jpgray
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-22-11 05:52 PM
Original message |
Poll question: Our goal in Libya, upon completion of which we will cease operations, is... |
Cali_Democrat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-22-11 05:53 PM
Response to Original message |
leftstreet
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-22-11 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. lol Thread Win right off the bat |
jpgray
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-22-11 06:03 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Somehow I got the idea everyone else was real clear about this |
Donald Ian Rankin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-22-11 06:11 PM
Response to Original message |
4. I very much hope no such condition has been defined, for two reasons. |
|
The condition for ceasing operations should be "stopping will do more good and less harm than going on".
If the US has set a defined goal, which it will continue on until and then stop, then
1) It might achieve that goal before my condition is achieved, and pull out too soon. 2) It might not have achieved that goal at the point my condition becomes the case, and stay in too long.
|
jpgray
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-22-11 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
7. What do you think our record is on properly identifying "more good and less harm?" |
Donald Ian Rankin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-23-11 05:39 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
8. I think that the decision was muffed at the start, but probably taken correctly since then. |
|
I think that the US should not have sent troops into Iraq, but having done so it probably should be winding them down slowly rather than pulling them all out overnight - Iraq is a complete mess, but I think it will get even worse if/when the US goes. On the other hand, I don't see any prospect of Iraq being in a state where it could not disintegrate if the US leaves any time soon, so arguably it might as well be now as later.
My views on Afghanistan are similar, except that I think that whereas in Iraq invading was clearly a stupid idea because there was no chance of setting up a functioning state, in Afghanistan setting up a functioning state might well have been possible if the US had focussed on nation building rather than invading Iraq (I think that it is no longer possible, sadly).
|
robcon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-22-11 06:35 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Regime change is the only objective. |
|
'President Barack Obama said Muammar Gaddafi must leave Libya, saying the besieged ruler has lost his legitimacy to lead.' http://www.cnbc.com/id/41883246
|
jpgray
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-22-11 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. So if he doesn't leave, neither do we |
|
What of the aftermath? What do you think of Obama's reported goal: providing Libya with the opportunity for transformation via the installation of a democracy? Is our presence contingent in any way on how they make use of such an opportunity? If there are proscriptions by the opposition forces, what then?
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed Apr 24th 2024, 06:36 AM
Response to Original message |