Sinfest

Willem · Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 6306 Location: wasteland style

Nah, they won't do that. It's too easy to compare it to Afghanistan or Iraq. And after all, they need to SUPPORT OUR TROOPS. What they'll probably do, is attack Obama on the way the war is fought/how well everything goes.

Imagine, if you will: "Obama's for this war? Well, we support it even more! He wants to bomb some buildings? We want to invade and occupy! Why didn't he invade sooner? Why is Gadaffi still alive? SOCIALISM!"
_________________
attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose

Snorri · Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:22 am Post subject:

Darqcyde · Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:53 am Post subject:

YOu can't forget though that good majority of Americans grew up in the 80's knowing Khadafi as a terrorist threat and are probably like "Who the fuck fuck is Gadhafi?" I wish I were joking.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://12ozlb.blogspot.com Now in book form: http://amzn.to/14E6OFy

Dogen · Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 10035 Location: Bellingham, WA

Currently, at least what I've seen, the response thus far has been something like, "Oh, we're all against wars when a Republican sends us in, but if Obama does it it's okay?" with definite notes of American protectionism - i.e., where's the benefit for us?

Edit: Also, we've come full circle as some are questioning the admittedly probably unconstitutional nature of Obama's authorization for engagement without consent of Congress. So, you know, expect to hear "illegal war" applied in all new and sarcastic ways.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. I’ll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

WheelsOfConfusion · Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 11632 Location: Unknown Kaddath

Dogen · Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 10035 Location: Bellingham, WA

Obviously IANAL, but I'm generally of the opinion that the Constitution and War Powers Act require the President to seek Congressional approval for any plan to send American troops into conflict. Aside from being law (at least as I understand it...), it also adds checks and balances. So, I'm not opposed to anyone being disgruntled at the way in which Obama sent troops to Libya, even if they're currently just lobbing missiles rather than flying around enforcing the no-fly zone.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. I’ll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

ShadowCell · Joined: 03 Aug 2008 Posts: 5723 Location: California

There's also the question of how much of this is a no-fly zone and how much is supporting the rebels. The UK apparently put a cruise missile into Qaddafi's old palace; France attacked Qaddafi's forces outside of Benghazi; the US has apparently participated in the bombing as well with even B-2 bombers. Obviously, bombing Libya's air defense system would be a necessary part of enforcing a no-fly zone, but that's not the only thing this international force has been doing in Libya. So, constitutionality of the US joining a no-fly zone without Congressional authorization aside, it's up for debate as to what exactly this military campaign is.

Guest · Joined: 15 Aug 2006 Posts: 2178

Darqcyde · Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:39 pm Post subject:

US jet crashes in Libya, both crew are safe
By DAVID RISING, Associated Press – 1 hr 25 mins ago

tinkeringIdiot · Joined: 13 Oct 2008 Posts: 1057

See now that is what "greeted as liberators" looks like.

Him · Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 4125 Location: On edge

Parts of Iraq, mainly the kurdish parts, were quite happy with the U.S invasion. Not so much the case anymore. Much of the left has, I believe naively, lined up in support of a western imposed no-fly zone over Libya, which will mean bombings of the cities. It's a though situation no doubt, but can the civilian deaths that might be avoided by this really excuse the civilian deaths that will be caused by it? Not to mention the intervening powers do not have a very pleasant history in that particular part of the world. Up until very recently allying with Qadaffi for one thing.
_________________
A cigarette is the perfect type of a perfect pleasure. It is exquisite, and it leaves one unsatisfied. What more can one want? ~Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

tinkeringIdiot · Joined: 13 Oct 2008 Posts: 1057

Agreed. Though one important difference in my mind is that this started as an internal conflict into which the world powers entered long after the bloodshed became a humanitarian crisis. That is a critical distinction between this conflict and those we started in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Needless to say that there is no "good' option when people are being killed.

Mizike · Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 5123 Location: Iowa City

WheelsOfConfusion · Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 11632 Location: Unknown Kaddath

mouse · Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 16198 Location: under the bed

i'm with mizike. once it was clear that qaddafi was happy to slaughter his own people if they dared object, i figured something would have to be done (i tend to think it's a shame we haven't done more in other areas, like sudan, but then i don't have to explain things to the rest of the world). but the longer we stay, the more risk there is of innocent people being killed, and the less libyans and others in the area will accept that. i really don't want this to turn into yet another war, so i hope this can be over with quickly, and then we can leave the libyan people to sort out where they want to go.
_________________
aka: neverscared!