Skip to main content

View Diary: Ghosts of March 2003: REALLY, Dems? (93 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Someone other than the US did take the lead here. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hill Jill, A Voice, rhubarb

    In 2003 I was very critical of the Bush administration. So were many other people. It was clear we were being lied into a stupid war. Today I am still not "rah-rah." I'm watchful and concerned about unintended consequences but hopeful that for once the US is on the right side.
    It is hard to know where this ends, I agree with that. If we help people in Libya do we also need to help in Bahrain. I suspect that won't happen. But I think I'll criticize my government for not helping in Bahrain rather than for daring to do the right thing in Libya.

    ay oh whey oh, walk like an Egyptian

    by greycat on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 10:55:41 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

      •  french and Germans are in. (0+ / 0-)

        the only question is what is our limit to our involvement
        and what is the ext strategy.

        We need to avoid quagmires.

        George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

        by nathguy on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 07:35:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  "name only"? France led the charge here (0+ / 0-)

        "See? I'm not a racist! I have a black friend!"

        by TheHalfrican on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 11:44:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You've been misled (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          A Voice

          if you think "France led the charge" given that they sent in  relatively limited air power thus far.  The impetus, drafting, and funding behind the entire operation lies with none other than the U.S.  

          The U.S. fired four additional Tomahawk missiles at Libya air defense systems Sunday, bringing the grand total to 124, a senior U.S. Defense official tells Fox News.  
          Each Tomahawk missile costs $600,000, according to the official, bringing the initial costs of the strikes to approximately $71 million.
          "This is not a NATO mission," the defense official told Fox News. "Each contributing nation comes to the fight with its own 'caveats.'"

          •  Your statistics are useful (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            But they don't prove that the US is "leading the charge."  At best they prove that the US is spending a lot of money and working in a quasi-autonomous fashion.  Your quote doesn't compare money spent by the US to the amount spent by France, nor does it give any indication who provided the impetus for the military push.

            Libya is VERY CLOSE to southern Europe and Libya harbored the terrorists in the Airplane bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland. Europe cares a great deal about this.  Even if the US invests more manpower and materiel in this effort, it doesn't mean that we're "leading the charge"

            One man gathers what another man spills

            by John Chapman on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 12:54:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That was meant to add to the argument (0+ / 0-)

              The blockquote doesn't prove what I said before,  certainly. I don't have the links as I type, but what you say in your first paragraph has become fairly obvious.  The U.S. is the only country sending in 112 Tomahawk missiles.  Each is extraordinarily expensive.  Overall, it's totally fair and reasonable to assume that the U.S. is spending more money than Britain or the U.K.

              If you trace the U.S. influence on the U.N. Security Council, and see who actually drafted the document, it's pretty clear that the U.S. (yes, with the strong backing of France and Britain) was instrumental to this military push.

              Regardless of whether you say the U.S. or "The Western Powers" are leading the charge, the fact remains that the President is ultimately accountable to the American people, who had absolutely no say via their representatives in this context.  The fact remains that the U.S. will bear a significant burden individually.  

    •  Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Bahrain... (10+ / 0-)

      at some point, shouldn't we ask why our humanitarian-justified military actions always seem to coincide perfectly with strategic interests?

      •  Yes. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        crankyinNYC, Superpole

        Hopefully we asked that question decades ago. Does that mean we let Qaddafi bomb civilians because there is oil in the country?

        ay oh whey oh, walk like an Egyptian

        by greycat on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 01:05:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We barely know what's happening there (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ej25, SadieB, dinotrac

          No exit plan, no mission parameters.  It's also worth nothing where much of the world actually is:

          Add Russia to the list of those publicly disapproving of military action in Libya now that hostilities have begun. China has "expressed regret," the African Union has called for an "immediate halt," and now Moscow has "reacted 'with regret'" to the air strikes, according to a report by CNN.

          The Russian statement said that the UN Security Council resolution on Libya - which came more than a month after the regime began killing civilian protesters - was "hastily adopted".

          The African Union has reportedly joined China in expressing disapproval of the coalition's military action against Libya. The AU's Libya committee met in Mauritania and released a statement on Sunday calling for an "immediate halt" to the attacks,

        •  So we should be bombing Bahrain and Yemen as well (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          truong son traveler, SadieB, A Voice

          or do you care more about Libyan civilians than others.

          And maybe we should attack ourselves since we can't seem to figure out how to stop bombing civilians.

          There is a civil war underway, initiated by rebels for what appears to be a just cause.  If you want to intervene say so and do so.   Don't say we care and then say oh you are on your own on the ground.  Which is it.  Are we trying to stop a genocide, or are we making ourselves feel better without thinking through the consequences.  I propose it is the latter because I don't see us holding war votes in Congress and intervening in broad daylight assassination of protestors who are actually unarmed. But somehow yelling loud about armed civilians in a different country is supposed to convince us that there is no option.

          Sorry.   Get back to me when we have a policy that at least makes sense and is based on the Constitution.

          "Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book - you pass the buck to a commission to study the problem." - Senator Obama, 9-16-2008

          by justmy2 on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 08:53:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  That's a real question that we have to ask. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Simplify, A Voice

          I think it's unfortunate that it's generally posed as a rhetorical question not worth answering.

          Who gets the oil in Libya's ground? It's a legitimate question. If the Libyan government doesn't fall solely from the imposition of a no-fly zone, will we hit other military/loyalist sites?

          Because if we crush the Libyan army and there's a structural change in government, there are no guarantees about who comes to power. That government might work with the US Government, or it may be a true movement of the People, making it much less strategically predicable, from the POV of US corporate/military power.

          What happens then?

      •  Always and perfectly?? (5+ / 0-)

        You mean sporadically and imprecisely.

        My view is that in the long run, our strategic interests are served by avoiding international conflicts that do not involve us.  Why assume military entanglement abroad (with the debt and responsibility and pitiful track record of success that comes with it) can serve our interests in the first place?

      •  always? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        What was the strategic interest in Bosian or Kosovo?

      •  Bingo. And Bahrain is a Human Rights Nightmare (4+ / 0-)

        but we're not doing anything about that, are we?

    •  um, the US IS taking the lead (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SadieB, dinotrac

      i don't see anything about Arab League forces dropping bombs on Libya. It's the US taking the lead.  

      And if the airstrikes don't get Khaddafi to step down, what then? And if we DO win, what are our responsibilities to Libya?

    •  Truthfully (10+ / 0-)

      You are just happy that it is a Democrat in office doing it now.

      I see it so often here "I really hated Bush bombing third war countries for oil, but Obama? He has a Peace Prize so he knows what he is doing." BS.

      "Watchful and concerned" really means "I don't think about it unless it pop ups up somewhere while net surfing or walking by a homeless person covered in newspaper I see 'Shock and awe!' as the headline."

      "Regime change begins at home!"
      "Question Authority."

      Remember those?

      But I guess a true Patriot doesn't ask questions and just waves those flags.

      •  I suspect there is a lot of truth to that. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        A Voice

        No two situations are ever precisely alike, so there is always a basis for differentiating actions by "our" guys from those by "their" guys.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 08:55:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That Peace Prize is now looking (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        way more completely ridiculous.

        Then it was premature for what he was supposed to accomplish, peace-wise.

        Now it's for being about as big a warmonger and torturer as any other American President of late, except for maybe Gerald Ford who didn't have the time.

        43 million Americans on food stamps. Trickle down starts any minute, right?

        by tiggers thotful spot on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 11:48:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  First of all, why does it matters who leadsif (5+ / 0-)

      If we are supplying all of the firepower.

      Second, do you think the US military is going to allow snotty nation to command our troops or direct our missions?

      I hope you are not that naive.   If we are involved, we are in the lead, no matter what propaganda is blathered on television.  

      I have yet to see a French or UK general on CNN, much less heard one named.  Let me know when you do.

      "Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book - you pass the buck to a commission to study the problem." - Senator Obama, 9-16-2008

      by justmy2 on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 08:38:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  that is an iphone correction for the ages (0+ / 0-)

        some other = snotty :)

        "Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book - you pass the buck to a commission to study the problem." - Senator Obama, 9-16-2008

        by justmy2 on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 01:17:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  How does that make it better? (5+ / 0-)

      It's ok engage if Europe thinks its ok, but not otherwise?

      When the Europeans are bad actors, are we obligated to support them, either be acting in their behalf or refraining to act against their misdeeds?


      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 08:53:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site