Libya

Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4275
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Libya

 I was just wondering what some of you Bama supporters out there think about the kinetic action going on in Libya. One of the few things I liked about Bama was that he was going to bring our troops home from Iraq and end the Afghanistan war. Alright, I understand ending a military deployment can be a little complex and might take a bit longer than he claimed when running as a candidate, I can forgive that. But now we are bombing the shit out of a pissant country. Why?

 

Oil? I thought we weren't supposed to go to war for oil.

 

Humanitarian reasons? There are plenty of horrible dictators out there and some areas with much larger humanitarian crises. 

 

Is Libya a threat to us? No.

 

Really, the only country I can see an argument for going to war with now as a preemptive strike would be Iran, which is developing nukes and has a leader that is insane enough to use them. Libya is just one of many small, insignificant, dictator ran countries. Why are we wasting our money on explosives and risking the lives of our soldiers? I thought Bama was our peace President. Makes me wonder if it is simply a wag the dog war.

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
More blood on Bush's hands 

More blood on Bush's hands

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
I'm not there

So I know jack about the situation.  So I have no opinion on the subject.  Personally, I'm more pacific than hawkish so in a general sense I all for NOT blowing up people.  That is not to say there aren't times when almost everyone agrees it is necessary. 

Sitting firmly on the fence again.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4275
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:More

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

More blood on Bush's hands

 

 

What did Bush do? Last time I checked, Bama was President, and ordered the bombing, without congressional approval and has now mobilized Marines to start heading that direction, without congressional approval. I'm no fan of Bush, but I don't see how you can blame this on him...

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Why do you refer to him as

Why do you refer to him as Bama?


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5086
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
The challenge here is that

 

if you can do something to save innocent lives and do nothing then there's a crime of ommision to contend with. But of course, if you do something, then you're accused of a war for oil or conquest or some shit. I think the Arab nations should look after their own but they are so pathetic I doubt they could work together in a candy floss stall.

I'm always torn by saving the victims and not wasting our blood and treasure (it's America's blood and treasure in truth) on a conflict that just paints another target on the back of the great satan. If the U.S. had done nothing she'd have been blamed for the killing of civilians in Libya.

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

More blood on Bush's hands

 

 

What did Bush do? Last time I checked, Bama was President, and ordered the bombing, without congressional approval and has now mobilized Marines to start heading that direction, without congressional approval. I'm no fan of Bush, but I don't see how you can blame this on him...

 

I would like to know that as well.  Another point to consider is that the only interaction he ever had during his two terms was the fact that when he announced the Bush Doctrine, Qaddaffi Duck immediately turned over his WMD programs to the US.  So in some sense, it might even be that the killings going on over there are quite mild compared to what they might have been had Bush not been president.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


lalib
atheist
lalib's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Particularly the bit with

Particularly the bit with past US presidents and the commentary afterwards. Politicians don't have to be consistent.

 

 

The Daily Show - America at Not-War - Obama's Pragmatic Foreign Policy Decisions
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Surely references to Bush

Surely references to Bush mainly refer to the oceans of blood from Iraq...

A cautious intervention in Libya seems far more manageable and justifiable than the Bush (W) 'crusade' in Iraq.

Of course there is always the worry that it will devolve into a horrible mess, like Iraq, but it would seem to me to be one of the more defensible interventions, especially with the rebels apparently calling for it, while being explicit about not wanting ground troups.

I have no problem with it, really. It seems to me one of the more defensible uses for all the massive military forces the US has accumulated.

The 'West' cannot address all such problems, and has rightly been accused of hypocrisy in ignoring similar or worse situations in the past.

But failing to intervene in a situation which would seem manageable and accessible cannot be justified by appealing to such past failures. Especially as it seems there is more effort this time to explicitly acknowledge this.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: I was

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I was just wondering what some of you Bama supporters out there think about the kinetic action going on in Libya. One of the few things I liked about Bama was that he was going to bring our troops home from Iraq and end the Afghanistan war. Alright, I understand ending a military deployment can be a little complex and might take a bit longer than he claimed when running as a candidate, I can forgive that. But now we are bombing the shit out of a pissant country. Why?

 

Oil? I thought we weren't supposed to go to war for oil.

 

Humanitarian reasons? There are plenty of horrible dictators out there and some areas with much larger humanitarian crises. 

 

Is Libya a threat to us? No.

 

Really, the only country I can see an argument for going to war with now as a preemptive strike would be Iran, which is developing nukes and has a leader that is insane enough to use them. Libya is just one of many small, insignificant, dictator ran countries. Why are we wasting our money on explosives and risking the lives of our soldiers? I thought Bama was our peace President. Makes me wonder if it is simply a wag the dog war.

I thought that word choice was silly. But really no different than any other president's staff in the past who wants to doge the fact that they don't really absolutely know the future. And I am not just talking about Bush Jr, but ALL our presidents have used vague language. That is what politicians do. You don't want to pin yourself down if things come up that aren't in the script but want to lend an air of confidence.

In the speech itself I was a bit annoyed that Obama said paraphrasing "We did what we set out to do". How the fuck is that any different than "Mission accomplished".

But he did get some wrongful flack for "not going to congress" which is bullshit because both republican and democrat presidents prior used executive oder for limited strikes.

You can argue the Constitutionality of that, but Obama wasn't the first President to do that.

"kenetic" yea that was a stupid word to use that wasn't fooling anyone. Jon Stewart made fun of that, that was a funny bit.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3177
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Normal 0 21

Normal 0 21 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4



st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }

personally i think the only thing wrong with obama's stance so far is that he's overcompensating, trying so hard not to look like bush, when this situation is nothing like w's iraq.

1. we were asked to come in by a huge mass of enormously popular rebel forces who had already built up a great deal of momentum.

2. gadhafi was given clear warning by the international community not to turn his military loose on his own people.  this is not like saddam torturing dissidents in a dark basement somewhere that we have very few details about: this is a large-scale and highly publicized (by gadhaffi himself, no less) use of armed forces against a civilian population.

3. this offensive has the full support of the UN security council and NATO.

4. in contrast to all this, bush went into iraq on nothing but shoddy intelligence and the almost unanimous disapproval of the international community.

now, if you want to be an isolationist and say we should absolutely never interfere in another nation's affairs, that's fine, though you should realize that's not really possible with the current state of international affairs.  if you want to say obama is vacillating on this issue, i agree with you.  to be frank, as his term goes on i grow more and more deeply disappointed with his lack of firmness as a leader.

just don't compare this with iraq, because the situation is completely different.

 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: Normal

iwbiek wrote:

Normal 0 21 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4



st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }

just don't compare this with iraq, because the situation is completely different.

 

QFT.

By all accounts I've heard this is a textbook application of the UN Charter. One can't, of course, say that means it's entirely justified or that we were absolutely right in deciding to create the power to do this, only that this is the exact scenario these powers were created for.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Humanitarian reasons? There are plenty of horrible dictators out there and some areas with much larger humanitarian crises. 

That may be true, but the justification in Libya is the nature of the crisis, not the extent of it. A crisis in any country that can be clearly likened to a past example like the 1990's Bosnia/Herzegovna genocide is one that the United Nations is sworn to not allow. So the issue is not whether Ghaddafi is the worst dictator around, its that he took a path of action that the International Community, long ago, obliged itself to respond to this way.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Considering America's

Considering America's hypocrisy concerning our support for some ruthless dictators, and not others... it's a valid point to raise...

 

My guess.... and it is nothing more than speculation on my part as I do not claim any inside, let alone clairvoyant knowledge about any of this..... is that these conflicts are more about justifying the Military Industry and rationalizing our defense spending than they are about oil... let alone "freedom" (which is laughable considering our track record of international business partners)...

 


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Agreed Rich.   Also,

 

Agreed Rich.

 

Also, while I am all for ripping Bush a new one where it is warranted, one must account for the fact that he intimidated Libya into turning over their WMD programs to us and the fact that he simply is not the president. Lay this one on Obama or brand oneself an idiot.

 

Also, on the military industrial complex, it would be wise to consider that every time we end up in a war, the economy tends to do well. The govt. spends mad cash on real goods and services. Granted, they don't really have the cash to spend but it is far better to do it that way than to just print more money and pump it into the economy as a “stimulus package”. The Weimarr republic did that before WW2 and all that they managed to do was see inflation spiral out of control.

 

Seriously, go to google finance and bring up some charts of the NASDAQ, S&P or the Dow for the period of 1995-2005 and tell me what you see.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

More blood on Bush's hands

 

 

What did Bush do? Last time I checked, Bama was President, and ordered the bombing, without congressional approval and has now mobilized Marines to start heading that direction, without congressional approval. I'm no fan of Bush, but I don't see how you can blame this on him...

 

Nothing.

 

"More blood on Bush's hands" is a fad going around making fun of the fact that people blame all political problems on Bush.