US Military Action in Libya?

[patches70]

Since an arrest warrant has been issued for Gadhafi it is just a matter of time before European or American troops hit Libyan soil. Under the guise of carrying out the arrest. Since the European's have no stomach or ability for this sort of thing it will be up to we Americans to see this through and bring the madman to justice. So the story will go.

I wonder, will Obama seek approval from Congress?
or
When he orders troops in will he say that is the beginning of the War Power's Act and he has 60 days to find and capture/kill Gadhafi?
or
Will he say he needs no approval at all as he is just carrying out an order from the International Court?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_international_court_libya

Obama is such an internationalist. This will play well to Obama wanting to give up US sovereignty and answer to the world court.

Aye.

[Serbia]

I really don't know why we're involved in Libya at all. The Brits and French have more of a history of wanting to get some revenge there, so let them do their own dirty work. They don't need us in there. Besides, similar things are going on in Jordan and elsewhere in the Middle East.

And full disclosure, I supported both the Gulf War and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Phatscotty]

I really don't know why we're involved in Libya at all. The Brits and French have more of a history of wanting to get some revenge there, so let them do their own dirty work. They don't need us in there. Besides, similar things are going on in Jordan and elsewhere in the Middle East.

And full disclosure, I supported both the Gulf War and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

He didn't even talk to Congress about it.

[BigBallinStalin]

I really don't know why we're involved in Libya at all. The Brits and French have more of a history of wanting to get some revenge there, so let them do their own dirty work. They don't need us in there. Besides, similar things are going on in Jordan and elsewhere in the Middle East.

And full disclosure, I supported both the Gulf War and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

For what reasons?

[Pirlo]

I really don't know why we're involved in Libya at all. The Brits and French have more of a history of wanting to get some revenge there, so let them do their own dirty work. They don't need us in there. Besides, similar things are going on in Jordan and elsewhere in the Middle East.

And full disclosure, I supported both the Gulf War and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

For what reasons?

Hate?

[Qwert]

"patches70
Time to let the Europeans stand on their own feet and defend themselves. "
I realy try to understand these--defend themself? from what enemy? I realy dont understand where you find that libya are declare,or attack UK or FRANCE. These is only another Oil war. Democraty who are bring with force, will only crush , and you will get another unstable country, same like Iraq,Afghanistan, and again with big help of US.
Nato lost compas, and now bombard everything in Libya, and dont care for civilian, because they real task ,its not preventing civilians, its change of regime, to some marionet who will do what they say.
Still i dont understand ,why US not military react in Syria, because situation its even worst then in libya,because civilians dont have weapons do defend self, like in libya.

[patches70]

"patches70
Time to let the Europeans stand on their own feet and defend themselves. "
I realy try to understand these--defend themself? from what enemy?

Are you saying they don't have any enemies? If so, then why should the US have our troops stationed in Europe? Why should we even be involved with NATO?

Please answer these questions.

I mean, that's what I'm saying. Europe can look after itself now, no need for the US to bother having our troops based there anymore. At significant expense no less. If the Europeans want us there then they should foot the bill for it and cover all our expenses of maintaining that presence. If not, we should bug out.

I realy dont understand where you find that libya are declare,or attack UK or FRANCE. These is only another Oil war. Democraty who are bring with force, will only crush , and you will get another unstable country, same like Iraq,Afghanistan, and again with big help of US.
Nato lost compas, and now bombard everything in Libya, and dont care for civilian, because they real task ,its not preventing civilians, its change of regime, to some marionet who will do what they say.
Still i dont understand ,why US not military react in Syria, because situation its even worst then in libya,because civilians dont have weapons do defend self, like in libya.

Libya and Syria are not our concern. It is not the US's place to intervene. I've been quite clear, not only should we not be involved with Libya, but Syria is not our concern either. Our involvement in Libya is criminal IMO. Our involvement in Syria will be just as criminal without a declaration of war from Congress.

The US Constitution is clear on this matter. In order for the US to intervene in another country when we haven't been attacked is by Congress declaring war. If Congress wants to declare war on Syria then by all means not only would we intervene we would utterly destroy the Syria military and smash their government with but a flick of our wrist. But why should we?

Syria is of no threat to the US.

because situation its even worst then in libya,because civilians dont have weapons do defend self,

All the anti-gun nuts should read this sentence and reflect. This is the purpose the the 2nd amendment.

qwert, I have heart felt sympathy for the Syrian people who are being slaughtered. People are being slaughtered like that not only there but in multitudes of countries around the world. What is the US supposed to do? Go fight in everyone of those places?

We're broke. Also, you understand that the US military is not a scalpel, it's a fucking Warhammer. Civilians will be killed as a result of any action we might take. It is a lose/lose situation either way.

These middle eastern countries decry the United States as interfering in their business all too often but times like this those same people cry "Help us US, Save us US".

No.
We do not have the capability to "save the world".

The countries with totalitarian rulers, brutal Theocracies, the people there will have to figure out how to throw off those shackles themselves. The US has it's own problems. We've bleed and died enough and all we ever get for it is grief and hate. We should be traders as our founder's insisted we be. If another wishes to attack us then we should destroy them without mercy.

Libya, Syria, lost causes and only endless pits of misery not worth the effort. NATO, a sham of an organization. The UN, and inept body of corrupt diplomats. The World Court, toothless without US providing the heavy lifting.

We have our own problems. Time for the rest of the world to sink or swim.

If things keep going like they are in the US we will be saying what Nixon said when he left office- "You don't have the US to kick around anymore".

Even if we were to help topple those governments, what guarantees do we have that a better system would replace the former?

We should stay out of other countries business. Militarily speaking. Trade, by all means we should engage in trade. Unless they are a threat to the US directly we keep our lethal and valuable troops out of it.

[Qwert]

Unfortunatly patches, small number ofpeople think like you. Libya and Syria,like Iraq and Afghanistan are no threath fOR France or UK, and they can not mach for US, and all these wars and conflict are for some people big money benefit.

[patches70]

Unfortunatly patches, small number ofpeople think like you. Libya and Syria,like Iraq and Afghanistan are no threath fOR France or UK, and they can not mach for US, and all these wars and conflict are for some people big money benefit.

Exactly and I wish only that my country go by the rules as laid down in our Constitution. If we wish to intervene militarily in another country's matters then we should declare formal war with our demands stated up front. If it's not worth it for Congress to declare war then it's not worth it to invade or commit acts of war. Doing so by Presidential fiat is criminal.


Libya is of concern to the Europeans. Unfortunately they have been relying on the US for military matters for far too long and by themselves they can't even take out a petty dictator like Gadhafi. Just because Europe thinks they have some interest in North Africa doesn't mean we (the US) has to take up the sword. It's none of our business.

The poll pretty much sums up American's feelings on the matter and yet our President insists on taking the course he is on. It is shameful. It will only bring more misery no matter who might "win".

[thegreekdog]

Unfortunatly patches, small number ofpeople think like you. Libya and Syria,like Iraq and Afghanistan are no threath fOR France or UK, and they can not mach for US, and all these wars and conflict are for some people big money benefit.

Actually a large number of people think like patches does. Unfortunately, those people are not in Congress, are not the president, and do not run the military industrial complex here in the United States. Unfortunately, those people are not British, French, German, Italian, etc. leaders either.

[BigBallinStalin]

Unfortunatly patches, small number ofpeople think like you. Libya and Syria,like Iraq and Afghanistan are no threath fOR France or UK, and they can not mach for US, and all these wars and conflict are for some people big money benefit.

Actually a large number of people think like patches does. Unfortunately, those people are not in Congress, are not the president, and do not run the military industrial complex here in the United States. Unfortunately, those people are not British, French, German, Italian, etc. leaders either.

To what extent does the democratic process enable actual social preferences?


Some people say that our elected officials are representative of our social preferences, but I'm really not seeing this for most issues. Is it really the people's indifference that allows this variance between social preferences and "political preferences"?

[GreecePwns]

The process ceases to be democratic when 49 percent of a state voting for President/district voting for Representatives can become entirely disenfranchised. The democratic process = Presidential election by popular vote and Congressional elections by proportional representation.

[saxitoxin]

Unfortunatly patches, small number ofpeople think like you. Libya and Syria,like Iraq and Afghanistan are no threath fOR France or UK, and they can not mach for US, and all these wars and conflict are for some people big money benefit.

Actually a large number of people think like patches does. Unfortunately, those people are not in Congress, are not the president, and do not run the military industrial complex here in the United States. Unfortunately, those people are not British, French, German, Italian, etc. leaders either.

To what extent does the democratic process enable actual social preferences?

Some people say that our elected officials are representative of our social preferences, but I'm really not seeing this for most issues.

A pertinent observation. In The Green Book, Col. Qaddafi outlined the fundamental failing of representative democracy and why Popular Committees - such as in Libya - are the best implementation of the democratic ideal. The Popular Committees of the Jamahiriyah are no different than the ancient Town Meeting system of government of U.S. New England, except taken to a terminal extreme. Really, if it weren't for IDRP control of the USG, the U.S. and Libya should be great friends as are both founded on the same concept of democracy.

Saxi isn't in total agreement with the Green Charter because it still has a few remnant elections and ol' Saxi supports complete abolition of elections in favour of lotteries, but it is a better ideal than the fake democracy imposed in the west as a control mechanism.

This is succinctly outlined in a short animated video on the website of The Green Charter Movement (though it's actually created by U.S. Libertarians) which seeks to peacefully spread Libya's 1967 Green Revolution to all countries:

http://www.greencharter.com/files/intro.htm

[thegreekdog]

Nice Saxi... I like this.

One of the more radical radio personalities in the United States (Mike Church) has been advocating secession so that the governments are smaller, thus more representative of their people, and thus are more accountable. This green committee thing seems like a natural relation to Mr. Church's theories.

[Phatscotty]

I don't think this will turn out how a lot of people think it might....

Let's see

I'm curious what you were expecting.

If this question were asked 5 minutes after Obama's surprise commitment of the US military to act in Libya, I would expect the poll to be 45%-55%.

I think a lot of "no's" do support it now that Obama says so

[patches70]

I don't think this will turn out how a lot of people think it might....

Let's see

I'm curious what you were expecting.

If this question were asked 5 minutes after Obama's surprise commitment of the US military to act in Libya, I would expect the poll to be 45%-55%.

I think a lot of "no's" do support it now that Obama says so

That poll is right in line with the polling data on Libya. After about 6 weeks a poll showed that 76% of Americans polled were against military intervention in Libya.

Do you think the World Court issuing the arrest warrant for Gadhafi will change anything? It doesn't as far as I'm concerned. If the World Court wants him, let them send their own troops in to nab him. oh...wait......

[patches70]

Judging by the results of the poll, I can see why Obama Ignored the people and Congress when it comes to using the Military.

Here, Obama < Bush. At least Bush got Congressional Approval (yes, Bush abused that approval, I got it!). Overall, Obama still = Bush.

Obama said this yesterday-

“Moammar Gaddafi, who prior to Osama bin Laden was responsible for more American deaths than just about anybody on the planet, was threatening to massacre his people. . . . As a consequence, a guy who was a state sponsor of terrorist operations against the United States of America is pinned down, and the noose is tightening around him.”

Obama really wants to kill this guy!

A couple of things to remember though, to put all this in the proper perspective.

He calls Gaddafi a "sponser of terrorists" when Gaddafi was removed from that list years ago. I suppose Obama has put him back on the list....

I remember the criticism of Bush and the pictures of Rumsfield shaking hands with good ole Saddam. The saying was "look their buddies back then and now we are invading!"

Well, until this little spat between Libya and Europe fired up Obama was clamoring to get some economic deals done with Libya. His administration was rushing to do business with Gaddafi. Hilary Clinton meeting with Gaddafi's son, Mutassim Gadhafi, in 2009 said-

I’m very much looking forward to building on this relationship.

I guess those negotiations broke down. Oh yeah, Mutassim is now dead, killed in a NATO airstrike. I guess when the US says "we look forward to building on this relationship" means "We're going to freaking kill you and your whole freaking family!"

Heh heh, nice.

Obama, GTFO of Libya, it's none of our concern you freaking liar of a POTUS.

[Qwert]

big offensive of rebels on brega.
Rebels supported with NATO(US), try to take brega. Interesting,that NAto(US) atatck Goverment forces,even when they defend against armed rebels who attack withTanks.
I though that NAto(US) only react when goverment forces attack unarmed civilians, and now armed rebbels attack goverment troops who are defend themself. Well from news,its look that goverment forces will manage to repulse attack,and inflict huge casualty on rebels.

[BigBallinStalin]

Also, the US authorized that $30bn for the rebels, who are now represented by the National Transitional Council (or some such fancy title).

[General_Tao]

I`m strongly against the Iraq war, and against the ongoing deployment in afghanistan (but not the original invasion). But I'm strongly in favor of supporting the rebels in Libya. The difference here is that their people support and welcome this, and that Gadhafi would have killed hundreds of thousands of his people to stay in power. He's a raving megalomaniac lunatic who has kept his people poor while stashing dozens of billions in Swiss bank accounts. This is a far more worthwhile and legitimate campaign than the other middle eastern wars.

[saxitoxin]

Good observation, Qwert. The so-called UN resolutions are laws intended to apply to one side. If the Al-Qaeda terrorists fighting the Jamahiryah government are in violation they just are given a pass. The UN is a U.S. puppet organization that exists simply to add a fictional rubber-stamp of legality to its oil adventures.

This is no different than the fat, bloated, Canadian general who got trotted out of whatever closet they were storing him in to lead parades and press conferences as prop "commander" of the western war crimes forces while real power continued to rest in the US-controlled Supreme Allied Command.

The UN, Canada - these are all nothing more than props for the ongoing U.S. programme of oil price bulging to intercept Chinese growth.

The difference here is that their people support and welcome this,

LOL! The military-industrial media schilled the same line when NATO war crimes forces were bombing the bejeezus out of Serbia. Qwert - did you "support and welcome" Serbia getting bombed?



Western media reports half of the 50,000 man Libyan army have defected. If that's true, how can a 25,000 man Army in a country of 6 million hold out for 6 months in the face of "popular opposition" and hundreds of cruise missiles and thousands of bomber sorties? They can't. Behind all the western lies, simple logic tells the truth, for those willing to critically evaluate the propaganda.

Two million people - 1/3 of the Libyan population - turned-out 2 weeks ago to support the Jamahiryah government in Tripoli. This is undisputed by western media, it just was relegated to backpage coverage.

You've been brainwashed by western state-run, war-agenda media of the military-industrial complex.

[General_Tao]

Haha, do you seriously believe that 2M people turned out to support Gadhafi? He couldn't even fill the main square for his speech with people bussed into the main square.

His leftover army is holding out because (1) the rebels are rank and file people with no military training and poor equipment and (2)the country is huge. You need boots on the ground and/or a lot of time to get the job done.

[saxitoxin]

Haha, do you seriously believe that 2M people turned out to support Gadhafi?

Those numbers haven't been disputed anywhere. In western media, Reuters put a low count of 1.2 million, RTV Italia a high of 1.9 million. Al-Jazeera put it over 2 million.

And they were not turned out to "support Gadhafi" [sic], they were turned out to support the legal government the Libyan Arab Socialist Jamahiryah.

The language of persuasion - feckless propaganda - demands non-compliant governments the west is seeking to cast in the role of villains be cartoonishly referred to by the name of the leader. Not all of us are cowed and fooled by the shrill pronouncements of the Harper regime, the Obama regime and the Sarkozy regime and their unsanctioned, illegal war crimes campaign in support of Al-Qaeda against the Libyan people.

Oh, okay, that explains it.

[saxitoxin]

On a related topic, I highly recommend everything follow @SyrianCommando on twitter for an English-language look from the front lines at the "unarmed protesters" using NATO-issued RPGs and assault rifles to "peacefully demonstrate for democracy."

http://twitter.com/#!/syriancommando

The tweeter, Ibrahim, is a veteran of the as-Saiqa (Thunderbolt) Airborne Regiment and current reservist of the Syrian Arab Army but is not a Baath Party member and is even, in some tweets, critical of the legally inaugurated and rightful President Assad, as one is allowed to be. So there can be no doubt as to the veracity of his honest accounts on the ongoing western-backed coup in that country or his first-hand depictions of the brutal terrorists western media label as "peaceful protesters."

[General_Tao]

"There can be no doubt as to the veracity of his honest accounts"?

What makes Assad rightful? The fact that his father razed huge swaths of the 4th largest city in the country, with most of the inhabitants in those area? His support is limited to his minority clan and the people connected with the domestic suppression apparatus (1 to 2 millions or close to 10% of the country).