Welcome to PatsFans.com

Lybia

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PATSNUTme, Mar 18, 2011.

  1. PATSNUTme

    PATSNUTme Paranoid Homer Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    15,133
    Likes Received:
    27
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #75 Jersey
    Why are we gettnig involved in a civil war in Lybia? What is our vital national interest in Lybia?

    Why aren't the usual suspects running around screaming now that we are on the verge of taking military action in Lybia?

    Discuss. Please don't bring in Iraq or Afganistan into the discussion as they have nothing to do with Lybia.
  2. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,261
    Likes Received:
    22
    Ratings:
    +26 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #75 Jersey
    We aren't. The UN and NATO are. In fact, this time around, it has been the French, the British and the Arab League who have been spearheading this. If anything, our government is pulling up the rear.

    At least in LIBYA (sp). ;)

    In the meantime, all of this is the same ignoring the elephant in the room that was taking place in 2003 when we gave Iran a big wet kiss by taking out the toothless and harmless (to anyone else but his own people) Saddam.

    The source problem in the world is the current Khomeini-heir regime. Keep your eye on what they are doing to foment the Bahrain situation. Watch them traversing the Suez Canal with heavily armed naval vessels the minute Mubarak is overthrown, etc. etc.

    Our national security focus must be on Iran, but for 3+ decades our government seems to get lost in the maps.
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2011
  3. Gainzo

    Gainzo Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,127
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    IMO we did the right thing by not taking action until the UN got involved. From what I've read the Brits & French will be leading the way and there will be no way we put troops* on the ground.

    *Apart from the Special Ops guys that will be joined by the UK, France & Australia that we all know are there already!
  4. PATSNUTme

    PATSNUTme Paranoid Homer Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    15,133
    Likes Received:
    27
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #75 Jersey
    At least in Lybia (sp).


    That's the way we say it in Maine.:D
    The UN and NATO are.

    Well then, that explains why no one is upset that we are getting involved in a civil war in which we have no idea who on the other side.

    The UN and NATO will take care of this without any US service person being put in harms way. This time we will be holding their coats while they do the heavy lifting.:rolleyes:
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2011
  5. Gainzo

    Gainzo Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,127
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    What is your stance on the no fly zone and the cease fire that Libya declared after the UN passed that resolution?

    We are not going to war with Libya.
  6. PATSNUTme

    PATSNUTme Paranoid Homer Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    15,133
    Likes Received:
    27
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #75 Jersey
    My stance is that we have no business getting involved in a civil war with no vital national interest at stake.

    All it's going to take is a couple of our aviators being shot down and paraded through the streets for it to blow up in our faces.

    Why are we doing this in the first place? I guess I've miss the rational while reading my draft guides.
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2011
  7. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,261
    Likes Received:
    22
    Ratings:
    +26 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #75 Jersey
    1) The President stated flatly today, no US groundtroops.

    2) I'm OK with stopping genocides. We should have gone into Rwanda. Once again, it's something like 30 countries. We're just one of 'em. Not a US policy or anything. We're not even leading it. Think of it as if we're like Canadians or Australian usually are in this.
  8. Gainzo

    Gainzo Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,127
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I wish Bush shared your opinion back in the day. Aussie soldiers are getting killed for a war the Country never wanted.
  9. PATSNUTme

    PATSNUTme Paranoid Homer Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    15,133
    Likes Received:
    27
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #75 Jersey
    I still haven't heard the rationale for any US servicemen to be put into harms way, but I'm sure I will if I wait long enough.

    I have not heard anything about genocide taking place. Sound as if there's a rebellion against Daffy, which is a civil war. Do we know if the rebels will be really pro democracy or will they be radical Islamist?
  10. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ~~~Out of Order~~~ PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,491
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +23 / 1 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #87 Jersey
    We are just sitting back on the Lybia majora ... France and Britain are going for the Lybia minora.
  11. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,371
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    sadly, that's been US policy for the past 60-70 years, it seems...
  12. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,251
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +20 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Personally, I think what's being done is Libya is the same as what Germany did in Yugoslavia. It's divide and conquer time. Now that Qadaffi is severely weakened, we're keeping two weak entities in place, reducing Qadaffi's ability to engage in destabilizing activities elsewhere. It's a cynical but effective strategy.
  13. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,261
    Likes Received:
    22
    Ratings:
    +26 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #75 Jersey
    Everything else is merely a sideshow for the Big Kahuna.......Iran.

    I'm OK with being "participant #23" in the UN role on Libya.

    Iran should be our focus.

    It's time to take care of business with Ahmedinejad and it's way past time to finally screw the Khomeini legacy.
  14. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,225
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -2

    My Jersey:



    Agreed +1 Huge problem.
  15. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,495
    Likes Received:
    22
    Ratings:
    +27 / 0 / -5

    My Jersey:

    Obama Wars = good wars
  16. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ~~~Out of Order~~~ PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,491
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +23 / 1 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #87 Jersey
    This guy if he were to go down would like nothing better than to be a martyr. Not that he even remotely qualifies as one - but in his mind anything is possible. So my problem with this is the very simple question of:

    "What could go wrong?" .....

    Answer: "Everything".

    This guy will go down in a blaze of fire ... unfortunately.
  17. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Protecting citizens is a noble reason to get involved. Sadly, we won't just help them liberate and walk away, we will stick around and try to force them into whats best for them in our opinions, and create a whole new generation of Arab kids who hate the US involvement of their countries leadership.

    If we simply helped save lives, and went about our ways, this could go a long way into healing relationships in that area.

    We shouldn't have gotten involved, but it was pretty bad sending tanks, fighter jets, and missiles against rebels with AK-47s, so someone needed to help them...
  18. shirtsleeve

    shirtsleeve Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    The President is in a lot of hot water on this one. It seems that he was, in concert with France, the major player at the UN, and with NATO and the Arab League to do this. His critics are saying that he, by doing this, and not going before congress to seek permission, is subverting the sovereign Authority of our Government, in favor of a world governing body, and overreaching his Constitutional authority. He has people in his own party such as Kucinich (sp?) mentioning impeachment over this.

    He had all this time to get his ducks in a nice row internationally, yet never bothered to clear it with his own Congress. Even Bush went before Congress for the actions he took. Some say he lied to Congress, but at least he went. Again, another dangerous precedent Obama is establishing.

    If ending slaughter of civilians mattered, why are we singling out Libya? And why all the outrage at Bush? Compared to Saddam, Qaddhafi is an altar boy when it comes to slaughtering his own citizens. This is just another example of interventionalism and regime change. Different objectives, different stooges on the ground. And still no stated end game.






    Oh and Qaddhafi is right.. the rebels are being backed by Al Queda in Tunesia. Oops. This should end well.
  19. scout

    scout Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,624
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #15 Jersey
    Where's the link? All I read was your saying Obama is worse then Bush.............Seriously. When we invaded Iraq, how many Iraq troops, tanks, jets, were killing Iraq civilians?
    When we invaded Iraq, did we just enforce a no-fly zone, or did we pummel the infrastructure into a scap pile. Was Iraq at war when we chose a pre-emptive strike against them. Lastly, because I've forgotten, why did we invade Iraq?
  20. shirtsleeve

    shirtsleeve Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Constitutionally, Obama is worse. He didn't even bother with congress. Links? lets start with this thread:
    http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...ats-uproar-over-libya-action.html#post2506048
    Then there is this:
    Libya military campaign: Obama increasingly under fire for U.S. military campaign in Libya - latimes.com
    And this in his own words live:
    Home - FoxBusiness.com

    edit: dont get me wrong. I was no fan of W either. But a POTUS unilaterally acting without even going before Congress at all, and subserving Sovereign Authority to a Global Governmental Authority is a very very dangerous precedent.
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2011
  21. shirtsleeve

    shirtsleeve Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Oh and you are wrong. As much as Qaddhafi disgusts me, he is confronting rebels who are are attacking him, and his government, trying to overthrow it. Its a civil war, a domestic issue of a sovereign nation. This intervention not only violates the constitution, it violates the UN charter not to interfere with internal affairs. Contrast that with over 100,000 Kurds gassed in northern Iraq by Saddam. And hundreds of thousands of Shiites lined up over pits in southern Iraq and mowed down with machine gun fire in a huge ethnic cleansing. All without provocation of open civil war. Where was the "justified need for protection of civilians" then?

    Qaddhafi is an alter boy compared to Saddam in the treatment of his people.

    Again, I am not justifying W. I am pointing out the huge disgusting overreach here.

    Why the focus on Libya? When attrocities against peaceful protesters are occuring elsewhere in the middle east? The rebels in Libya are not peaceful protesters. They are insurgents who took up arms against the government. See this clearly for what it is. Regime change.
  22. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,371
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    According to Boehner he consulted (a vague term but what's in the War Powers Resolution) w congress Friday and then notified them as required.

    Approval is not required.

    As for precedent, is this different from Grenada?


  23. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24,998
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -7

    My Jersey:

    If shmessy was truthful, then how did a US F-15 get shot down?:rolleyes:
  24. shirtsleeve

    shirtsleeve Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    The War Powers Act was created, unconstitutionally by the way (the congress has no right to abdicate some of its powers to the executive) to allow the POTUS to temporarily implement the use of force in an emergency in defense of the country or its vital interests.

    But dont take my word for it. What does Barack Obama the Senator say about this?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/world/africa/22powers.html

  25. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,371
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    1) totally agree re Obama's words then v actions now
    2) also agree that War Powers Act may be unconstitutional, but it hasn't been deemed so or even challenged

    but

    3) while it was pretty late when I was reading it last night, I don't think it is limited to emergencies or to defense of the nation. If it does use the language "vital interests" I'd guess that loophole was intentional.

    (It is intended for temporary use of force -- without extension approved by Congress, etc. -- but as far as know now, or at the start of any conflict, this could be "temporary")
  26. shirtsleeve

    shirtsleeve Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Please tell me how intervening in the internal affairs of a sovereign country and siding on an armed civil war in the "vital interests of the United States"?

    The use of planes, troops on the ground and missiles against another country is an act of war. (troops are on the ground. those missiles and bombs need to be programmed for targeting somehow).

    This is even against the UN's charter too. Since when is it against international law for a sovereign government to defend itself from an armed insurgency, or to crush said insurgency completely, leaving psycological impressions on any potential successors not to repeat it? Thank god the UN didn't exist during our civil war.

    This flies in the face of all that is legal and legitimate. If this was a hawk neocon in the WH, the outrage would be deafening. Obama is a hypocrit and liar. Dont let us be too.
  27. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,371
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I didn't say it is. I think it's an intentional loophole.
  28. KDPPatsfan85

    KDPPatsfan85 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Messages:
    2,292
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 1 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #51 Jersey
    At least Bush went to congress before the Iraq war started!! The congress voted and approved. Obama, holding the UN Security Council chair just did it. Ohh by the way, The USA led the way with the cruise missiles!!
  29. shirtsleeve

    shirtsleeve Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Well, yeah, that was my whole point. The chimp lied, or he had "plausable deniability" where everyone lied to him on purpose, wink wink.

    But he stood before Congress and let them have their debate. They gave him permission. That is THE difference. He asked.

    People have mentioned Reagan. He stated plainly that he responded to an attack to Americans, it was limited and had a precise ending. So did Clinton. That is a different issue.

    Grenada was a direct IBM missile threat, again, with Congressional approval after the initial advances. He showed a direct threat to American vital interests.

    How does butting into a Civil war a half a world away, with no strategic interest in our country represent vital interest. It doesn't. This authority was stripped from the Congress. From someone who stated publically that this was not allowed and a travesty.

    The guy is a hypocrit and a liar.
  30. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,371
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    not sure what you mean here by "approval after the initial advances"
    Congress did not approve Grenada in advance.

    If you mean that they approved it after the invasion, then so far this is the same.

    Where are you getting the "vital interests" test?

Share This Page