democracy...

Discuss Thrower
03-09-2011, 02:26 PM
Nuke them from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

Donger
03-09-2011, 02:27 PM
oh bullpuckey...

he has no clue how to support the uprising without getting directly involved...

i still think some stingers would do a better job of establishing a no fly zone of their own...

then we wouldn't have to attack ghaddafi's air defense system or aircraft...

let the rebels take care of business i say...

And what happens when one of our planes is shot down?

Jaric
03-09-2011, 02:28 PM
maybe so, but it's more likely that they will appreciate the help...
Osama Bin Laden called. He said "Death to America."

mnchiefsguy
03-09-2011, 02:30 PM
I think we stay out of it...for now. See what the results wind up being. If Khadafy wins, the status quo returns, as he will be in a weaker position, and not wish to antagonize the US. If another regime comes, we should try to work with them and establish a good relationship, but be prepared to deal with them if they turn out to be crazy Islamic radicals.

go bowe
03-09-2011, 02:31 PM
And what happens when one of our planes is shot down?i'm not sure what you mean here...

if we arm the rebels with stingers, there wouldn't be a need for a no fly zone and our planes wouldn't be flying over libya...

Donger
03-09-2011, 02:32 PM
i'm not sure what you mean here...

if we arm the rebels with stingers, there wouldn't be a need for a no fly zone and our planes wouldn't be flying over libya...

Sorry, wrong person/quote.

mlyonsd
03-09-2011, 02:32 PM
as i've said, a limited number of anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons would make it more of a fair fight...

the chances of ghaddafi winning are pretty slim, imo, and the chances of a radical muslim takeover are even slimmer...

but even with those risks, we should be on the side of freedom when we can assist without direct military intervention...

same with being perceived as meddling... better to arm the rebels than invade like we did with iraq, which is an example of extreme meddling...

other than some radicals, most of the people on the arab street will support our arming the rebels who are fighting for freedom...

freedom has become the central rallying point for ordinary arabs throughout the region, and we should do whatever we can, short of direct intervention, to help the forces of democracy...

When did you become a warmonger? If Cheney was posting on this site you'd get pos rep from him for sure.

go bowe
03-09-2011, 02:34 PM
Osama Bin Laden called. He said "Death to America."despite ghaddafi's claims, aq is not involved in the uprising...

my point is that the rebels will appreciate our help and imo it would further lessen the chances of anti-american sentiment among the rebels...

radicals say death to america no matter what we do...

Donger
03-09-2011, 02:35 PM
Do we even know that we'd rather have these rebels in control of Libya than Gaddafhi (or how ever he spells it)?

go bowe
03-09-2011, 02:35 PM
When did you become a warmonger? If Cheney was posting on this site you'd get pos rep from him for sure.i've always been a warmonger, you just have never noticed...

as far as cheney goes, i am confident that his stand-in patteeu will speak for him...

go bowe
03-09-2011, 02:37 PM
Do we even know that we'd rather have these rebels in control of Libya than Gaddafhi (or how ever he spells it)?no we don't know for sure, but i'd bet on the pro-democracy folks in libya being friendly with other democracies including the u.s. ...

HonestChieffan
03-09-2011, 02:47 PM
OMG what now what now.....

Its a bit late in the game....whatever is going to evolve will.

We have no influence over it at this point. We stood by cheering and happy, we did exactly what you would expect of our leadership...gave a speech, did nothing, kept his base happy....so at this point....we do zero and hope, just hope, we don't get burned somehow.


Its to late to get in.

Bwana
03-09-2011, 03:00 PM
Stay out of it.

This

BucEyedPea
03-09-2011, 03:06 PM
What do we do? Geezaz! Are we THAT programmed?

We do nothing. Who ever gains power will still need customers to sell oil to. Oil will still flow.

bevischief
03-09-2011, 03:16 PM
Nuke them from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

This or stay out of it.

Dayze
03-09-2011, 03:17 PM
i have a feeling this will end up costing us hundreds of millions of dollars.

Amnorix
03-09-2011, 03:25 PM
What do we do? Geezaz! Are we THAT programmed?

We do nothing. Who ever gains power will still need customers to sell oil to. Oil will still flow.

Doing nothing is still a decision. Inaction is a choice, though whether made consciously or as a result of paralysis is another issue.

I don't think we're paralyzed by confusion, I think we're choosing to stay out of it. A decision I agree with as I don't see any upside to getting involved at this point.

donkhater
03-09-2011, 03:28 PM
A good article by George Will on intervention in Libya. I like his first question especially. We didn't ask it enough this last decade.


On Libya, too many questions

By George F. Will
Tuesday, March 8, 2011;

In September 1941, Japan's leaders had a question for Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto: Could he cripple the U.S. fleet in Hawaii? Yes, he said. Then he had a question for the leaders: But then what?

Following an attack, he said, "I shall run wild considerably for the first six months or a year, but I have utterly no confidence" after that. Yamamoto knew America: He had attended Harvard and been naval attache in Japan's embassy in Washington. He knew Japan would be at war with an enraged industrial giant. The tide-turning defeat of Japan's navy at the Battle of Midway occurred June 7, 1942 - exactly six months after Pearl Harbor.

Today, some Washington voices are calling for U.S. force to be applied, somehow, on behalf of the people trying to overthrow Moammar Gaddafi. Some interventionists are Republicans, whose skepticism about government's abilities to achieve intended effects ends at the water's edge. All interventionists should answer some questions:


The world would be better without Gaddafi. But is that a vital U.S. national interest? If it is, when did it become so? A month ago, no one thought it was.


How much of Gaddafi's violence is coming from the air? Even if his aircraft are swept from his skies, would that be decisive?


What lesson should be learned from the fact that Europe's worst atrocity since the Second World War - the massacre by Serbs of Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica - occurred beneath a no-fly zone?


Sen. John Kerry says: "The last thing we want to think about is any kind of military intervention. And I don't consider the fly zone stepping over that line." But how is imposing a no-fly zone - the use of military force to further military and political objectives - not military intervention?


U.S. forces might ground Gaddafi's fixed-wing aircraft by destroying runways at his 13 air bases, but to keep helicopter gunships grounded would require continuing air patrols, which would require the destruction of Libya's radar and anti-aircraft installations. If collateral damage from such destruction included civilian deaths - remember those nine Afghan boys recently killed by mistake when they were gathering firewood - are we prepared for the televised pictures?


The Economist reports Gaddafi has "a huge arsenal of Russian surface-to-air missiles" and that some experts think Libya has SAMs that could threaten U.S. or allies' aircraft. If a pilot is downed and captured, are we ready for the hostage drama?


If we decide to give war supplies to the anti-Gaddafi fighters, how do we get them there?


Presumably we would coordinate aid with the leaders of the anti-Gaddafi forces. Who are they?


Libya is a tribal society. What concerning our Iraq and Afghanistan experiences justifies confidence that we understand Libyan dynamics?


Because of what seems to have been the controlling goal of avoiding U.S. and NATO casualties, the humanitarian intervention - 79 days of bombing - against Serbia in Kosovo was conducted from 15,000 feet. This marked the intervention as a project worth killing for but not worth dying for. Would intervention in Libya be similar? Are such interventions morally dubious?


Could intervention avoid "mission creep"? If grounding Gaddafi's aircraft is a humanitarian imperative, why isn't protecting his enemies from ground attacks?


In Tunisia and then in Egypt, regimes were toppled by protests. Libya is convulsed not by protests but by war. Not a war of aggression, not a war with armies violating national borders and thereby implicating the basic tenets of agreed-upon elements of international law, but a civil war. How often has intervention by nation A in nation B's civil war enlarged the welfare of nation A?


Before we intervene in Libya, do we ask the United Nations for permission? If it is refused, do we proceed anyway? If so, why ask? If we are refused permission and recede from intervention, have we not made U.S. foreign policy hostage to a hostile institution?


Secretary of State Hilary Clinton fears Libya becoming a failed state - "a giant Somalia." Speaking of which, have we not seen a cautionary movie - "Black Hawk Down" - about how humanitarian military interventions can take nasty turns?


The Egyptian crowds watched and learned from the Tunisian crowds. But the Libyan government watched and learned from the fate of the Tunisian and Egyptian governments. It has decided to fight. Would not U.S. intervention in Libya encourage other restive peoples to expect U.S. military assistance?


Would it be wise for U.S. military force to be engaged simultaneously in three Muslim nations?

Otter
03-09-2011, 03:54 PM
I got an idea, how about we send in troops to keep the peace between what is essentially two guys in a schoolyard waiting for the teacher to turn their back so they can finally fight and determine whose in charge all while costing us billions of dollars a year (which we don't have) and getting our troops killed for a lost cause that's gonna happen whether we like it or not?

This worked in Korea!
Wait
This worked in Vietnam!
Wait!
I know where it worked, Iraq!
No, Wait!
It's working in Afghanistan!
Right?

Stay the hell out of it, let the chips fall where they may or let someone else step up and take care of it. I don't care if I have to ride a fucking mule deer to work.

BucEyedPea
03-09-2011, 03:55 PM
i have a feeling this will end up costing us hundreds of millions of dollars.

It's already going to cost us money since we're going in. Because we'll rebuild it afterwards we'll spend even more.
Even that fiscal conservative McCain wants to go in. See it's not a matter of how much money we have between the
two parties, it's what each side wants to spend it on. They both just rip us off.

Count Alex's Losses
03-09-2011, 03:56 PM
Go in with guns blazing, flying the American flag, and make Libya the 51st state.

Otter
03-09-2011, 03:58 PM
Go in with guns blazing, flying the American flag, and make Libya the 51st state.

If that was an option it might actually work. Unfortunately these things are fought by politicians in suits & ties back in DC who are more worried about appearance than victory.

The Mad Crapper
03-09-2011, 03:59 PM
I got an idea, how about we send in troops to keep the peace between what is essentially two guys in a schoolyard waiting for the teacher to turn their back so they can finally fight and determine whose in charge all while costing us billions of dollars a year (which we don't have) and getting our troops killed for a lost cause that's gonna happen whether we like it or not?

This worked in Korea!
Wait
This worked in Vietnam!
Wait!
I know where it worked, Iraq!
No, Wait!
It's working in Afghanistan!
Right?

Stay the hell out of it, let the chips fall where they may or let someone else step up and take care of it. I don't care if I have to ride a ****ing mule deer to work.

The federal government is awesome. Think about all the wars they have declared and won:

The war on poverty.
The war on drugs.
The war on terrorism.

:drool:

WV
03-09-2011, 04:03 PM
Only offer to help if they give us oil.

dirk digler
03-09-2011, 04:04 PM
Stay out of it.

This.

Plus I hear we are broke so it is not like we can afford to blow tens or hundreds of millions of dollars enforcing a no fly zone

The Mad Crapper
03-09-2011, 04:14 PM
Only offer to help if they give us oil.

Iraq is selling all of theirs to China.

Arabs suck.

Jaric
03-09-2011, 04:30 PM
despite ghaddafi's claims, aq is not involved in the uprising...

my point is that the rebels will appreciate our help and imo it would further lessen the chances of anti-american sentiment among the rebels...

radicals say death to america no matter what we do...

No, my point was that was the stance we took with Bin Laden in the 80s when they were fighting the Soviets.

WV
03-09-2011, 05:34 PM
Iraq is selling all of theirs to China.

Arabs suck.

We should have taken there's when we had the chance.

LiveSteam
03-09-2011, 05:46 PM
I say stay out of it.
UNLESS WE
Go in with guns blazing, flying the American flag, and make Libya the 51st state.

teedubya
03-09-2011, 05:48 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1364469/Gaddafi-blows-Libyas-oil-pipes-tanks-turned-civilians.html

Libya's skies turn black as desperate dictator blows up oil pipes and turns his tanks on civilians

BucEyedPea
03-09-2011, 05:48 PM
Only offer to help if they give us oil.

We help whoever wins by buying their oil. Although, I Libya is pretty low on our supply list it affects the price if those who buy from Libya have to use our suppliers more.

BucEyedPea
03-09-2011, 05:49 PM
I say stay out of it.
UNLESS WE
Do you really want those people as your fellow Americans?

LiveSteam
03-09-2011, 05:52 PM
Do you really want those people as your fellow Americans?

:shake:

BucEyedPea
03-09-2011, 05:54 PM
:shake:

I feel exactly the same way.

chiefqueen
03-09-2011, 06:24 PM
Iraq is selling all of theirs to China.

Arabs suck.

Most of the oil countries have begun selling their higher grade oil to China as China now has greater demand. The US gets "second-fiddle" stuff.

Brock
03-09-2011, 06:26 PM
Most of the oil countries have begun selling their higher grade oil to China as China now has greater demand. The US gets "second-fiddle" stuff.

LOL

patteeu
03-09-2011, 06:34 PM
Stay out of it.

I agree with this, although if we favor a regime change (and I don't know enough about the opposition to know if we do) then we should be public with our criticisms and work to isolate the Gadaffi regime even more than it already is while working with allies to offer some kind of carrot as inducement for abdication.

patteeu
03-09-2011, 06:37 PM
To add to my last post, I vote no for any no fly zone or other military intervention for purposes other than extracting Americans or other allies. If humanitarian concerns are the only justification, then no.

Hog Farmer
03-09-2011, 06:56 PM
Stay out of it.

This! With all these countries just stay out. Let them kill themselves off. If we don't like who wins then we go in and take over. It's really very simple.

The Mad Crapper
03-09-2011, 07:34 PM
This! With all these countries just stay out. Let them kill themselves off. If we don't like who wins then we go in and take over. It's really very simple.

We never get shit out of it. Not even a thank you. All we get are thousands of dead and wounded. Fuck these people.

HonestChieffan
03-09-2011, 07:36 PM
A couple things we should do if necessary...if the Islamists take over....not one red dime ever goes that way, not one red dime to the UN for any efforts in Libya, and not one ounce of ag exports or food.

patteeu
03-09-2011, 08:37 PM
What do we do? Geezaz! Are we THAT programmed?

We do nothing. Who ever gains power will still need customers to sell oil to. Oil will still flow.

:facepalm:

The oil flow that you believe is inevitable is being disrupted as you type.

go bowe
03-09-2011, 08:56 PM
No, my point was that was the stance we took with Bin Laden in the 80s when they were fighting the Soviets.i see what you're saying, but there's more than a little difference between the rebels in libya seeking democracy and a radical islamist engaged in jihad...

at least i hope there is...

go bowe
03-09-2011, 09:03 PM
A couple things we should do if necessary...if the Islamists take over....not one red dime ever goes that way, not one red dime to the UN for any efforts in Libya, and not one ounce of ag exports or food.at a bare minimum...

we have to find a way to openly help pro-democracy movements in the middle east without direct military intervention...

if we can, we might be able to avoid an islamist takeover in the first place...

not just in libya, but throughout the region...

hey, a guy can hope can't he? :shrug:

go bowe
03-09-2011, 09:04 PM
:facepalm:

The oil flow that you believe is inevitable is being disrupted as you type.aw c'mon...

what's a few bombs between friends?

Saul Good
03-09-2011, 09:05 PM
at a bare minimum...

we have to find a way to openly help pro-democracy movements in the middle east without direct military intervention...

if we can, we might be able to avoid an islamist takeover in the first place...

not just in libya, but throughout the region...

hey, a guy can hope can't he? :shrug:

Democracy, in and of itself, doesn't help us.

Hog Farmer
03-09-2011, 09:29 PM
Go in with guns blazing, flying the American flag, and make Libya the 51st state.


Agreed. And then we can ship all the muslims that have migrated to america the last 10 years to Libya and they can set up a democracy.:thumb:

BucEyedPea
03-09-2011, 10:00 PM
Most of the oil countries have begun selling their higher grade oil to China as China now has greater demand. The US gets "second-fiddle" stuff.

Which ones? We get most of our oil from Canada. Our top four suppliers include only one ME country and that is SA.

go bowe
03-09-2011, 10:42 PM
Democracy, in and of itself, doesn't help us.democracy is a messy business...

even if we don't like them, a democracy in any viable form is much better than the alternative...

generally speaking, democracies don't fight wars with other democracies and functioning democracies don't want fundamentalism any more than we do...

so i think democracy in and of itself does help us, immeasurably...

BucEyedPea
03-09-2011, 10:49 PM
Democracies do start and fight wars. It's a myth they don't. What was the American Civil War between? Oh wait we're not a democracy...but progressives think we are.
Democracy in a Muslim country will be a democracy for one tribe and not the rest but they may still call it a democracy...and it may very well be because it means majority rule.

alnorth
03-09-2011, 10:49 PM
Stay out of it.

This is a difficult gut-wrenching decision, but in the end, this is correct. We should stay out of it.

Now, I'm not opposed to some subtle or not-so-subtle interference for our national interests. If we want to bomb all airstrips into rubble so it is impossible for a plane to take off in Libya (so, a de facto no-fly zone without having to patrol), fine. If we want to secretly smuggle weapons to rebels, fine.

Thats as far as it goes. We can not overthrow Gaddafi. We can provide some limited amount of help, but if the dictator is too strong to topple, so be it.

Aside from the moral issue of imposing our democratic values on the middle east, aside from the lives that would be lost by members of the US military, there is one cold hard reality we cant ignore.

WE CAN NOT AFFORD A THIRD WAR.

Its just too damn expensive. If the dictator wins, maybe the people will be free when he dies a generation from now. Right now, we are too damn broke to win the war for them.

BucEyedPea
03-09-2011, 10:54 PM
What are our national interests in Libya? We buy hardly any oil from them.
We did fine with minimal relations when there was a Libyan dictator in charge. ( except for Pan Am Flight 103) In fact he was thawing relations with us.

I don't see how this is difficult or gut wrenching at all. Who ever wins will persecute those who perscuted them for a rinse and repeat as is happening in Iraq. We simply do not understand their mindset.

alnorth
03-09-2011, 10:59 PM
What are our national interests in Libya?

Mostly moral, it is not economic, at all. All things being equal, whether it benefits us a whit or not, we should deplore and oppose a regime that slaughters its own people, which does not want its rule, all in a bloodthirsty attempt to maintain power.

However, although this is a nice ideal in a vaccuum, we cant ignore economics, and the economic reality is we are broke and cant do much with Libya, whether we want to or not. If we interfere, by your own admission, we also don't hurt ourselves, so as long as the effort and the cost is minimal, fine. If we want to destroy their strips and smuggle in a few weapons, that wont cost us much and will not obligate us to "fix" Libya. We can do that much at minimal cost for the sake of humanitarian and moral reasons.

If thats not good enough to defeat Gaddafi, so be it, we cant afford to do anything else.

BucEyedPea
03-09-2011, 11:05 PM
Mostly moral, it is not economic, at all. All things being equal, whether it benefits us a whit or not, we should deplore and oppose a regime that slaughters its own people, which does not want its rule, all in a bloodthirsty attempt to maintain power.
Well the Lincoln regime did that in our country. Would you have wanted Britain to intervene on the side of the South?
This is a Civil War.

If we interfere, by your own admission, we also don't hurt ourselves, so as long as the effort and the cost is minimal, fine.
I admitted we don't hurt ourselves if we intervene? I don't see that. We do hurt ourselves if we intervene because as soon as we take a side we make a new enemy...one they may come back to do something someday. The price of our interventions in those countries has been high and harmful. There will eventually be blowback.

I say we do nothing even if we could afford it. The price in that part of the world with their tribal hatreds and long held vendettas that are never forgotten is too high a price to pay for me.

Amnorix
03-10-2011, 07:19 AM
Most of the oil countries have begun selling their higher grade oil to China as China now has greater demand. The US gets "second-fiddle" stuff.


:spock:

Seriously, where do you get this stuff??

Amnorix
03-10-2011, 07:24 AM
Well the Lincoln regime did that in our country. Would you have wanted Britain to intervene on the side of the South?
This is a Civil War.

You mean administration, since, you know, it was validly elected and all that. Oh, and re-elected too, now that you mention it.

I do agree with you that intervening seems to have little or no upside, except some vague philosophical "we should support democracies" concept, which isn't worth the price in Realpoliticks.

Amnorix
03-10-2011, 07:31 AM
George Will's article is an intelligent and insightful one, by the way. I agree iwth him here, of course, but even when I disagree with him he's a good writer.

I don't know how you create a no-fly zone without an alpha strike with everything you have to eliminate all of Libya's air defense capabilities -- runways, radar installations, anti-aircraft positions, hangars, etc. etc. I'm not at all keen to see any such effort, nor the potential hostage captured pilot situation Will mentions. No thanks to any of it.

mlyonsd
03-10-2011, 08:14 AM
Wow. A foreign policy thread where we all pretty much agree. Must be a record or something.

jiveturkey
03-10-2011, 08:21 AM
Wow. A foreign policy thread where we all pretty much agree. Must be a record or something.I hadn't posted yet but after a quick review I'd have to say that I too am in agreement with the majority.

Jaric
03-10-2011, 09:41 AM
democracy is a messy business...

even if we don't like them, a democracy in any viable form is much better than the alternative...

generally speaking, democracies don't fight wars with other democracies and functioning democracies don't want fundamentalism any more than we do...

so i think democracy in and of itself does help us, immeasurably...

The 20th century was the greatest democratic age in history, and also had the most destructive wars both in terms of loss of life and destruction to property.

Democracy does not equal peace.

BucEyedPea
03-10-2011, 10:15 AM
Wow. A foreign policy thread where we all pretty much agree. Must be a record or something.

We do?

Seems to me some are still calling for some degree of military involvement just short of war.

RedNeckRaider
03-10-2011, 10:18 AM
Most of the oil countries have begun selling their higher grade oil to China as China now has greater demand. The US gets "second-fiddle" stuff.

LMAO

BucEyedPea
03-10-2011, 10:19 AM
It's Their War, Not Ours (http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan153.html)
by Pat Buchanan

Before the United States plunges into a third war in the Middle East, let us think this one through, as we did not the last two. What would be the purpose of establishing a no-fly zone over Libya? According to advocates, to keep Moammar Gadhafi from using his air force to attack civilians.

But if Gadhafi uses tanks to crush the rebellion, as Nikita Khrushchev did in Hungary and the Chinese did in Tiananmen Square, would that be OK? What is the moral distinction between using planes to kill rebels and running over them with tanks? Do we Americans just want to see a fair fight?

To establish a secure no-fly zone, we would have to bomb radar installations, anti-aircraft batteries, missile sites and airfields, and destroy the Libyan air force on the ground, to keep the skies secure for U.S. pilots.

These would be acts of war against a nation that has not attacked us.

Where do we get the legal and moral right to do this? Has Congress, which alone has the power to declare war, authorized Barack Obama to attack Libya?

The president may respond to an attack on American territory or U.S. citizens, but Libya has not done that since Lockerbie, more than two decades ago. Since that atrocity, George W. Bush and Condi Rice welcomed Gadhafi in from the cold, after he paid $10 million in blood money to the families of each of the Lockerbie victims.

What, then, is our present justification for attacking Libya?

The U.N. Security Council has not authorized military action against Libya. No NATO ally has been attacked. Why is Libya not a problem for the Arab League and the African Union, rather than the United States, 5,000 miles away?
Last week, the Senate whistled through a nonbinding resolution urging the creation of a no-fly zone. Call it the Sidra Gulf resolution.

But what are U.S. senators doing issuing blank checks for war eight years after George W. Bush cashed the last one to commit the historic blunder of invading Iraq? Do these people learn at all from history?

That war cost the Republican Party the Congress in 2006 and presidency in 2008. Far worse, it cost the country 40,000 dead and wounded, a trillion dollars, and the respect of hundreds of millions of Arabs and Muslims who saw the war as an imperial attempt to crush a nation that had done nothing to the United States.

Assume we attack Gadhafi's air defenses, and in the collateral damage are a dozen children – like those kids collecting sticks on that hillside in Afghanistan – and Al-Jazeera spreads footage of their dismembered bodies across the Middle East, as commentators rail, "The Americans are killing Muslims again, this time for Libya's oil." The pro-democracy demonstrations across the Middle East would instantly become anti-American riots.

If we destroy Gadhafi's air defenses, could we simply let the rebels and regime fight it out? If Libyans, seeing us intervene, rose up against Gadhafi, could we let them be massacred as Bush I let the tens of thousands of Shiites be massacred who rose up in 1991 against Saddam after Bush urged them to do so?

If we attack Libya, we could not let Gadhafi prevail and plot revenge attacks on U.S. airliners. Having wounded the snake, we would have to go in and kill it. And the interventionists know this, and this is what they are all about.

Never strike a king unless you kill him. In for a dime, in for a dollar. If we declare a no-fly zone, we have to attack Libya. And if we attack Libya, an act of war, we have to see that the war is won. And after that victory, we could not wash our hands and walk away. We would have to ensure the new government was democratic and a model to the Muslim world, as we are trying to do in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Do we really want to adopt another Muslim country?

Don't start down a road the end of which you cannot see or do not know. There is no vital U.S. interest in whether Gadhafi wins or is deposed. We ought to stay out. This is their war, not ours.

Churchill once said: Take away this pudding, it has no theme.

What is the theme, where is the consistency in U.S. policy?

We backed the dictators Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, who were as autocratic as Gadhafi, whom we demand be deposed. We support the dictator in Yemen, the absolute monarch in Saudi Arabia, the king in Bahrain, the sultan in Oman and the emir in Kuwait, but back pro-democracy demonstrators in Iran, though there have been more elections in Iran than in all those other nations put together.

America has taken a terrible beating for what she has done and tried and failed to do in that region for a decade.Let the "world community" take the lead on this one. [ I don't care if they do something either.]
Tell them, this time, the Yanks are not coming.

Amnorix
03-10-2011, 11:02 AM
We do?

Seems to me some are still calling for some degree of military involvement just short of war.


This thread seems to reflect a position that is as close to consensus as you can get around here. There are VERY few who support doing much of anything at all, and even those don't seem to be aggressively supporting a no fly zone.

For CP, that's about as unanimous as you'll ever see....

mlyonsd
03-10-2011, 11:07 AM
This thread seems to reflect a position that is as close to consensus as you can get around here. There are VERY few who support doing much of anything at all, and even those don't seem to be aggressively supporting a no fly zone.

For CP, that's about as unanimous as you'll ever see....

And I see very little Obama bashing for the stance his administration has taken. I think that should be noted.

The Mad Crapper
03-10-2011, 11:10 AM
And I see very little Obama bashing for the stance his administration has taken. I think that should be noted.

I'd say the same thing if it was Saudi Arabia. Fuck them and fuck their oil. It would definitely force our hand into creating REAL ENERGY POLICY.

If gas prices doubled, I'd cut my driving in half. Not that big a sacrifice.

I think the people that would be hurt the worst would be Exxon stockholders. But you know what? FUCK THEM TOO.

I'm sick of this BS.

Iowanian
03-10-2011, 11:43 AM
Every time we get involved with something, the world throws a fit and says "stay out".


We need to stay out, let it F'ing burn..........we do that for a decade, take care of our own shit, our own friends and our own needs. F the rest.

Dave Lane
03-10-2011, 11:47 AM
What a pathetic dodge. What do you think we should do. Those who can't tell us can't sit there and throw peanuts later if things don't work out.

No opinion means no spine. I'm not sure there is ANY "good" move here for us.

If he had the brains of a dormouse he'd be doing something with his life. The guy's a couple brain cells from having his feet in dirt and getting watered twice a week.

alnorth
03-10-2011, 12:25 PM
And I see very little Obama bashing for the stance his administration has taken. I think that should be noted.

I'm not going to criticize or make fun of Obama and Hillary on this one, despite drudge desperately trying to egg everyone on to do so.

If the major countries in Europe want to bypass the UN and NATO to take this one, fine. If they want some support, maybe buy american weapons to transport, launch off our carriers, get intel from our satellites and spyplanes, I'm fine with that too. As long as its their planes and their troops and mostly their money on the line and being spent. If they don't want to do anything substantive though, then they should probably shut up about recognizing the rebel government because that would be a useless, pointless gesture.

This one is in their backyard. It would be like if some horrifying crisis happened in Cuba where there should arguably be some kind of reaction from the world, and France or the UK sails on over to take it on. No, thats our sphere of influence, stay out.

Bowser
03-10-2011, 12:28 PM
Stay out of it.

I have not read this thread, nor do I have to. This ^ exactly sums it up.