Conservative national columnist expresses his disdain for Obama's intervention in Lybia....without a mission plan. More and more conservatives are recognising that intervention is a tired act.

Why the US is arming insurgents, and sticking their nose into another country's affairs is beyond comprehension.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-haze-of-humanitarian-imperialism/2011/04/05/AF5EbPrC_story.html

Footwedge;736537 wrote:Why the US is arming insurgents, and sticking their nose into another country's affairs is beyond comprehension.

Europe, oil, NATO, oil....did I mention oil?

Not that I agree with those "reasons" mind you.

believer;737304 wrote:Europe, oil, NATO, oil....did I mention oil?

Not that I agree with those "reasons" mind you.

Think about it Believer for a moment. Is Lybia a threat to Europe? Nope. And if they were....that's Europe's problem....not ours. Oil? How have the wars in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, or Lybia helping with the price of oil? Do I think that arab countries (or African, whatever) price gouge? Of course they do. It's there product...they can sell it for whatever they can get for it. Capitalism as we know it today. If we don't want to pay their price...well then don't buy their oil. We don't need their oil. Maybe speculators should drive the price to $300 clams a barrel....and then we would actually do something about it.

As for NATO. Yes we are a member of NATO. As such, we have a certain responsibility to NATO. But we have always been selective in when and where we listen to NATO. Here's an idea. Tell NATO that we can no longer spend our money on policing the planet. If they don't understand that....then we quit NATO.

Footwedge;737412 wrote:Think about it Believer for a moment. Is Lybia a threat to Europe? Nope. And if they were....that's Europe's problem....not ours. Oil? How have the wars in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, or Lybia helping with the price of oil? Do I think that arab countries (or African, whatever) price gouge? Of course they do. It's there product...they can sell it for whatever they can get for it. Capitalism as we know it today. If we don't want to pay their price...well then don't buy their oil. We don't need their oil. Maybe speculators should drive the price to $300 clams a barrel....and then we would actually do something about it.

As for NATO. Yes we are a member of NATO. As such, we have a certain responsibility to NATO. But we have always been selective in when and where we listen to NATO. Here's an idea. Tell NATO that we can no longer spend our money on policing the planet. If they don't understand that....then we quit NATO.

Oh I do think about FW. And like I said I do not necessarily agree with these reasons. I just have to assume that the fine upstanding folks in the White House and Congress know a little more about the "reasoning" than you or I....right? Rhetorically speaking of course.....

Footwedge;736537 wrote:Conservative national columnist expresses his disdain for Obama's intervention in Lybia....without a mission plan. More and more conservatives are recognising that intervention is a tired act.

Why the US is arming insurgents, and sticking their nose into another country's affairs is beyond comprehension.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-haze-of-humanitarian-imperialism/2011/04/05/AF5EbPrC_story.html

Weird how they're recognising this when the other side does it but defended it tooth and nail as LIFE AND DEATH when they did it.

Disclosure, I'd have preferred we not get involved in Libya.

I Wear Pants;737708 wrote:Weird how they're recognising this when the other side does it but defended it tooth and nail as LIFE AND DEATH when they did it.

Disclosure, I'd have preferred we not get involved in Libya.

Good post IWP....but I'd like to add this. George Will has had a "reawakening" regarding American intervention policies, and unlike the partisan hacks on his side, he has just as much disdain for Bush's wars too. But in general your point is all good. I remember W yapping his mouth about how Clinton had no exit plan during the Balkan Wars. And then he campaigned on "no nation building". Then of course he becomes ten times the ignoramous that Clinton was. Astounding.

I don't think it as much a reawakening as it is disapponitment. Most of us who supported military intervention in Afghanistan, and then Iraq, had not expected such protracted involvement, which is why you've seen support for such interventionism fall off as the conflicts have become unending. I think there would still be a lot of support if these wars had been Powell docrine type actions.

Footwedge;737758 wrote:Good post IWP....but I'd like to add this. George Will has had a "reawakening" regarding American intervention policies, and unlike the partisan hacks on his side, he has just as much disdain for Bush's wars too. But in general your point is all good. I remember W yapping his mouth about how Clinton had no exit plan during the Balkan Wars. And then he campaigned on "no nation building". Then of course he becomes ten times the ignoramous that Clinton was. Astounding.

Partisan hacks on this issue exist on both sides of the aisle.

Footwedge;737758 wrote:Good post IWP....but I'd like to add this. George Will has had a "reawakening" regarding American intervention policies, and unlike the partisan hacks on his side, he has just as much disdain for Bush's wars too. But in general your point is all good. I remember W yapping his mouth about how Clinton had no exit plan during the Balkan Wars. And then he campaigned on "no nation building". Then of course he becomes ten times the ignoramous that Clinton was. Astounding.

The more I see from each president that I have observed in my lifetime, the more I see that each one has felt the need to intervene in issues throughout the world. Which makes me ask how Clinton, who bashed Bush I for Iraq, could get involved in the Balkans and Iraq during his presidency. Then W bashed Clinton for the Balkans and we all know about Iraq and Afghanistan. Now we have Obama, who campaigned on anti-war and promises to close Gitmo, getting involved in Eqypt and Libya, while still involved in Iraq and Afghanistan and just last week moving KSM's trial back to Gitmo. Are all these guys just blatant liars? Maybe. But I think there is more to it. I think that the amount of information that a president has once he is in office is so much more than what he has as a governor, senator or even VP. Whether that knowledge justifies their actions is hard to say without access to that knowledge.

HitsRus;737919 wrote:I don't think it as much a reawakening as it is disapponitment. Most of us who supported military intervention in Afghanistan, and then Iraq, had not expected such protracted involvement, which is why you've seen support for such interventionism fall off as the conflicts have become unending. I think there would still be a lot of support if these wars had been Powell docrine type actions.

It may be a disappointment for Will, but for those of us who were against the Iraq war, we knew that we were going to be there a long time, just like Afghanistan. I don't believe Bush or any of his generals said anything about it being short. That was one of the many reasons why I was against invading Iraq. Far from being disappointed, I think we got exactly what was advertised.

As for Afghanistan, it stopped being about getting the terrorists a long, long time ago.

^^^
The statement referred to was about conservatives, like will...not flaming liberal democrats, so god knows what you/they feel.

I don't believe Bush or any of his generals said anything about it being short. That was one of the many reasons why I was against invading Iraq. Far from being disappointed, I think we got exactly what was advertised.

Bush said from the beginning that the 'War" on terror would be long. There was no implication that the military action even in Afghanistan was going to protracted to such a degree. Afghanistan was pretty quiet when we went to war with Iraq. I think most people thought Iraq would be quelled in similar fashion, and that we would be out of there in 2-3 years. Sure there were people who predicted the quagmire, but I don't think that is to be credited to liberals alone. I have no idea what those people feel now...elation?...satisfaction?

No, there is no elation or satisfaction from me, and I was against the Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation. I feel sadness, mainly because of losing so many of our young men and women for a lie.

stlouiedipalma;740638 wrote:No, there is no elation or satisfaction from me, and I was against the Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation. I feel sadness, mainly because of losing so many of our young men and women for a lie.

The loss of our soldiers is the main loss but there's also the hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars.

stlouiedipalma;740638 wrote:No, there is no elation or satisfaction from me, and I was against the Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation. I feel sadness, mainly because of losing so many of our young men and women for a lie.

Might I remind you that this "lie" was being told and believed for years by the fine folks on your side of the political fence before Bush took office. The Clinton's, Gore, Kerry, and many others believed Saddam Hussein had WMD's. He even used such weapons on his own people, but don't let that fact get in the way.

That being said, I was never precisely in favor of invading Iraq. I always thought we should have gone full-force into the Afghanistan mountains and flushed out the scum known as Osama Bin Laden and his al Qaeda henchmen instead after 9-11.

believer;740653 wrote:Might I remind you that this "lie" was being told and believed for years by the fine folks on your side of the political fence before Bush took office. The Clinton's, Gore, Kerry, and many others believed Saddam Hussein had WMD's. He even used such weapons on his own people, but don't let that fact get in the way.

That being said, I was never precisely in favor of invading Iraq. I always thought we should have gone full-force into the Afghanistan mountains and flushed out the scum known as Osama Bin Laden and his al Qaeda henchmen instead after 9-11.

Yep. I'll go even further and state Afghanistan should have been turned into the glass capital of the world....fuck with us and this is what you get. But alas, we are only good at political warmongering, not trying to really take care of business. This looks more and more like Vietnam every day, just not as many casualties.

believer;740653 wrote:Might I remind you that this "lie" was being told and believed for years by the fine folks on your side of the political fence before Bush took office. The Clinton's, Gore, Kerry, and many others believed Saddam Hussein had WMD's. He even used such weapons on his own people, but don't let that fact get in the way.

That being said, I was never precisely in favor of invading Iraq. I always thought we should have gone full-force into the Afghanistan mountains and flushed out the scum known as Osama Bin Laden and his al Qaeda henchmen instead after 9-11.

Before Bush took office? I don't think anyone was talking about invading Iraq until after Hussein tried to off W's daddy. A lot of people bought the lies being told to them by the Bush administration. We all know that. You can dress this pig up any way you like, but a lie's a lie. Will that bring any of our dead back to their loved ones?

stlouiedipalma;740661 wrote:Before Bush took office? I don't think anyone was talking about invading Iraq until after Hussein tried to off W's daddy. A lot of people bought the lies being told to them by the Bush administration. We all know that. You can dress this pig up any way you like, but a lie's a lie. Will that bring any of our dead back to their loved ones?

Soooooooooooo.....you are denying the Clinton's, etc. had no knowledge of the WMD issue before Bush took office? Of course they did. They had the same allegedly faulty British and American intelligence reports Bush was privy to. Revenge for daddy Bush? Eh, if you insist.

Will it bring back the "dead ones"? No. Do I discount their sacrifice? No. Is the world and Iraq better off without Saddam Hussein? Yes. Was it worth the sacrifice? Time will tell.

Should we have gone in? WMD's and broken UN resolutions aside, I still had my own misgivings even at the very beginning, but I trust that Bush had what he believed to be good reason for doing so just as I believe Obama must have reasons for his Libyan actions (which I'm opposed to as well).

Just don't pretend like the Iraq situation is a strictly Bush-only proposition. Just remember your pals in Congress OK'd the invasion and of course were all too willing to go into denial mode for political expediency.

Will is the classical conservative, only saying force should be used in absolute circumstances. It is the classic debate in international relations of hardcore realism (doing only things that it is a country's own direct interest) and hardcore liberal institutionalism (doing things in groups that can stabilize the international order).

I'm a Neorealist, but side with limited intervention in Libya. To me, it is the vital U.S. interest to make sure the region does not fall into civil wars, that further destabilize our allies and resources. Yes, oil, but also out allies like the Saudis, the Egyptians, etc. As long as no ground forces are used, I'm all for it. Limited, NATO led air strikes are fine with me and let the rebels decide their own fate.

Two interesting sidenotes as well. 1. Give props to W. and the Brits. In 2003, the Libyans gave up their WMD program, the uranium centrifuges. They weren't anywhere close to even enriching, but now it would have proved a huge challenge now if that did not happen.

and 2. Because of that 2003 give up and the use of force now, Iran and North Korea are looking at Libya as an example of what can happen if they give up their programs. This can provide more ammo for them to keep their programs. Why give them up if someone who did gets bombed?


Finally, on Iraq, yes the intelligence was awful. It was assumptions, built off assumptions, build off assumptions and some of it went outside the typical review process. However, Clinton nearly went into Iraq in 1998, Operation Desert Fox. We lobbed cruise missiles over there and expanded the air strikes. Not surprisingly, R's nailed him saying he was taking focus away from the domestic scandal (wag the dog), but it was legit as Saddam had kicked out UN inspectors. Clinton backed away as Saddam allowed some inspections, only to kick them out in 1999.

I always thought we should have gone full-force into the Afghanistan mountains and flushed out the scum known as Osama Bin Laden and his al Qaeda henchmen instead after 9-11.

That is exactly what I'm talking about.....and that is why the 'disappointment'....that and because of such nionsense we have the election of what we have now.

It is said 'what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger'....hence when we go in for a military action, we need to make sure it is dead. This pussy footing around, half assed shit just doesn't work. It didn't work in Viet Nam, and it is not/won't work here.

HitsRus;740981 wrote:That is exactly what I'm talking about.....and that is why the 'disappointment'....that and because of such nionsense we have the election of what we have now.

It is said 'what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger'....hence when we go in for a military action, we need to make sure it is dead. This pussy footing around, half assed shit just doesn't work. It didn't work in Viet Nam, and it is not/won't work here.

I agree, but as usual the same fucktards in DC who don't know how to balance a budget are the same fools who lack the courage to allow our generals to get the job done right.

Perhaps a Democrat in the White House and a Republican-controlled Congress is the only answer to the budget issue. The last time that happened, we had a balanced budget. I'm becoming comfy with the fact that one party in charge of all three doesn't work.

stlouiedipalma;741303 wrote:Perhaps a Democrat in the White House and a Republican-controlled Congress is the only answer to the budget issue. The last time that happened, we had a balanced budget. I'm becoming comfy with the fact that one party in charge of all three doesn't work.

I agree, Louie!