So Obama is not allowed to EVER use military force? Especially when the people of Libya are being..

[wndycty]

. . .are being slaughtered?

Seriously?

Obama=Bush? Are you fucking kidding me?

Obama is a war monger? Give me a fucking break!

Obama did not go it alone like some damn cowboy, he didn't make some knee jerk shoot em up move. He waited, waited for the UN, waited for France, waited for Canada, waited for the United Kingdom and then he acted.

No ground, troops and his targeting military installations. If this air attack is done correctly it won't even last a week.

I am no fan of war, but some of the rhetoric being tossed in Obama's direction from some on the left is just bullshit.

Unlike Bush with Iraq, this was an organic uprising led by the people of Libya.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

1. I feel the same way

Comparisons to Bush/Iraq are really OTT. I wonder what people here were saying about Clinton/Kosovo? :shrug: I'm not crazy about military action in general but it's not like we're going in alone and/or without some kind of international sanction (unlike with Bush/Cheney)

[wndycty]

2. Exactly. . .

. . .there are just folks who just want to complain, criticize and micromanage this presidency.

[BeFree]

23. Bullshit

We are people who do not want any more war in a world that is damn near totally fucked up by war.

We don't believe the US should be the world's policemen any longer.
That belief is no knee-jerk reaction, it is a longstanding political view.

We know feeding war only enables more war.

Sorry if it bothers you that we complain that our president is staying on the bushco course.
If you don't like peacemongerers maybe you should leave?

[wndycty]

43. Do you realize there is a civil war in Libya and our involvement couldn't limit the lives lost?

:kick:

[BeFree]

45. Heard it before

"We must destroy the village in order to save the village"

Sorry, but you sound just like the war freaks from the 60's.
And I thought we had evolved away from that.
But here it is again, the same shit.

The doomers love it. Because it will doom us: this same BS recycled and repeated.
Have we made no progress? F'n sad.

[Mimosa]

66. BeFree, I am fairly sure people supporting this interference weren't adults during Vietnam.

Nobody who was educated and conscious during the Vietnam War era would support this garbage. Most of us with working brains know America's 'concern' about Iraqi and Libyan dictators SUPPOSEDLY (nobody here knows first hand)oppressing their peoples is all about the OIL.

[reggie the dog]

69. the oil was already being pumped by Elf Total Fina and other companies

what oil did they have in vietnam?

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cirque du So-What]

3. 'Subtle' distinctions are lost on some

It's not worth my time to respond to their specious argument. This seems an appropriate time to update my 'ignore' list.

[high density]

5. I do wonder how we cherry-pick who to save and who to ignore

I'm not real excited about the idea of my country involving itself in a third active war, even if we're "just" following the actions of UN/France/UK/whoever.

[elleng]

10. 'This was an organic uprising led by the people of Libya,'

quoting the OP.

[Mojorabbit]

51. That is why British special forces

were already there...

[Critters2]

53. There was an organic uprising of the people of Zimbabwe.

Two participants were friends of mine. They went missing, never to be heard from again. Not so much as a peep from tje US government or the hawks on DU. Mugabe is still there.

So, really, what are the criteria? Don't tell me there needs to be an uprising, because that is a blatant lie.

[reggie the dog]

70. I called for action in Zimbabwe

but preferable from other african countries, but that went nowhere because zimbabwe just has agricultural resources. for what it is worth the people in ivory coast need help too and the french have been there for a while trying to keep the peace.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

13. Not to split hairs

but are we involved in a *war* a la Iraq/Afghanistan? What we are engaged in (as I understand it) is essentially an aerial blockade to prevent Ghaddafi from using aerial bombardment of his people/rebels. If we were sending in ground forces to invade/occupy Libya (and overthrow Ghaddafi), I'd have some serious objections to it but that's not what's happening AFAIK. :shrug:

[high density]

19. We have plenty of war machines in the area and we are bombing Libya

I call that a war. I know if Gadhafi parked a boat off of the shore of my town and started firing missiles toward my city, I would consider that a war.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

26. We have to knock out their anti-air defenses

in order for the no-fly zone to work. Is this a planned to be a sustained bombing campaign? :shrug:

[high density]

29. I think it is naive to think this action is about a no-fly-zone

Even Mike Mullen admits that the end-game of military action in Libya is "very uncertain."

The United States' top military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, said on Sunday initial Western air strikes on Libya had made significant progress against Muammar Gaddafi's forces and effectively established a U.N. mandated no-fly zone.

Now comes the hard part.

As Western military planners conduct battle-damage assessments and launch further strikes after unleashing more than 100 cruise missiles and waves of air strikes, analysts cautioned against expecting a quick or easy outcome.

While the early stages of the campaign were likely to be declared successful, the conflict could become far messier, with a risk of the Western allies getting mired in a long standoff.

http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE72J0EA20110320

[Proud Liberal Dem]

33. You're right. Nobody knows for sure how this might end

and, hopefully, President Obama and his advisors will have the common sense (that Bush/Cheney lacked) and know when to call it quits if it starts looking messier. I don't think anybody's support here is completely unconditional and I will become critical if it looks like it's headed in a direction whereby we start to get more involved than is warranted but, at least for the moment, I don't see any huge problems with what we, in concert with our allies, are currently doing.

[elleng]

20. You are correct, and point out a serious distinction. Thanks

[Hippo_Tron]

41. We weigh the costs and benefits of each potential action

And then we decide that some are worth it and some are not. If you're pointing out that the US has no universal commitment to humanitarian intervention, you are correct. On the other hand, is it really more ethical to say that because we aren't going to intervene everywhere, we should intervene nowhere?

[ProSense]

6. Obama isn't Bush because

at least Bush had "balls," at least that's the claim.

Any RW argument is now valid if it can be used to attack President Obama.

Bush!!!

Bracket!!!

Vacation!!!!

[elleng]

7. Right, and I've spent too much time already

attempting to demonstrate the facts and distinctions for those foolish enough to fail to recognize the facts.

[Andy823]

8. It's crazy, isn't it

Seems that the trolls and all around Obama haters here will complain no matter what the president does! One day he isn't doing enough, the next day it's to much!

[dkf]

9. Of course he is...when we are in imminent danger.

Other than that he needs to go to the people for support aka Congress. That is how the constitution envisaged it after all.

Would you be willing to put your life on the line for another country's internal fight over governance?

[gmaki]

11. Where are people being slaughtered?

Pictures? Video? anything?

it's all BS. Rebels are dying in fights but I see no evidence of innocent citizens being slaughtered... YES I hear people claiming it on every news channel, but I don't SEE it.

You are buying the same BS that people bought about WMD's from Bush.

[Mimosa]

68. ^ Great points, GMaki ^

So who decided the USA is comissioned to act as the top cops of the WORLD?

There is oppression here in America which our government conveniently ignores. BTW, my Arabic speaking friend who was in Army Intelligence remarked that the fat CIA 'Libyans' who apparently reside in the USA are popping up with the exact same tall tales which 'Iraqi' operatives told about Saddam in 2002, no differences at all.

I'm watching CNN and he is right. 've heard this all before. I've seen the shrapnel of US manufactured bombs picked up from the ruins of houses in other countries, too, back in 2003.

[reggie the dog]

71. the rebels are people who took up arms to shoot at forces

loyal to ghadaffi when they came to massacre the protesters, the "rebels" are like france's la résistance of wwII

[jschurchin]

12. Three reasons I voted for President Obama

1] Close Gitmo

2] Bring the men and women HOME from Iraq

3] Bring them HOME from Afghanistan

Still waiting. And to be honest, I don't see any of them happening any time soon.

War is BIG business and as long as BIG business continues to fund congressional, senatorial and presidential campaigns, we WILL stay at WAR with someone.

Nothing sucks worse then seeing someone you believed in being compromised. It truly is a sad day in America.

[Pirate Smile]

30. He never campaigned on bringing them home from Afghanistan. He campaigned on focusing on Afghanistan...

[rug]

14. That's rather broad. Why don't we take it one military action at a time.

Let's see . . .

Afghanistan escalation

Pakistan drones

Yemen drones

Libyan Tomahawks

26 m0nths in office

The President is getting a bad rap.

[sellitman]

15. I have never been an Obama detractor but we should of let other Countries get involved

How many more Countries should we bomb? How many Wars must we become involved in? How much more money should we shovel into the Industrial War Machine and it's coffers? We are not the world police. I have had enough.

There are countries who belong to the UN who can send what they want to this mess. Not us. Not now.

[Stinky The Clown]

16. What about Somalia/Darfur? North Korea? Every other place where the leaders kill the led?

Why now? Why in that country?

If you're going to appeal on humanitarian grounds, be consistent. You don't get to pick and choose.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

63. I have to agree!

Oil?

[reggie the dog]

72. because the people are demonstrating and rebelling

because the entire region is experiencing similar events, and yes i agree, the fact that oil is there weighs in, it shouldnt, but it does.

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. This is why nobody can take the Left seriously any more

Hell, the Left of 1940 was screaming and hopping for military intervention in the European War. The Left of today would have a significant percentage of people suggesting that involvement in Europe was some scheme to benefit American corporations in competition with Krup.

The Left is in disarray because they have only one speed: critique and conspiracy. They replace critical thought with Instant Critique, pretend historical analysis is the "discovery" of various surface similarities, and lack anything like a conceptual apparatus. The modern day Left is a shadow of its former self, and a laughable disgrace.

[tallahasseedem]

25. +1

[alphafemale]

35. There comes a time to cast away stones

There comes a time to gather stones together.

That you are involved in two false wars really has nothing to do with having to step in when people are being slaughtered and are pleading to you for help.

[shellgame26]

36. +1 Precisely

[dflprincess]

61. The fact that we are involved in two false wars that have bankrupted the country

and can't afford to open a third front (or fourth, if you count Pakistan) has everything to do with it.

There is talk of cutting WIC, Headstart, heating assistance and a host of other programs we're told we can't afford to protect the most vulnerable Americans, but we can afford to drop more bombs.

Sorry, I can't buy that.

[Chef Eric]

54. Let's look at some facts.

In 1940, we weren't already bogged down in multiple wars, and our national debt was $43 billion (less than 50% of GDP).

Today, we're involved in two seemingly endless wars, and our national debt is $14 trillion (more than 80% of GDP).

So, if some of us on the left are opposed to military action in Libya, it is because we think it's about time we used our credit card more prudently.

[Union Scribe]

58. "nobody" = "neoliberals inconvenienced by principles"

[creon]

73. agree

There was a time when the left was a good deal more than nihilism.

There was a time when leftists could, in fact, actually make argument. Now, it is little more than chanting imprecatory prayers.

[DURHAM D]

18. George Will and Jane Harmon were just on my tv arguing

against President Obama's actions. That should give one pause.

[high density]

24. And Jeff Sessions was on NBC and thought it was a fine idea

Should that also give one pause?

[vaberella]

21. Welcome to DU. n/t

[tallahasseedem]

22. Of course he is allowed...

I voted for the President because there is no other person in today's political world that I trust more than him when it comes to these types of situations.

The President is nothing like Bush. The comparisons are ridiculous.

[Martin Eden]

27. Same as Bush? Not even close. Military action in Libya a good idea? No.

Comparisons to GW Bush are bullshit, but that doesn't mean this president's decision to taske military action in Libya is a good one.

[Pirate Smile]

28. Some people here seem to just be against any intervention no matter whether it is for humanitarian

reasons or not, whether it is sanctioned under the UNSC "Responsibility to Protect" provision or not.

[high density]

31. I think the issue is that USA has its own humanitarian crises

that we choose to ignore. Yet when we can supposedly solve the humanitarian crisis of somebody else by bombing something, we seem to always be willing to do so. We always have money to bomb shit while at the same time these same people want us to believe that we never have money to invest in our own country and people.

[in_cog_ni_to]

40. Thank you!

The American people give and give and give to countries around the world and NEVER have anything left our our dire needs. I am so sick of it.

[noamnety]

32. Exactly. It's not like he attacked another country like a cowboy without congressional approval!

Wait, what?

[alcibiades_mystery]

48. Congress approved the UN Charter documents

Just sayin'...

Other UN actions during which US Presidents committed troops in support of UN action without prior congressional approval: the Korean War and the Bosnian conflict. That Obama! Just like Truman and Clinton! Haaarrrruuuummmph!

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

37. Why do you think Bush would do this?

Gaddafi had no problems giving the oil companies free rein. He was a perfect Bush/Cheney ally.

[Davis_X_Machina]

38. No,

If you haven't figured it out yet, this board is pacifist, with the possible exception of an invasion of the national territory.

If it were principled pacifism, I wouldn't mind, but a lot of it is situational.

[Historic NY]

39. A no fly zone supports the Lybian people....

http://protests4democracy.tumblr.com/post/3786704523/this-is-how-you-can-support-the-libyan-people

The Twitter feed there shows its apparently working.....

[MikeW]

42. the arab league is already complaining, why bother

[treestar]

44. to the whatever Obama does is wrong crowd

the answer is no. The only time he is allowed to use military force is when he doesn't choose to and then should have.

[bvar22]

46. I Recced this ONLY because....

This is possibly the Worst Strawman Ever at DU.



Note:
When you see a post that starts with "So....",
it is almost always a Strawman Logical Fallacy.

[golfguru]

47. Kucinich is wondering why this is not impeachable!

Kucinich asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html

[Politicalboi]

49. With all the crimes Bush committed

Obama probably will get impeached over this. If there are dems who are willing to do this, then probably ALL Repukes will go along. With Bush no Repuke would have voted to impeached Bush. And apparently no Dems either. "Impeachment off the table" as it were.

[Mimosa]

67. ^ Thank you for the link and info, GolfGuru. ^ n/t

[jefferson_dem]

50. teh stoopid on steroids.

soon, this too shall pass.

[Countdown_3_2_1]

52. Congressiobnal approval is required for long term military engagements.

If this is limited, then fine. No harm done. But if it extends past a certain number of days (I think its 60, but don't quote me), then congress needs to give approval (and funding).

The problem here is the President consulted with the UN and the Arab League but never discussed anything with congress. Bad move, especially is this no fly zone will extend beyond 60 days.

[killbotfactory]

55. It's wrong because Obama wants it

That's how things work here.

[krabigirl]

56. Honestly? End the other damn wars first.

[Union Scribe]

57. Let's be honest here. You'd support him if he didn't do anything, too.

You don't support action, you support Obama.

[uponit7771]

59. WOW!!! So now we're going to use the "bad guy" excuse for going to war?!!??!?! WTF?!

[MadMaddie]

60. They are the same ones who were screaming about why isn't

President Obama doing anything and intervening to save the civilians in the uprising.

You see there is no winning for him in their eyes.

The main thing that the U.N has done is to level the playing field. The civilians had no chance with planes bombing them and tanks firing on them.

I am no fan of war either but I am no fan of seeing cilians gassed like Saddam did when they had an uprising. The U.S was blamed for that but I suppose most folks don't remember that...

[Hissyspit]

64. They are the same ones?

Some proof please.

[harun]

62. Obama is not General of army Earth.

[Scurrilous]

65. K & R

:thumbsup:

[shotten99]

74. This is akin to what should have happened in Iraq in 1991

After Bush Sr. told the Iraqis to revolt with promises of our help...and they did. If you're going to nation build, THIS is how it's done.

[LWolf]

75. Technically, no, Obama is not ever allowed to use military force.

That's a Congressional prerogative.

In the real world, do I want Obama to use military force?

Hell no. More of what has bankrupted our nation is not okay. Our attention, resources, and actions need to boost domestic programs and services, not the MIC. Not war.

Edited to add: a UN attempt to intervene in a situation to stop human rights violations....maybe. If we aren't "leading," or acting unilaterally, but sending troops to support a UN initiative. Following the UN's leadership.

In that case, in order to prevent more war debt, and save resources for those domestic programs, we need to remove our troops, and stop our actions, elsewhere in the Middle East, where we never should have been in the first place.

[Travelman]

76. "So Obama is not allowed to EVER use military force?"

Who claimed that? I haven't seen anyone say that he should never, ever use military force. I totally, 110% supported him when he used a SEAL sniper to put rounds through the melons of those pirates a couple of years ago, for example. That was most definitely use of military force.

Just because I don't think that this action is a wise course does not mean that I think that he should never, ever use military force.


Sounds to me like you've erected a straw man.