PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security No-fly zone on Libya might not be 'wise' move: Gates


petegz28
03-13-2011, 09:24 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.169f36d31634e648d6dcacdc2a3042c3.521&show_article=1


So basically now we have some that are too scared to do anything in fear of a "backlash".

FTR, I am not sayin I am for or against the now fly zone.

healthpellets
03-13-2011, 09:41 PM
of what concern is this of our's?

petegz28
03-13-2011, 09:46 PM
of what concern is this of our's?

Specific to Libya, maybe none. But it seems the threat of a "backlash" is starting to become a too often used excuse for us not to do anything. That includes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

johnny961
03-13-2011, 09:57 PM
of what concern is this of our's?

My thoughts exactly. First off, we have no business over there. It's not our job to police the world. Second off, from a fiscally conservative standpoint, how can you justify initiating another military operation when you're looking to cut the deficit and you have already overspent on two ongoing military operations worldwide?

healthpellets
03-13-2011, 10:17 PM
My thoughts exactly. First off, we have no business over there. It's not our job to police the world. Second off, from a fiscally conservative standpoint, how can you justify initiating another military operation when you're looking to cut the deficit and you have already overspent on two ongoing military operations worldwide?

what boggles my mind is that when we talk about balancing the budget, or spending, military spending is automatically off the table. like, it just doesn't count. no matter how many skirmishes we're involved in, every one is justifiable and must be funded.

no questions asked.

which, of course, is complete horsecrap. if we're serious about cutting some fluff outta the budget, i suspect there's some unnecessary discretionary spending going on in the Pentagon. Oh, hey, maybe we should figure out where that $2.3T went while Rummy was keeping watch over at DoD.

Just sayin.

johnny961
03-13-2011, 11:57 PM
what boggles my mind is that when we talk about balancing the budget, or spending, military spending is automatically off the table. like, it just doesn't count. no matter how many skirmishes we're involved in, every one is justifiable and must be funded.

no questions asked.

which, of course, is complete horsecrap. if we're serious about cutting some fluff outta the budget, i suspect there's some unnecessary discretionary spending going on in the Pentagon. Oh, hey, maybe we should figure out where that $2.3T went while Rummy was keeping watch over at DoD.

Just sayin.

If the government is serious about balancing the budget, EVERYTHING has to be on the table. Entitlements, defense, social security, politician compensation, EVERY DIME that the government spends has to truly be scrutenized for possible cost savings. Defense spending is a big one, though.

|Zach|
03-14-2011, 04:48 AM
Specific to Libya, maybe none. But it seems the threat of a "backlash" is starting to become a too often used excuse for us not to do anything. That includes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yea, why think through the long term repercussions of our possible actions. We would be much better off if we had the temperament of the guy at the bar who wants to fight everyone who looks at his girl.

Jaric
03-14-2011, 06:43 AM
Yea, why think through the long term repercussions of our possible actions. We would be much better off if we had the temperament of the guy at the bar who wants to fight everyone who looks at his girl.

I hear that works out well most of the time.

petegz28
03-14-2011, 07:33 AM
Yea, why think through the long term repercussions of our possible actions. We would be much better off if we had the temperament of the guy at the bar who wants to fight everyone who looks at his girl.

The whole threat of a "backlash" is getting old. It is starting to be used in every aspect of our foreign policy when it comes to dealing with Arabs. It is starting to appear, anyway, that we are afraid to do anything at all about anything for fear of a backlash.

HonestChieffan
03-14-2011, 07:40 AM
As much fun as it is to debate the merits of one action over another, we have what we have. The party and administration in power is pretty clearly not going to take an active role in this situation any more than it did to support the protests in Iran a while back.

In fact this is exactly what we should have expected. The question is, now we have a paper tiger leader and policy as seen by other countries. And time will tell what the outcome is. At no time since WW2 has the US taken such a "let it happen" attitude toward both enemies and allies around the world.

The strong leader approach the US has taken for many years, R and D is seen as the wrong approach by Obama and how it will impact us for years to come will only be known in time since we have never taken this tact and have no track record other than some may say Carter to learn from.

Jaric
03-14-2011, 07:43 AM
We have no reason to go into Libya. We have no money. We are already involved in two wars as it is. Does the current regime there suck? Yes. But if we got involved every time a regime sucked ass we'd have taken over all of Africa and most of the Middle East by now.

Staying out of this is the only reasonable option.

BucEyedPea
03-14-2011, 07:45 AM
Specific to Libya, maybe none. But it seems the threat of a "backlash" is starting to become a too often used excuse for us not to do anything. That includes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Since when are you an International Progressive?

Do you know where the term "blowback" come from? It's from the CIA. Do you actually possess greater forsight and wisdom on how any new govt may govern there?

Backlash or no, this is the same type of thinking that has destroyed the United States of America—that we must do something the way progressives feel on handling all the bad in the world until it all behaves correctly. I think it is folly, and quite expensive, to engage in planetary-wide social engineering. This is another arm of "globalism."

Amnorix
03-14-2011, 07:46 AM
The whole threat of a "backlash" is getting old. It is starting to be used in every aspect of our foreign policy when it comes to dealing with Arabs. It is starting to appear, anyway, that we are afraid to do anything at all about anything for fear of a backlash.

What you call a backlash I call assessing the likely consequences of our actions, which is something that I think we should constantly be doing in every part of our diplomacy in every part of the world.

Cowboy diplomacy is stupid diplomacy, and the concept that we can just bend the world to our will is patently absurd.

Amnorix
03-14-2011, 07:53 AM
As much fun as it is to debate the merits of one action over another, we have what we have. The party and administration in power is pretty clearly not going to take an active role in this situation any more than it did to support the protests in Iran a while back.

In fact this is exactly what we should have expected. The question is, now we have a paper tiger leader and policy as seen by other countries. And time will tell what the outcome is. At no time since WW2 has the US taken such a "let it happen" attitude toward both enemies and allies around the world.

The strong leader approach the US has taken for many years, R and D is seen as the wrong approach by Obama and how it will impact us for years to come will only be known in time since we have never taken this tact and have no track record other than some may say Carter to learn from.

You realize that when you're already involved in one hot conflict and one simmering conflict, and in giganormous amounts of debt, it begins to tie your hands somewhat in other areas of the world.

But I posted the Libya what do we do thread for a reason. You propose No Fly Zones? You going to perform a massive alpha strike on the Libyan air defense network to effectuate that? If not, how do you have any kind of assurance of the safety of our air crews? You going to fund constant CAP to keep helicopters down? How much you budgeting for this? You going to increase our deficit to pay for this?

What will you do if a pilot is taken hostage?

And, most important, what benefit for the United States do you get by supporting the rebels? Are their political goals and beliefs more attuned to ours? What are the odds that you help a religious nutwing group (which Khadafy is not) take over the country? Even if it is less than 50%, are you willing to run the risk of being known as the President who supported the rebels and shepherded into power an Islamic fundamentalist government?

What non-monetary consequences do you foresee in the region as a result of our actions? Will you support similar acts against the royal family of Saudi Arabia, where tensions are already heightened?

Why get involved in Libya now? Do we get involved in every rebellion against a totalitarian government? If not, what parameters do we use to assess whether to get involved or not?

Or do you just flex your muscles, show your superior testosterone levels and worry about these things later?

petegz28
03-14-2011, 08:21 AM
What you call a backlash I call assessing the likely consequences of our actions, which is something that I think we should constantly be doing in every part of our diplomacy in every part of the world.

Cowboy diplomacy is stupid diplomacy, and the concept that we can just bend the world to our will is patently absurd.

First off, I did nto call it a backlash. Secondly when it comes to dealing with Arabs anymore we seem to not want to do anything because of a fear of a backlash. It doesn't matter what the issue. We are so overly-sensative about their "feelings". I agree we shouldn't be in Libya. But have a fucking spine already.

BucEyedPea
03-14-2011, 08:26 AM
First off, I did nto call it a backlash. Secondly when it comes to dealing with Arabs anymore we seem to not want to do anything because of a fear of a backlash. It doesn't matter what the issue. We are so overly-sensative about their "feelings". I agree we shouldn't be in Libya. But have a ****ing spine already.


I disagree, that wanting to stay out means we're spineless. It's being wise. The Swiss are wise on such things. Do you see them ever being attacked for anything?

petegz28
03-14-2011, 08:33 AM
I disagree, that wanting to stay out means we're spineless. It's being wise. The Swiss are wise on such things. Do you see them ever being attacked for anything?

No, what is spineless is always worrying about a "backlash" instead of just saying we have no reason to be there. We are constantly worried about some "backlash" from Arabs anymore regardless of topic.

Amnorix
03-14-2011, 08:52 AM
I disagree, that wanting to stay out means we're spineless. It's being wise. The Swiss are wise on such things. Do you see them ever being attacked for anything?

Your fascination with the Swiss as an example for us to follow is extremely odd.

Switzerland is a landlocked country with an area of 15,000 sq. miles and a population of under 8 million. We're the third largest population in the world at over 310 million, and the fourth largest in area, slightly behind China (depending on how you want to count).

While Switzerland has many, many great qualities that we could seek to emulate, it's not as if they are a similarly situated nation in nearly any way whatsoever.

BucEyedPea
03-14-2011, 10:44 AM
No, what is spineless is always worrying about a "backlash" instead of just saying we have no reason to be there. We are constantly worried about some "backlash" from Arabs anymore regardless of topic.

Okay I see what you're saying.

BucEyedPea
03-14-2011, 10:45 AM
Your fascination with the Swiss as an example for us to follow is extremely odd.

Switzerland is a landlocked country with an area of 15,000 sq. miles and a population of under 8 million. We're the third largest population in the world at over 310 million, and the fourth largest in area, slightly behind China (depending on how you want to count).

While Switzerland has many, many great qualities that we could seek to emulate, it's not as if they are a similarly situated nation in nearly any way whatsoever.

And yet, NONE of that is relevant to my point.