Liberal Democrats in uproar over Libya action

[Zero Sum 305]

Bingo

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

There is substantive evidence that the Bush Administration (see Wolfowitz) wanted to invade Iraq and looked for reasons to do so that they could sell to the public (WMD, 911 connection). Wolfowitz even believed that the war would be paid for by having access to Iraqi oil. Keep in mind that the Bush Administration had no serious intention to reduce our consumption of oil (see Cheney) and looked at our problems with oil as a problem of supply, not demand.

That is an entirely different scenario than what is going on with the current administration. Obama not only wants us to reduce our consumption of oil, but of all fossil fuels (see EPA) and has been pushing to get enough government investment into renewable energy as well as energy conservation efforts.

Does France have a stake in the oil? Perhaps, but Gaddafi wasn't threatening to halt production so it would have been in their best interests to keep Gaddafi in power to maintain the status quo. Why would they jeopardize their steady supply by throwing a wrench into Gaddafi's regime when he has been a strategic ally for so many years?

While the issues rarely fall down to one, single motivating reason - the fact is Gaddafi is no longer wanted by the people of Libya and and a revolution is taking place by people demanding a more democratic government. The U.N. passed a no-fly resolution backed by the Arab League. That's legitimate reasons enough, IMO.

LOL... I can think of a dozen nations atm that don't want the dictator they are stuck with. Why aren't we bombing them ? Why just the ones with ties to oil and gas ? Is it just a coincidence ? Not hardly. And as far as Obama getting us away from oil...he's toeing the oil company line like Bush did. We are still in Iraq, and still in Afghanistan. Obama can say this, and say that, but we haven't changed our foreign policy one bloody bit now have we ?

And since when did the UN and Arab league ever mean jack ####### to the US ? Kosovo ? lol. And so we traded off Kosovo for Georgia yes ? Where was the UN when Georgia was invaded by Russia ? And why didn't the west do anything other than look like a plucked peacock ? Where were the US planes in Darfur ? No tomahawk missiles then either.

I voted for Obama, and I will most likely again seeing how the Repubs aren't any better than when they pushed for Bush... but I will not let myself be blinded from the facts by pure partisanship.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

The bold part is exactly what I was thinking. If western nations want clear access to oil exports it would be better to let Gaddafi crush the rebel forces and move on.

Not if the West thought the rebels weren't going to go away this time.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/oil-producers-in-libya-face-political-conundrum/article1941836/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/16/libya-oil-idUSLDE72F22G20110316

Edited March 21, 2011 by Why_Me

[JohnSmith2007 353]

While the issues rarely fall down to one, single motivating reason - the fact is Gaddafi is no longer wanted by the people of Libya and and a revolution is taking place by people demanding a more democratic government. The U.N. passed a no-fly resolution backed by the Arab League. That's legitimate reasons enough, IMO.

Ah, finally. This is your reason to bomb Libya. You know what this sounds like? It is exactly like Iraq. While it is true that Bush used WMD's as one of the reasons HE wanted to go in lets not forget that there was a UN No-Fly zone and a Kurdish rebellion going on.

I know what you will say next, that you supported the no fly zone but not boots on the ground. The invasion was mission creep and strayed from the original intent.

Guess what, we are already getting mission creep in Libya. We were only suppost to enforce a no fly zone but right off the bat we started bombing airfields and tanks. We have already attempted to kill MG. The creep has already started. Any time you have a limited goal like a no fly zone it will almost always go beyond that scope. Give it time Steven, Obama will put boots on the ground despite his assurances to the contrary.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Cheap oil has turned Obama into a oil company owned prostitute. He was suppose to help change things for the better yet he got hooked like a $20 crack h0 on a Detroit street corner and now he's blowing the oil company's for a fix.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Why_Me

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Cheap oil has turned Obama into a oil company owned prostitute. He was suppose to help change things for the better yet he got hooked like a $20 crack h0 on a Detroit street corner and now he's blowing the oil company's for a fix.

Yep, as Steven and Fish keep trying to ignore the only difference between Libya and dozens of other dictator controlled countries is oil. That is why we are there. Europe gets a lot of oil from Libya and they want to protect that. Obama is just a weak president that is saying "yes sir" when the other countries, through the UN, say lets stop MG.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Again, if you could substantiate any claims that Obama is just in this for oil, then we'd have worthy discussion. Until then, it's just conjecture.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Yep, as Steven and Fish keep trying to ignore the only difference between Libya and dozens of other dictator controlled countries is oil. That is why we are there. Europe gets a lot of oil from Libya and they want to protect that. Obama is just a weak president that is saying "yes sir" when the other countries, through the UN, say lets stop MG.

Big Oil and Obama has managed to turn ultra libs on this board such as Steven and Ron Burgundy into blood thirsty, children bombing war hawks.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Why_Me

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Again, if you could substantiate any claims that Obama is just in this for oil, then we'd have worthy discussion. Until then, it's just conjecture.

You tell me then, why arn't we doing the same thing for any number of other countries that have dictators that are violently putting down protests? In case you haven't noticed it is happening all over the ME. Why only Libya?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Again, if you could substantiate any claims that Obama is just in this for oil, then we'd have worthy discussion. Until then, it's just conjecture.

Does this mean Obama is going to push for bombing in such country's as Belarus and North Korea ?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This is a pretty good explanation as to how the decision was made:

Just a week ago, as the tide began to turn against the anti-Qaddafi rebellion, President Obama seemed determined to keep the United States out of Libya's civil strife. But it turns out the president was willing to commit America to intervention all along. He just wanted to make sure we were doing it in the most multilateral, least cowboyish fashion imaginable.

That much his administration has achieved. In its opening phase, at least, our war in Libya looks like the beau ideal of a liberal internationalist intervention. It was blessed by the United Nations Security Council. It was endorsed by the Arab League. It was pushed by the diplomats at Hillary Clinton's State Department, rather than the military men at Robert Gates's Pentagon. Its humanitarian purpose is much clearer than its connection to American national security. And it was initiated not by the U.S. Marines or the Air Force, but by the fighter jets of the French Republic.

This is an intervention straight from Bill Clinton's 1990s playbook, in other words, and a stark departure from the Bush administration's more unilateralist methods. There are no "coalitions of the willing" here, no dismissive references to "Old Europe," no "you are with us or you are with the terrorists." Instead, the Obama White House has shown exquisite deference to the very international institutions and foreign governments that the Bush administration either steamrolled or ignored.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/opinion/21douthat.html?_r=1

[JohnSmith2007 353]

This is a pretty good explanation as to how the decision was made:

Just a week ago, as the tide began to turn against the anti-Qaddafi rebellion, President Obama seemed determined to keep the United States out of Libya's civil strife. But it turns out the president was willing to commit America to intervention all along. He just wanted to make sure we were doing it in the most multilateral, least cowboyish fashion imaginable.

That much his administration has achieved. In its opening phase, at least, our war in Libya looks like the beau ideal of a liberal internationalist intervention. It was blessed by the United Nations Security Council. It was endorsed by the Arab League. It was pushed by the diplomats at Hillary Clinton's State Department, rather than the military men at Robert Gates's Pentagon. Its humanitarian purpose is much clearer than its connection to American national security. And it was initiated not by the U.S. Marines or the Air Force, but by the fighter jets of the French Republic.

This is an intervention straight from Bill Clinton's 1990s playbook, in other words, and a stark departure from the Bush administration's more unilateralist methods. There are no "coalitions of the willing" here, no dismissive references to "Old Europe," no "you are with us or you are with the terrorists." Instead, the Obama White House has shown exquisite deference to the very international institutions and foreign governments that the Bush administration either steamrolled or ignored.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/opinion/21douthat.html?_r=1

So instead of being a ####### for oil you are saying that Obama is Europes b!tch and henchman. So long as it was someone elses idea then you are fine with it. Ever stop to wonder why Europe and the UN wanted to stop MG? It is because of oil.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

This is a pretty good explanation as to how the decision was made:

Just a week ago, as the tide began to turn against the anti-Qaddafi rebellion, President Obama seemed determined to keep the United States out of Libya's civil strife. But it turns out the president was willing to commit America to intervention all along. He just wanted to make sure we were doing it in the most multilateral, least cowboyish fashion imaginable.

That much his administration has achieved. In its opening phase, at least, our war in Libya looks like the beau ideal of a liberal internationalist intervention. It was blessed by the United Nations Security Council. It was endorsed by the Arab League. It was pushed by the diplomats at Hillary Clinton's State Department, rather than the military men at Robert Gates's Pentagon. Its humanitarian purpose is much clearer than its connection to American national security. And it was initiated not by the U.S. Marines or the Air Force, but by the fighter jets of the French Republic.

This is an intervention straight from Bill Clinton's 1990s playbook, in other words, and a stark departure from the Bush administration's more unilateralist methods. There are no "coalitions of the willing" here, no dismissive references to "Old Europe," no "you are with us or you are with the terrorists." Instead, the Obama White House has shown exquisite deference to the very international institutions and foreign governments that the Bush administration either steamrolled or ignored.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/opinion/21douthat.html?_r=1

Thank you NYT for treating us all like brain dead morons who will buy anything you try and sell us.

I'm sure those 150 tomahawk missiles we launched at Libya brought a much cleaner death than the tanks George Bush sent into Iraq. "Look Mom ! No dirty hands!"

When the NYT stuck Hillary Clintons name in that story, you know it was full of pure utter bs. That broad hasn't had a clue since the invention of sliced bread.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Hey everyone !!! As long as the UN and Arab League (two organizations that never had a clue to begin with) say it's OK to bomb the holy fk out of Libya then it's "A-OK" with me !

It's even better when Hillary gives her approval seeing how she's such a wiz at being a Secretary of State. Just like when she praised China for their move forward towards democracy and human rights, or better yet when she tripped over herself handing Lavrov that stupid ####### wooden box with the red button.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Big Oil and Obama has managed to turn ultra libs on this board such as Steven and Ron Burgundy into blood thirsty, children bombing war hawks.

I never actually said what I thought about the bombing - only that there are clear differences between Iraq 2003 and Libya 2010. Every claim you and John have made about my views is a blatant assumption. Why bother even offering an opinion when you guys can assume it for me - that's what the US mass media has taught you to do, after all.

Anyone who claims to follow world events and more specifically the history of past conflicts and military interventions knows that the issues surrounding these things are more complex than sitting there shrieking about hypocrisy because people view Iraq one way and Libya another. One might also question what the prevailing opinions were over Kosovo, Darfur, Sierra Leone or any of the dozens of other limited military interventions that western governments have participated in over the last 50 odd years.

But you're not interested in that are you. Talk about short sighted and ignorant.