The reality in Libya.

[ChumpDumper]

What about the misreporting of the plane shot down?

The AP corrected itself. The conservative Washington Times did not.

What about the Russian reports of what their satellites were watching?

Russia Today is funded by the Russian state. It, like you, has no integrity and you are a fool to blindly trust it.

[EVAY]

Also, opportunistic. The war is unpopular here, it was not swift and decisive as promised but appears to have prolonged the civil war. Also, Obama is a Dem.

It was foolishly and hastily undertaken, and Obama brazenly ignored Congress in the process. If Obama had shown a little deference here the result might have been somewhat different.

This is apparently the key to this vote. Notably, there was also a vote to cut funding that was also defeated. So, the congress voted to say "You shouldn't be doing this", but "here's the money to keep doing it".

I remain convinced that this is Obama's response to Britain, France and Italy saying "You wanted our support in Iraq and Afghanistan...now we want your support here...or you never get ours again.

IMHO, Congress and the President are all posturing politically with respect to this thing. I don't think we can literally afford the expenditures, and I think Obama was flat wrong not to get congressional approval, but I understand the need to support our allies.

[RandomGuy]

My oh my....

Quoting the wiki article that deviates from what is says is the source:

No where does it confirm these troops were killing people or that the Libyan military refused orders to kill. Maybe the military was spread thin, so they hired their equivalent of Blackwater. I read it as the military refusing to work with the mercs!

What about the misreporting of the plane shot down?

What about the Russian reports of what their satellites were watching?

I only see hearsay that protesters were killed for no reason. I have seen videos of so-called protesters with weapons.

The State reports tells a story over time if you follow over the years that Libya is becoming a better place.

Even if we assume protesters were killed, again, this is a sovereign nation. Until he targets people outside his nation, who are we to police the world? They live in a very authoritarian culture, and they know the rules to live by and stay alive. Like I said early on, if we help go after Libya, who's next. There are several nations more worthy of our wrath than Libya.

We cannot attack other nations because their values aren't like ours.

I have to wonder. Do you support a one world government?

130 Libyan Soldiers Executed: Disobeying Orders To Kill Protesters

Scores of Libyan soldiers have been executed for refusing to open fire on pro-democracy protesters, International Federation for Human Rights (IFHR) says.

An amateur video shows some of the 130 slain soldiers with their hands tied behind their backs. The mutinous soldiers were shot dead in al-Baida near the eastern city of Benghazi.

This comes amid more reports of defiance among army ranks and soldiers who have refused to obey orders by embattled Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi to shoot peaceful protesters.

The IFHR said the brutal crackdown on protesters in Libya is “crime against humanity has to be referred to the International Court of Justice,” dpa reported on Wednesday.

Medical sources told the rights group that they have seen scenes of carnage in Benghazi, where hospitals remain packed with dead bodies and people injured in attacks by Gaddafi loyalists.

The video at the link clearly shows uniformed military, bound, lying face down, shot in the back of the head.

Libyan officers defecting to [Tunisia] describe mutinous army and climate of fear

TUNIS, Tunisia - Libyan army officers defecting to Tunisia described on Thursday a country ruled by fear in which many soldiers are trying to leave.

Dozens of members of the army have fled the country in recent weeks, officials say, including 19 officers that arrived on Thursday.

"We came here not to escape death but because of the massacre of the Libyan people. We refuse to kill the children of our country," an officer, who refused to give his name for fear of retribution, told The Associated Press.

More thinly veiled attempts to deflect the truth.

Why can't you just admit you were talking out your ass?

[Winehole23]

So, the congress voted to say "You shouldn't be doing this", but "here's the money to keep doing it".

Yep. Same old war party.

I remain convinced that this is Obama's response to Britain, France and Italy saying "You wanted our support in Iraq and Afghanistan...now we want your support here...or you never get ours again.

Italy already begged off, I thought.

IMHO, Congress and the President are all posturing politically with respect to this thing.

Yah. Big time. But the game is worth the candle, I think. Ins utional prerogatives and courtesies are no joke.

I don't think we can literally afford the expenditures, and I think Obama was flat wrong not to get congressional approval, but I understand the need to support our allies.

Some of our allies are starting to run out of materiel. They need to support us more, but it seems to be working out the other way around. We are supporting them more and more.

[RandomGuy]

RG I can honestly say that regardless of the brutality of events we've done nothing but make it worse. Cut our losses, come home. Bombs from planes don't fill the world with rainbows.

I would not say that bombing campaigns make everything better.

I don't think what we have done has really made it worse. To sit by while this western supported dictator rolled up on protests and started going house to house arresting and "disappearing" and stopping that from happening is not, to me, "worse".

One thing this does do though, is that it puts the West against a rather despised dictator that we had supported. This particular episode has made some of the Al Qaeda assertions about us seem MUCH less credible to the "arab street".

That right there probably did more to combat the AQ ideology than we have done in a long time.

All this said, I still think Obama should have adhered to the War Powers act.

[LnGrrrR]

Islam has a few minor distinctions, but remember it is a bit more less formal than Christianity in regards to denominations.

Uhm... that didn't help

Did you mean to just write "a bit less"?

[RandomGuy]

I have to wonder. Do you support a one world government?

Yes is the short answer, with a very big "but humanity is nowhere near ready for that yet."

Long, long after I am dead, I have little doubt that some loose confederation of post-nation-states will form a practical world consensus that could be conceptualized as a "world government" by people of today. I think that would probably be a good thing.

Sounds good in theory, but in practice, it is not currently doable.

Now answer my question. Why can't you admit you were talking out your ass?

[RandomGuy]

Uhm... that didn't help

Did you mean to just write "a bit less"?

Uh, yeah, you got it. Sorry, I re-word things a lot and backspace over stuff constantly, and that was one of those incomplete do-overs, heh.

Islam is much less centralized than Christianity, making WC's claim that the Libyan civil war is being driven by two different sects of Islam fighting each other more laughable.

[RandomGuy]

Some of our allies are starting to run out of materiel. They need to support us more, but it seems to be working out the other way around. We are supporting them more and more.

Europe needs to be running this thing. It is their affair for the most part, not ours. I don't object to us helping, but we should not be doing much other than acting in a support role.

It pisses me off to no end that they are so ing helpless that they cannot do it without us, though.

[LnGrrrR]

Also, opportunistic. The war is unpopular here, it was not swift and decisive as promised but appears to have prolonged the civil war. Also, Obama is a Dem.

It was foolishly and hastily undertaken, and Obama brazenly ignored Congress in the process. If Obama had shown a little deference here the result might have been somewhat different.

Here's the thing though... what if Congress says he can't fund it, and he flips the bird to Congress? What if he tries to reroute cash within the Executive Branch, or just finds a way to fund the military ops regardless?

Would anyone have the stones to impeach?

[Winehole23]

I'd think so.

One would think the GOP would be wary of tying the hands of future chiefs in war, causing this one's to fail, or establishing any viable precedent for Congressional micromanagement of future wars.

[Wild Cobra]

What if this is a war of propaganda as well. Why don't I see US intelligence sources sharing collaborating evidence?

now that this is an actual civil war, one would expect soldiers to be executed for not following orders. Still, how do we know that the reports of what those orders contain to be true?

I'm not convinced that reasons aren't being fabricated to support the rebels.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'd think so.

One would think the GOP would be wary of tying the hands of future chiefs in war, causing this one's to fail, or establishing any viable precedent for Congressional micromanagement of future wars.

I think it's just natural in the on-going power struggle between the Legislative and the Executive. The same guys will take hypocritical positions if the roles were reversed without flinching.

[ChumpDumper]

Congress is pussing out in impressive fashion on this one. I think it's time to determine whether the War Powers Act is relevant once and for all.

[ChumpDumper]

What if this is a war of propaganda as well. Why don't I see US intelligence sources sharing collaborating evidence?

now that this is an actual civil war, one would expect soldiers to be executed for not following orders. Still, how do we know that the reports of what those orders contain to be true?

I'm not convinced that reasons aren't being fabricated to support the rebels.

You take the Russian government at its word through its media service.

You have no integrity.

[LnGrrrR]

What if this is a war of propaganda as well. Why don't I see US intelligence sources sharing collaborating evidence?

Do you think the evidence showing Gaddafi as someone who's killed innocents is all faked?

And does US intel often tell the public what they're doing?

now that this is an actual civil war, one would expect soldiers to be executed for not following orders. Still, how do we know that the reports of what those orders contain to be true?

Not following you.

I'm not convinced that reasons aren't being fabricated to support the rebels.

So, if you don't trust either side, why side against the rebels?

[LnGrrrR]

Congress is pussing out in impressive fashion on this one. I think it's time to determine whether the War Powers Act is relevant once and for all.

Agreed. I expect Dems to be spineless. But the one time where Republicans could use all that bluster, and hit a Democratic president, they're afraid to because it might mean killing less turban-heads.

[RandomGuy]

What if this is a war of propaganda as well. Why don't I see US intelligence sources sharing collaborating evidence?

now that this is an actual civil war, one would expect soldiers to be executed for not following orders. Still, how do we know that the reports of what those orders contain to be true?

I'm not convinced that reasons aren't being fabricated to support the rebels.

No amount of evidence I could present you would convince you otherwise either.

Sounds exactly like the asshats who think the moon landings are faked, and uses the same methodology.

1. Theory proposed out of ignorance
2. Belief that those in charge are outright lying
3. Denial of any account that contradicts theory as being "biased"
4. Latching on to any shred of evidence that seems to support theory, no matter how weakly as proof positive
5. Dismisses any demands for better evidence, as a "waste of time"
6. Declares victory repeatedly
7. Changes subject from the assertions underlying the theory as quickly as possible once it becomes clear they are provably ed.
8. Revisits debunked assertions, attempting to muddy waters, or simply repeats them.

[boutons_deux]

Saxby Chambliss saying the Generals decide, not the CiC:

"“Well, shatever Gen. Petraeus says, that’s the direction in which we ought to go.”"

http://thinkprogress.org/security/20...liss-petraeus/

Of course, the Generals LOVE war and would go on forever, pocketing the battle premiums

[Wild Cobra]

Do you think the evidence showing Gaddafi as someone who's killed innocents is all faked?

I don't know if it is. However, uncertain evidence is what is justifying the support of the rebels.

And does US intel often tell the public what they're doing?

No, but if they wanted support they would show something.

Not following you.

The allegation is that the solders were executed for not killing protesters. My point is during war, they could be executed for not following just about any order. The executions don't mean it was for the reasons stated.

So, if you don't trust either side, why side against the rebels?

Why side for the rebels?

We have seen Gaddafi come a long way to bettering things in Libya over the years. We recently established real relations and an embassy. our own state department outlines several things to suggest the rebels are worse than Gaddafi. Gaddafi is known for being brutal, but only against those who want a more conservative forms of Islam.

Read the reports over various years and see how Libya was improving. Why are we destroying a nation that could have positive changes with the right help. Gaddafi would have been able to suppress the rebels easily, until we destroyed his ability to do so. Now there are thousands of unnecessary deaths.

Look at the Human Development Index. They rate better than all other African Nations. They also rate better than Panama, Mexico, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Peru, Thailand, and so many other nations. They are rated "HIGH," and number 53 of 162 rated nations on this index.

How far will a civil war sink the livelihood of these people?

Read the 4/8/11 Human Rights report on Libya also.

[Blake]

Why side for the rebels?

If you trust neither, then why would you take a side?

It's honestly ok to say you don't know and just sit this one out.

[Wild Cobra]

If you trust neither, then why would you take a side?

It's honestly ok to say you don't know and just sit this one out.

I have answered that in previous posts.

1) He's the devil we know. His replacement could be worse.

2) What NATO, and our involvement did, was promote a rebellion to a civil war. Where maybe only hundreds of lives would have been lost, now we can bet on counting 5 or 6 digits. What would have been a few days maybe a few weeks, is now possible going to go on for years.

3) This was a sovereign nation that did not do harm outside it's border. I though we were suppose to respect other cultures and their laws. I guess you guys don't believe that way after all.

4) considering the impact of item 2, can anyone say with confidence that things will be better when the dust settles?

I could go on, but isn't that enough?

[LnGrrrR]

Ok WC, if I'm following you correctly, here is the logic.

You're siding against the rebels, because even though there's a possibility that Gaddafi was a bit brutal towards his own citizens, it beats the civil unrest that would occur by unseating him, and you're not sure if the people who want to replace him would be better.

You also think that intervention in Iraq was justified (even though the chance for that same civil unrest existed) because you believe that Gaddafi was actually making progress in improving his country, whereas Saddam was not.

Assuming I'm right, the only problem I see is relative inconsistency. Iraq caused the same civil unrest, but you're ok with it there due to the reasons. Gaddafi might be a brutal dictator, but since he keeps it confined to his country, it's ok. Those ideas don't mesh well in my mind.

[Wild Cobra]

Your simplification is roughly accurate. Remember, there were huge differences between the two dictators. Our relationship was getting worse with Saddam also, and better over time with Gaddafi.

Can anyone show me that these rebels are worth supporting?

Can anyone show that we were right to take out the advantage Gaddafi had, that now allows for a long term civil war? The real crime could be doing just that. If we are to take sides, then lets actually do it and make as short a war as possible out of it.

[MannyIsGod]

I would not say that bombing campaigns make everything better.

I don't think what we have done has really made it worse. To sit by while this western supported dictator rolled up on protests and started going house to house arresting and "disappearing" and stopping that from happening is not, to me, "worse".

One thing this does do though, is that it puts the West against a rather despised dictator that we had supported. This particular episode has made some of the Al Qaeda assertions about us seem MUCH less credible to the "arab street".

That right there probably did more to combat the AQ ideology than we have done in a long time.

All this said, I still think Obama should have adhered to the War Powers act.

Um thats all great in a vac . What have we done in Syria? Yemen? Did we bomb Saudi Arabia when they went into Bahrain? All we've done is correctly promote the belief we're only in it for oil.