2011 Military Intervention in Libya / Libyan Civil War « Columbus Underground Messageboard

Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion » Everyday Chit Chat

2011 Military Intervention in Libya / Libyan Civil War

[187 posts] [37 contributors]

Topic Rating:

(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:

Started 1 year ago by BG
Latest reply from News

Tags:

Libya
obama

12…10 Next »

BG

Login to Send PM

So far, I have seen very little criticism for the left regarding Obama's decision to launch cruise missles against Libya, that would undoubtedly kill some innocent people. Not saying I am surprised, but shows clear hyporcisy from the blood-curdling screams by the Left against Bush.

So should we get involed with a tribal civil war, and a 3rd front against a predomintaely Muslim country? What about the bd PR? Will this inspire more Muslim terrorists like the Afghanistan and Iraq wars? Why isn't Gitmo closed? Is Obama - George W Bush II?

Posted 1 year ago #
Tigertree
771 N. High St.
Login to Send PM

For real. Like zero innocent people are being killed right now so I say we just stay out of it.

Posted 1 year ago #
DavidF
Elysium Fields
Login to Send PM

BG wrote >>
So far, I have seen very little criticism for the left regarding Obama's decision to launch cruise missles against Libya, that would undoubtedly kill some innocent people. Not saying I am surprised, but shows clear hyporcisy from the blood-curdling screams by the Left against Bush.
So should we get involed with a tribal civil war, and a 3rd front against a predomintaely Muslim country? What about the bd PR? Will this inspire more Muslim terrorists like the Afghanistan and Iraq wars? Why isn't Gitmo closed? Is Obama - George W Bush II?

Nice try, but there's really no comparison between the two.
Hypocrisy, what hypocrisy? Are you seriously saying going to war on a whim with a fabricated pretext is the same as enforcing a no fly zone as part of a UN resolution designed precisely to protect innocent lives? Wow, even for a revisionist you're stretching it.

Posted 1 year ago #
Core_Models
Columbus
Login to Send PM

BG wrote >>
So far, I have seen very little criticism for the left regarding Obama's decision to launch cruise missles against Libya, that would undoubtedly kill some innocent people. Not saying I am surprised, but shows clear hyporcisy from the blood-curdling screams by the Left against Bush.
So should we get involed with a tribal civil war, and a 3rd front against a predomintaely Muslim country? What about the bd PR? Will this inspire more Muslim terrorists like the Afghanistan and Iraq wars? Why isn't Gitmo closed? Is Obama - George W Bush II?

Um...yeah.

Except the part about Lybian civilians being slaughtered as we speak, with tactics like loading up ambulances and rushing to "help" people then gunning down everyone there.

Oh...and the part about the world being in agreement, getting a UN resolution to act, and doing it the right way.

So yes, apart from motive, method, and world opinion...its identical.

Posted 1 year ago #
billiejean

Login to Send PM

BG, with all due respect, it does not seem you have fully researched regarding this topic. As Core_Models pointed out, we are not in Libya trying to overthrow the government. Rather, we are support our allies (France, Germany) who have decided to take action against the slaughter of innocent civilians.

Please keep an open mind when hearing about news and avoid ignoring the facts.

Posted 1 year ago #
bman
New Albany
Login to Send PM

billiejean wrote >>
BG, with all due respect, it does not seem you have fully researched regarding this topic. As Core_Models pointed out, we are not in Libya trying to overthrow the government. Rather, we are support our allies (France, Germany) who have decided to take action against the slaughter of innocent civilians.
Please keep an open mind when hearing about news and avoid ignoring the facts.

BG does not warrant any respect.

Posted 1 year ago #
billiejean

Login to Send PM

lol, I respect his right to speak his opinions, but they are so out of line with reality.

BG claims bad PR when it was the ARAB LEAGUE who called for a no-fly zone which we are helping to enforce.

Source:

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/20/134704978/after-u-s-allies-strike-gadhafi-vows-long-war

Posted 1 year ago #
jimbach
Short North (WP division)
Login to Send PM

BG wrote >>
So far, I have seen very little criticism for the left regarding Obama's decision to launch cruise missles against Libya, that would undoubtedly kill some innocent people. Not saying I am surprised, but shows clear hyporcisy from the blood-curdling screams by the Left against Bush.

For me, what's really scary is that your complete lack of reasoning skills and unfamiliarity with the facts are traits common among the voting public.

Posted 1 year ago #
Walker
The KLD / Downtown
Login to Send PM

Let's not let this devolve into just slinging insults at each other. Thanks.

Posted 1 year ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

Point of order: the Arab League is already criticizing western actions:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2011/03/20/2011-03-20_action_in_libya_has_gone_too_far_arab_league_and_russia_complain_as_civilian_cas.html

Posted 1 year ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

Core_Models wrote >>

Oh...and the part about the world being in agreement, getting a UN resolution to act, and doing it the right way.

There is UN 1441...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

Not without controversy, of course:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Legality_of_invasion

Resolution 1441 was most prominent during the run up to the war and formed the main backdrop for Secretary of State Colin Powell's address to the Security Council one month before the invasion.[102] According to an independent commission of inquiry set up by the government of the Netherlands, UN resolution 1441 "cannot reasonably be interpreted (as the Dutch government did) as authorising individual member states to use military force to compel Iraq to comply with the Security Council's resolutions." Accordingly, the Dutch commission concluded that the 2003 invasion violated international law.[103]
President George W. Bush addresses the nation from the Oval Office, March 19, 2003, to announce the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. "The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder." The Senate committee found that many of the administration's pre-war statements about Iraqi WMD were not supported by the underlying intelligence

At the same time, Bush Administration officials advanced a parallel legal argument using the earlier resolutions, which authorized force in response to Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Under this reasoning, by failing to disarm and submit to weapons inspections, Iraq was in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 660 and 678, and the U.S. could legally compel Iraq's compliance through military means.

Critics and proponents of the legal rationale based on the U.N. resolutions argue that the legal right to determine how to enforce its resolutions lies with the Security Council alone, not with individual nations.

Point is, there was at least tacit reliance on the UN...

Posted 1 year ago #
BG

Login to Send PM

It figures that some on this board would personally attack instead of intellectually argue.

The amazing thing is that Obama is a Nobel Peace Prize winner, yet is currently prosecuting 3 wars while vacationing on the Copacabana.

Posted 1 year ago #
BG

Login to Send PM

Tigertree wrote >>
For real. Like zero innocent people are being killed right now so I say we just stay out of it.

Do you honestly think that launching 100 cruise missles will not kill some innocents? Honestly?

Posted 1 year ago #
BG

Login to Send PM

Core_Models wrote >>

BG wrote >>
So far, I have seen very little criticism for the left regarding Obama's decision to launch cruise missles against Libya, that would undoubtedly kill some innocent people. Not saying I am surprised, but shows clear hyporcisy from the blood-curdling screams by the Left against Bush.
So should we get involed with a tribal civil war, and a 3rd front against a predomintaely Muslim country? What about the bd PR? Will this inspire more Muslim terrorists like the Afghanistan and Iraq wars? Why isn't Gitmo closed? Is Obama - George W Bush II?

Um...yeah.
Except the part about Lybian civilians being slaughtered as we speak, with tactics like loading up ambulances and rushing to "help" people then gunning down everyone there.
Oh...and the part about the world being in agreement, getting a UN resolution to act, and doing it the right way.
So yes, apart from motive, method, and world opinion...its identical.

You may want to check the facts out again, son. These objectives/motivations were also achieved during the buildup with Afganistan/Iraq, but the Left was going berzerk, b/c of fear of the Arab street.

As far as the UN, Libya was a past sitting member of the UN human rights commission. You still want to use the UN as a legitimate organization?

Posted 1 year ago #
Tigertree
771 N. High St.
Login to Send PM

No, I honestly think thousands of innocent people are being killed right now and begging for help from the world and we happen to be in the position to offer that help. Honestly.

Posted 1 year ago #
BG

Login to Send PM

billiejean wrote >>
BG, with all due respect, it does not seem you have fully researched regarding this topic. As Core_Models pointed out, we are not in Libya trying to overthrow the government. Rather, we are support our allies (France, Germany) who have decided to take action against the slaughter of innocent civilians.
Please keep an open mind when hearing about news and avoid ignoring the facts.

Do you really think that France and Germany make a move w/o America's blessings coupled with a some of our firepower/carriers/destroyers? If you feel that we are involved in bombing Libya to try and protect innocent civilians solely, why aren't we lobbing missles against non-oil producing countires like Myanmar?

Posted 1 year ago #
BG

Login to Send PM

Tigertree wrote >>
No, I honestly think thousands of innocent people are being killed right now and begging for help from the world and we happen to be in the position to offer that help. Honestly.

Do you really want to make this a precedent for the US military from now on? Should we really engage ourselves in tribal civil wars throughout the world at all times? Did you support military involvement in Sudan or Rwanda? Would you want to see US military involvement in places like Nigeria and Yemen, where civil war can happen at any moment?

Posted 1 year ago #
Core_Models
Columbus
Login to Send PM

You may want to check the facts out again, son. These objectives/motivations were also achieved during the buildup with Afganistan/Iraq, but the Left was going berzerk, b/c of fear of the Arab street.

Um...no, they weren't.

Iraq wasn't in the midst of wiping out its civilian population, neither was Afghanistan. Iraq supposedly had WMD, remember? Oh, and hints about them being tied to Al Qaeda, although that was completely false. Sure, people talked about the whole using chemical weapons on the civilian population by Iraq...but the problem is, that was in 1988, not anywhere close to our invasion. I'd also point out, after Reagan removed Iraq from the state sponsored terror list, US companies actually sold them those chemicals. I'm sure you don't want to actually talk about the US response to it at the time either.

The motivations and objectives here are pretty clear cut, a guy is slaughtering his own people wholesale and the world is intervening, we aren't even leading the way just playing our part.

No such world consensus existed on Iraq then, and even less of one exists now.

ETA: In response to your last post, I'd rather have committed our troops to preventing the Rwandan genocide than invading Iraq every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Posted 1 year ago #
Tigertree
771 N. High St.
Login to Send PM

The truth is, I don't know and I am not going to say my opinion on one conflict dictates the way I feel about any other conflict.

Posted 1 year ago #
myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM

A more accurate, but still insufficient comparison is the Shite rebellion in southern Iraq following GWI. In that case, everyone hung the Shites out to dry after encouraging them to challenge Saddam's rule. Of course, that in the end made GHW look weak and ineffectual. So, from a purely craven political standpoint, this will in the short term, only solidify Obama's credentials as a serious leader.

National Journal has a interesting write-up of internal administration deliberations

Obama's first new war

Regardless of political orientation, the Libya conflict is a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. If the Western powers, let's face it, the only ones with the ability to project force quickly, let Ghaddafi crush the rebellion (which started out as peaceful protests until his forces started killing people), then that essentially green-lights Yemen, Syria, and Bahrain leadership to crush their current spate of protests with by means necessary. It's also actually a location where Western powers could intervene and have an effect on the outcome, something that's not all at possible in places like Burma. So, from a anti-war perspective, Ghaddafi already started the war against his own people, but now a chuck of the western world has decided to join it.

Just for the record, no one's proposed/proposing that Ghaddafi's hiding weapons of mass destruction.

Posted 1 year ago #