112 Cruise missiles - What a mistake

[Cry Havoc]

SO ing infuriating.

Totally agreed.

[vy65]

Then let them ing do it. Why must we be involved? Yes, we should not intervene in Libya for a variety of reasons not the least of which is its expensive as all ing , its counterproductive as , and it is exactly what Obama said he wasn't going to do.

To spin this as if we had non choice or that somehow France and the rest of Europe gets to tell us who to attack is ing infuriating.

We should because we should take the humanitarian intervention doctrine seriously.

That said, I don't think its being spun currently as "we have no choice." And there's a lot of validity to the cost argument as well. And we're probably doing it in no small part becasue the East, where all the rebels are, is oil-rich. But if we don't get involved in nation-building, then it seems a pretty productive mission.

You think that US participation in a multi-national military operation - condoned by the UN - to ensure a tyranical maniac doesn't continue to bomb the out of his own citizens sends the wrong message? It seems like this is the exact type of military intervention that we should be doing - assuming that we don't get involved in nation-building/"installing" a democratic state.

[coyotes_geek]

Then let them ing do it. Why must we be involved? Yes, we should not intervene in Libya for a variety of reasons not the least of which is its expensive as all ing , its counterproductive as , and it is exactly what Obama said he wasn't going to do.

To spin this as if we had non choice or that somehow France and the rest of Europe gets to tell us who to attack is ing infuriating.

+1

We need to get out of the "spreading democracy" business.

[MannyIsGod]

I'll give you that oil plays a large part in this - but - what's your alternative? Should we not intervene in Libya because we can't intervene everywhere?

My understanding is that the European countries - France in particular - are spearheading this operation because they consider Libya to be "in their backyard." That might have as much to do with the intervention as the oil.

We should because we should take the humanitarian intervention doctrine seriously.

That said, I don't think its being spun currently as "we have no choice." And there's a lot of validity to the cost argument as well. And we're probably doing it in no small part becasue the East, where all the rebels are, is oil-rich. But if we don't get involved in nation-building, then it seems a pretty productive mission.

You think that US participation in a multi-national military operation - condoned by the UN - to ensure a tyranical maniac doesn't continue to bomb the out of his own citizens sends the wrong message? It seems like this is the exact type of military intervention that we should be doing - assuming that we don't get involved in nation-building/"installing" a democratic state.

LOL @ the bolded.

Its like you've missed the past 50 years of history. What is with the inherent hubris that leads to the conclusion that so often amounts to we're bombing you for your own good?

What is it about the people you want to make a good impression on that you think they'll see this as a good thing but completely ignore our support of the governments cracking down elsewhere in the same region and that they'll somehow forget we also support Israel.

You think this is the type of intervention we should be doing but I think we shouldn't be doing any more intervening at all. American's just can't help themselves though. As long as we have this pretty toy in the military we just HAVE to use it.

[MannyIsGod]

+1

We need to get out of the "spreading democracy" business.

Exactly. Same different day.

[vy65]

LOL @ the bolded.

Its like you've missed the past 50 years of history. What is with the inherent hubris that leads to the conclusion that so often amounts to we're bombing you for your own good?

What is it about the people you want to make a good impression on that you think they'll see this as a good thing but completely ignore our support of the governments cracking down elsewhere in the same region and that they'll somehow forget we also support Israel.

You think this is the type of intervention we should be doing but I think we shouldn't be doing any more intervening at all. American's just can't help themselves though. As long as we have this pretty toy in the military we just HAVE to use it.

What. The. . Are. You. On?

What the does hubris have to do with the fact that Qaddafi is a maniacal tyrant who terrorizes his people?

What the does Israel have to do with Libya?

Why does this operation have to be covered with the veneer of Iraq or Afghanistan? Or, more importantly, why does all US military action from here on out have to be tainted because of those debacles? Are you so short-sighted and unimaginative that you think the world's largest military power couldn't possibly be used for productive uses?

This isn't about nation-building or blood for oil or any other inane, rehashed bull excuse you'll come up with. You basically said helping people. But I get it - retreat back into your cave, ignore the rest of the world, and let those ers rot, right? Out of sight, out of mind - who the cares? We don't want our hubris to get in the way of helping people.

[vy65]

Oh and one other thing - plz explain how military action to enforce a UN mandated cease-fire is tantamount to the "we're helping you for your own good/stupid local savages don't know what's best for themselves" psuedo-evangalical bull of the past "50 years of history" that I've apparently missed?

[CosmicCowboy]

Oh and one other thing - plz explain how military action to enforce a UN mandated cease-fire is tantamount to the "we're helping you for your own good/stupid local savages don't know what's best for themselves" psuedo-evangalical bull of the past "50 years of history" that I've apparently missed?

uhhhh...in three days we have gone from "protecting innocent civilians from the Libyan military offensive" to our goal being a "regime change". If there was ever any legitimacy to the UN no fly mandate we have now vastly exceeded it's scope.

[vy65]

uhhhh...in three days we have gone from "protecting innocent civilians from the Libyan military offensive" to our goal being a "regime change". If there was ever any legitimacy to the UN no fly mandate we have now vastly exceeded it's scope.

I saw that article - and I don't know how much to belive in it. I think that US led regime change is probably not a good idea.

That said, I'm responding to the claim that intervention justified by "protecting innocent civilians" = bull is, in fact, re ed.

[MannyIsGod]

What. The. . Are. You. On?

What the does hubris have to do with the fact that Qaddafi is a maniacal tyrant who terrorizes his people?

Nothing. The Hubris comes in from the fact that you think it can be fixed with bombs even though history keeps trying to tell you otherwise

What the does Israel have to do with Libya?

You're trying to win the hearts and minds of the people in the middle east with this action as if they're going to ignore all others. You want people to see what you want them to see but you don't want to take into account what they actually see.

Why does this operation have to be covered with the veneer of Iraq or Afghanistan? Or, more importantly, why does all US military action from here on out have to be tainted because of those debacles? Are you so short-sighted and unimaginative that you think the world's largest military power couldn't possibly be used for productive uses?

Hubris and see above

This isn't about nation-building or blood for oil or any other inane, rehashed bull excuse you'll come up with. You basically said helping people. But I get it - retreat back into your cave, ignore the rest of the world, and let those ers rot, right? Out of sight, out of mind - who the cares? We don't want our hubris to get in the way of helping people.

It is about oil. You said so above. You go on ahead thinking you can save the world with bombs even though history says otherwise. Actually you can go on ahead and believe that its ABOUT saving the world when its obviously not.

Its so sad that you sit there and act like you've doned a ing cape with Obama and are saving the world. Let the people in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Ivory Coast, The Congo, Tibet, Iran, Sudan, ( I might as well just say sub Sahara Africa and save some time), etc etc that you feel good about saving Libya because your government is all about saving the world but they should get some oil first so that we'll care.

[MannyIsGod]

I saw that article - and I don't know how much to belive in it. I think that US led regime change is probably not a good idea.

That said, I'm responding to the claim that intervention justified by "protecting innocent civilians" = bull is, in fact, re ed.

Yes, because our history of intervention in the Middle East in order to "protect civilians" has a grand history of doing just that. How many innocent civilians in Iraq died due to our actions again?

I get it though - this time its different.

[MannyIsGod]

What happens when actions like this embolden rebellions because they think we're going to help and then we don't? I'll tell you what happens: Massacres. See the aftermath of the 1st Persian Gulf War.

But yeah, we'e out to save the world. Give yourself a gold star.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm sure glad we're training the Saudi military that is the same military that is helping Bahrain crackdown on civilians. That means we're out to save the civilians!

[MannyIsGod]

Oh and one other thing - plz explain how military action to enforce a UN mandated cease-fire is tantamount to the "we're helping you for your own good/stupid local savages don't know what's best for themselves" psuedo-evangalical bull of the past "50 years of history" that I've apparently missed?

I missed the Libyans that asked us to bomb their own country. The UN made the decision for the Libyans and got itself involved in a CIVIL WAR for economic reasons and is selling them (you're obviously willfully buying even though you know better) as a humanitarian issue and you're asking how this relates to the history of the past 50 years? Amazing.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm sure glad we're training the Saudi military that is the same military that is helping Bahrain crackdown on civilians. That means we're out to save the civilians!

Aw C'mon Manny. I'm sure we are training them in non-lethal ways to shoot their civilians.

[MannyIsGod]

Yeah I'm sure we'll be issuing rubber bullets as parting gifts.

[vy65]

Nothing. The Hubris comes in from the fact that you think it can be fixed with bombs even though history keeps trying to tell you otherwise

So you've already conceded that this bombing campaign: a) has nothing to do with "hubris" and b) is intended to stop someone from butchering his own people.

As it stands now, this campaign isn't about "fixing" Libya - it's about stopping violence. That seemed to work in the Balkans - didn't it?

And please point out where I said we should feel good about ourselves for helping the Libyans out? You've just assumed something that I've never said - and don't believe - to help your facile position out.

You're trying to win the hearts and minds of the people in the middle east with this action as if they're going to ignore all others. You want people to see what you want them to see but you don't want to take into account what they actually see.

Where the are you getting this hearts/minds bull ? Especially given that this seems to be a European led mission?

Also, what am I not seeing? Are the rebels in the east telling the US, or its European allies, to stop?

It is about oil. You said so above. You go on ahead thinking you can save the world with bombs even though history says otherwise. Actually you can go on ahead and believe that its ABOUT saving the world when its obviously not.

Its so sad that you sit there and act like you've doned a ing cape with Obama and are saving the world. Let the people in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Ivory Coast, The Congo, Tibet, Iran, Sudan, ( I might as well just say sub Sahara Africa and save some time), etc etc that you feel good about saving Libya because your government is all about saving the world but they should get some oil first so that we'll care.

You're as closed minded, unimaginative, and ing dumb as the conservatives you yell at. Sure, it can be about oil and helping innocent civilians. Why can't it be both? What's wrong with it being both?

You still haven't given me a reason why the world's largest military power doesn't have an obligation to help others out. You still haven't explained why a country premised on democracy and human rights doesn't have an obligation to stop tyrants. You haven't explained why a country that enjoys one of the most expensive standards of living - a standard facilitated by exploiting those in countries like Libya - does not have an obligation to help those countries when they get ed in the ass by their leaders.

Instead, you recite a ing hackneyed list of countries we don't care about. Sure, intervention is selective. And sure, we don't help those people out. I never condoned those actions. I never said we should feel good by helping country A while ignoring country B. If anything, I'd be in favor of more intervention in those places.

You're close-minded beyond belief. Maybe our intervention in Libya should remind us of the suffering in those other places you've listed. You content to put all those countries out of sight and out of mind. Who the cares about Libya - I'll sit on my couch, playing ps3, and get fat. Ironically, you're deliberate ignorance and refusal to get involved in other countries' affairs is exactly what enables Darfur, Rwanda, etc... Out of sight, out of mind ... right?

[vy65]

And before you make any other re ed assumptions - no - I don't think we should be involved in nation building, installing a (puppet) regime, etc...

I just don't see the problem in stopping someone from killing his own people.

[TeyshaBlue]

And before you make any other re ed assumptions - no - I don't think we should be involved in nation building, installing a (puppet) regime, etc...

I just don't see the problem in stopping someone from killing his own people.

The problem is the, thus far, 100% chance of mission creep into regime change. Our track record aint to great in that regard.

[MannyIsGod]

So you've already conceded that this bombing campaign: a) has nothing to do with "hubris" and b) is intended to stop someone from butchering his own people.

As it stands now, this campaign isn't about "fixing" Libya - it's about stopping violence. That seemed to work in the Balkans - didn't it?

You obviously missed the part where ground troops went in through the Balkans and how long it took. You don't fix from the air, but of course you ignore the history of interventions such as this.

I literally loled at "stopping violence". I hear bombing a place is the best way to "stop violence".

You don't seem to understand that hubris is exactly what leads you to believe that you can stop violence from the air with violence. The Hubris of people like you and our leaders is exactly what leads to these events. Its a trademark of Neoconservative thinking.

Where the are you getting this hearts/minds bull ? Especially given that this seems to be a European led mission?

Also, what am I not seeing? Are the rebels in the east telling the US, or its European allies, to stop?

Do the rebels make up all of the people in Libya? Does Quadafi have any supporters or is his military made up of robots? Where the rebels elected representatives of all of Libya?

You can't even keep your own thoughts straight. You brought up the message this sends and how it couldn't possibly be a bad one and now you ask why we're talking about the perceptions of "the message"?

You're as closed minded, unimaginative, and ing dumb as the conservatives you yell at. Sure, it can be about oil and helping innocent civilians. Why can't it be both? What's wrong with it being both?

Why can't it be about both? Because only one governs the decision. It should be ing obvious which that is. We don't do to help civilians that involves action like this unless oil is around. You don't seem to understand that simple fact.

You still haven't given me a reason why the world's largest military power doesn't have an obligation to help others out.

Because its counter productive and expensive. Thats why. I had already explained that to you but you fail to understand it because you choose to ignore the ramifications of these actions in the past.

You still haven't explained why a country premised on democracy and human rights doesn't have an obligation to stop tyrants. You haven't explained why a country that enjoys one of the most expensive standards of living - a standard facilitated by exploiting those in countries like Libya - does not have an obligation to help those countries when they get ed in the ass by their leaders.

Hubris to the max.

Instead, you recite a ing hackneyed list of countries we don't care about. Sure, intervention is selective. And sure, we don't help those people out. I never condoned those actions. I never said we should feel good by helping country A while ignoring country B. If anything, I'd be in favor of more intervention in those places.

Of course you would. Hubris

You're close-minded beyond belief. Maybe our intervention in Libya should remind us of the suffering in those other places you've listed. You content to put all those countries out of sight and out of mind. Who the cares about Libya - I'll sit on my couch, playing ps3, and get fat. Ironically, you're deliberate ignorance and refusal to get involved in other countries' affairs is exactly what enables Darfur, Rwanda, etc... Out of sight, out of mind ... right?

You're delusional as . Apparently my refusal to support wars is the reason genocide between tribes in Africa happens. Thats some amazing logic.

[MannyIsGod]

And before you make any other re ed assumptions - no - I don't think we should be involved in nation building, installing a (puppet) regime, etc...

I just don't see the problem in stopping someone from killing his own people.

I think its amazing that you've managed to try to insult me as close minded and have the gal to make statements such as this. You really have no grasp on history.

[MannyIsGod]

I also love how the burden of proof on intervention is placed on those wanting to avoid it according to VY. No, he doesn't need to prove how action in Libya is going to result in a favorable situation. No, I have to prove why we shouldn't use our military to intervene.

The ?

[Blake]

You still haven't given me a reason why the world's largest military power doesn't have an obligation to help others out. You still haven't explained why a country premised on democracy and human rights doesn't have an obligation to stop tyrants.

+1 million trillion

might makes right.

so does democracy.

next up: North Korea

[CosmicCowboy]

And before you make any other re ed assumptions - no - I don't think we should be involved in nation building, installing a (puppet) regime, etc...

I just don't see the problem in stopping someone from killing his own people.

I presume you realize that this is absolutely impossible to accomplish just using airplanes, bombs, and cruise missiles...it takes boots on the ground...and we have seen how good THAT worked in Iraq and Afghanistan...

[vy65]

You obviously missed the part where ground troops went in through the Balkans and how long it took. You don't fix from the air, but of course you ignore the history of interventions such as this.

Because this is exactly like the Balkans - from a military/tactical standpoint. In fact, pretty much all humanitarian campaigns are pretty much the same, right? Wouldn't you say so from you're apparently enlightened historical perspective?

I literally loled at "stopping violence". I hear bombing a place is the best way to "stop violence".

Still waiting on your alternative. Are you sticking to "sit on my ass and play ps3 while people die?"

You don't seem to understand that hubris is exactly what leads you to believe that you can stop violence from the air with violence. The Hubris of people like you and our leaders is exactly what leads to these events. Its a trademark of Neoconservative thinking.

Still waiting for that alternative.

Do the rebels make up all of the people in Libya? Does Quadafi have any supporters or is his military made up of robots? Where the rebels elected representatives of all of Libya?

Were the rebels indiscrimately killing Quadafi supporters? You're argument essentially boils down to: "we shouldn't stop the janjaweed because they have Sudanese supporters." Enjoy your moral relativism.

You can't even keep your own thoughts straight. You brought up the message this sends and how it couldn't possibly be a bad one and now you ask why we're talking about the perceptions of "the message"?

The message this sends is that a tyrant shouldn't kill his own people. What's wrong with that?

Why can't it be about both? Because only one governs the decision. It should be ing obvious which that is. We don't do to help civilians that involves action like this unless oil is around. You don't seem to understand that simple fact.

So you're solution is to do nothing because any action we take would be "tainted," right? In other words, we literally should let innocent people die because Libya has oil.

And even if one governs the other - why is that bad if it ends up saving lives. You agree that we're not talking about a nation-building program here - so if some bombs 1) stop the murder of innocents and 2) protect valuable natural resources, what's the problem?

Because its counter productive and expensive. Thats why. I had already explained that to you but you fail to understand it because you choose to ignore the ramifications of these actions in the past.

Do you have statistics on the relative cost of this operation is compared to the overal DoD budget?

Also, what's your alternative?

Hubris to the max.

Of course you would. Hubris

No, it's not. And what's your alternative?

You're delusional as . Apparently my refusal to support wars is the reason genocide between tribes in Africa happens. Thats some amazing logic.

No, your facile non-violence position is what enables genocide.