You have to say, if he gets out of this without prosecution, this was a pretty slick move. God knows how many people this guy tortured. Politically, he's too symbolic and high-valued to get what he deserves.

I'd be curious to know the role of the Libyan army in all of this. Every war image I've seen of Qaddafi troops has guys that are clearly of true African descent rather than Middle Eastern. It's pretty clear they are mercs. But that does leave the question, what are the regulars doing? I can't even imagine the choice they have to make, considering they've never had to make one before (being in such a subjugated armed force.)

His personal bodyguards, described in the Western press as the Amazonian Guard, are women?

The informative map in this link may explain a thing or two:
Gadhafi's influence on Africa - The Globe and Mail

This is interesting. As some in the media are deep in speculation regarding which country Kadafi will seek asylum in, virtually ignoring his statement that he would rather die on Libyan soil, the US is employing an exist strategy, and the rebels are getting caught in a quandary now seeking a ceasefire:

Libya Rebels Seek Cease-Fire After U.S. Vows to Withdraw Its Fighter Jets - Bloomberg

In my opinion, this illustrates a lack of commitment by our country from the very beginning, and my concern of leaving the rebels in a lurch seems to be a very real possibility. What have we really accomplished to this point, what do we want to accomplish going forward? Our President needs to hold a press conference and answer questions.

I don't know. The terms of their ceasefire don't seem all that compromising. I don't know that it necessarily represents a softening of resolve.

there's considerable negociations going on behind the marketing curtain it seems...so i wouldn't put much weight on the various pronouncements that are floating across the surface of the infotainment-scape at this point. the defections of the past 24 hours are big deals. the game could be changing. manly man talk from the american right could not be less relevant.

The fact that they are even offering a compromise says that they are willing to compromise. It also suggests that they believe that they are currently in their strongest position. If they believe outside support is not going to be available or that the support is going to be inadequate they have no better time than now to negotiate. I am sure Kadafi realizes this. Kadafi has been smart enough to hold on to power for decades - he probably has more insight into outsider resolve than he gets credit for.

The rebels are fighting for their lives, their resolve has not softened, it can't. They know that they must prevail or die. A split Libya is very unlikely. I question if US or "Western" resolve was ever real. The american public never bought into this war. Even members of the Obama administration were split.

---------- Post added at 05:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:50 PM ----------

These issues have nothing to do with "right" or "left" - as there are people in both camps on both sides of this issue. Nor does it have anything to do with "manly man talk" - this is a real war with real lives on the line. I fear one of the problems from the very beginning was political gamesmanship rather than simply doing what is right based on core beliefs.

The defections pale in comparison to what Mullens and Gates had to say. Those statements are the game changer, and most likely resulted in the ceasefire request.

I dunno, other members of NATO still have warplanes.

so in the world of manly man talk, humanitarian actions are not core beliefs? ethics are not core beliefs? in the world of manly man talk, the statements made by koussa and the other defectors that their primary objective is to stop the violence aren't real? all that matters is what people in the united states say and within that larger set, what those say who speak the manly man that you understand. awesome. your perspective is unhinged from reality entirely, ace.

Ethics? Altruism, you mean? The Libya matter is an ethical lapse. At least it is so to the Randians and the like.

Humanitarianism is for bleeding heart liberals.

I have not seen or heard from NATO military leaders regarding their military plans, after the statements from Mullen and Gates, have you?

---------- Post added at 08:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:53 PM ----------

Have we postponed or have we prevented? Have we shortened the duration of death and destruction or have we lengthened it? These are basic questions I have been asking from the beginning. Time will give us the answers. Based on the answers I think the conclusions will be clear.

I said the actions of the defectors pale in comparison to the actions highlighted in my post. I did not say or suggest the actions or words of the defectors are not real.


What matters is what our military leaders are saying. What will matter is what our President says. US public opinion is not setting the agenda.

My perspective is based on what has occurred and what is likely to occur. I agree that my interpretation of events is simply my interpretation - reasonable people can disagree - time will tell if I was correct or not. What I describe as my fears and concerns, however, are not unique to me. As I suggested, our President should hold a press conference and answer questions. this may be the only way we can get clarity from the administration.

---------- Post added at 08:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:02 PM ----------

Conservatives also support the causes for humanitarian aid. Are you being sarcastic?

[/COLOR]

Conservatives also support the causes for humanitarian aid. Are you being sarcastic?[/QUOTE]

Not to sound like a dick but can I get some examples?

Honestly I do not believe in stereotypes and over-generalizations but in my lifetime 95% of all conservatives I have known only support themselves.

As for the rest of the posts... I am torn because its just pure bullshit. I would give anything to cockpunch Obama when he was talking about how we can't watch Gaddafi kill his own people. I supported Obama. I was thrilled when he won and if I have to chose between him and a Palin,, Huckabee or Bachmman I'd vote Obama again. In this case he's a liar simple and clean.

I am glad if we can help the rebels. I do not believe we are helping them. Its a smokescreen... time will tell.

Here are a few:

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/op...stof.html?_r=2

I simply did a Google search to give some quick examples - to me it seems the key difference is that liberals want humanitarian aid to flow through government by force, conservatives prefer humanitarian aid to flow through individuals by choice. In my view the conservative approach is honest and more reflective of real concerns for others.

Where's that patented Ace methodological skepticism? I thought you didn't trust things like this and that you preferred divining your understanding about the nature of your fellow persons by asking folks at the supermarket.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the relationship between charity and political persuasion isn't as simple as "group A" gives more than "group B".

Humanitarianism and donating to religious charities aren't necessarily the same thing.

I do know from personal experience that conservative actually care about the human condition on this planet and are often the first in line to help others. What I don't know is if you and others seriously believe that conservatives don't care about other people.

How does one arrive at the conclusion that conservatives don't care about others?

My premise is that both conservatives and liberals care about others, but they differ in how it is to be done. Do you agree or disagree and why?

---------- Post added at 05:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:04 PM ----------

I donate blood regularly about 3 times a year. Not a religious charity. One of the sources cited shows a difference in blood donation between "red" and "blue" states. I anticipated the "religious charity" issue and chose a non-monetary, non-religious issue on purpose.

Again, just because I may not care about the specific charitable causes you believe in does not mean I don't care about charitable causes. I fight against being forced. There is a big difference.

ace. Can you define the type of charity you are claiming reds outdo blues?


Paying tithes or giving money to church isn't charity. It's a Christian's way of selling their guilt and giving into the biggest socialist movement of all time.

When I say most conservatives care about self more than others I am including churches.

Now hear this: I know for a fact that a lot of Christians do help people. Local churches have helped me several times when sick or when I needed a vehicle.

I am not putting down people like this and I don't believe libs are better than reds. I do believe that when it comes to helping people not in the know that libs care far more than cons.

That's not my point. I didn't think it was your point either.

Others emphasize one group outdoing another - or one group simply being selfish, I don't. I generally think that all humans care about the condition of others regardless of political affiliation. I think people desire to employ various methods based on political affiliation.

And paying taxes is what? If you don't pay taxes, you go to jail. They will arrest you armed with weapons. I prefer the voluntary method and for those who need to be motivated by religious guilt it is still better that being forced at gun point.

I am not a church going person - in my experience is that they are run more like businesses than religious organizations - we actually may agree on this point - perhaps for different reasons.

Think about it this way:

My sister is a single parent. If she needs help, I can help her right now - no conditions, no questions asked. Her being my sister, she can't b.s. me.
If she needs help from the government, it can take months of dealing with a bureaucracy looking for a reason to say NO every step of the way.

If I give $1 to my sister she gets $1. If I give $1 to government to help my sister, a portion of that goes to support government bureaucracy, what the ratio is I don't know, but it could be like $.50. Which is more efficient?

Our government rules are ridiculous. If I give a $1 to help my sister, it is a gift to her. If I give $1 to a 501(C)3 charity, I get a tax deduction. That charity then hands out less than $1 in services to people in need.

I could go on and on - but to me it is clear - government hinders helping those in need. So, in my mind if the government allowed people to hold on to more of their own money, more people can be helped in more efficient ways. i think there are a few exceptions, like in the case of a national military being able to do good in the world. People should be required or forced as I would put it, to support a national military. Or another example would be the availability of local fire and rescue, etc, etc.

---------- Post added at 05:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:34 PM ----------

Are we going to leave it a mystery? My initial question to you was if your original post on this issue was sarcasm, I still don't know.

As the question relates to Libya, I think honest and charitable people can be against supporting the rebels and still be humanitarian. What is your position on this point?

meanwhile, in the world:

ei: Another war on Gaza?


and here's something about libya that i don't get:

Libya Live Blog - April 4 | Al Jazeera Blogs

i don't really get how both statements can be true at the same time....

My point was tongue in cheek, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that more liberals support humanitarian efforts than do conservatives, being that conservatives have more of the "individualism gene" in their pool than do liberals.

My further comment was to point out that humanitarianism and donating to charities aren't necessarily the same thing, regardless of whether it's blood or money.

It's difficult for me to accept that one who strongly supports humanitarianism would be against the idea of a no-fly zone in Libya as outlined in the U.N. resolution.

Perhaps from a broader point of view, certain questions come into focus.

Is it humanitarian to prolong war? In Libya what percentage of people are in active combat what percentage is impacted by war? the no fly zone is inadequate to end the conflict, all it does is prolong the conflict. it can be argued that the no flu zone is not humanitarian.

Is it humanitarian to give false hope? Have we given the rebels a false belief that we will provide the level of support that won't arrive? It can be argued what we have done is not humanitarian.

Is it humanitarian to save the lives of some at the cost of lives of others?
Is it humanitarian to have the power to prevent human suffering but not going in and doing what needs to be done?
Is it humanitarian to postpone death when the stated goal is to prevent it - while having the capability to actually prevent it?

In my mind these are legitimate questions. However, as I have stated, our President has not been clear.

Comparing taxes to church tithes is simply beyond comparison.

Churches are a group or community that basically take care of their own and regularly g out of their way to discredit and hurt those who they disagree with. Hell, evangelicals have supported African a country (I apologize because I forget which country it was) that is trying to make homosexuality punishable by death.

The government tends to blow tons of our taxes; no argument. That said they pay for our police (double edged. I d not trust many coops), fire fighters, teachers, military, road construction, welfare, Medicaid/Medicare (without which I'd be dead), homes... etc.

I totally understand that giving what we want to give versus what charities do. Yet, if we lived in a country of responsible people and a government that would actually tax those who can afford it and make the simple humane decision that no,, health care and education is NOT a business and offer it free and by taxes we would not have to worry about who gets screwed or what have you. Yes, I am a dreamer.

In my personal experience pretty much every conservative I know, including my best friends of more than 20 years, sees charity as a Us and them" while most liberals I know only see "Us".

Again I am speaking from my personal experiences and I live in Mississippi. Its almost its own personal backward country.


Should we create another thread? We're totally off topic.

ace, is it more humanitarian to do nothing while people are slaughtered?

You aren't talking about whether something is humanitarian or not; you are talking in degrees.

But I imagine you are a proponent of total war and unconditional defeat over more balanced measures. You'd rather have seen boots on the ground. You'd rather have seen another Afghanistan.

I don't think that's a one-size-fits-all solution. Correct me if any of this is off the mark.

It depends.

If doing "something" is worse than doing nothing, doing nothing is preferable isn't it?

If doing "something" makes no difference, it is not more humanitarian, is it?

If doing "something" is done for purely selfish reasons, it may actually save lives, but I would argue that it was not for humanitarian reasons , don't you agree this argument could be reasonable?.

I disagree. I would answer my questions in a clear, yes or no manner. I would know what my intent was. what I have been stating from the very beginning of this is that I don't know what our intent in Libya is, it has never been made clear to me. I can not definitively support or not support our actions until I get more clarification. I would not handle this the way Obama is handling it, that is certain.

I believe we have the capacity (including NATO), and enough world support to go in and end this conflict. We have chosen a route that appears to be very indirect and I am not sure it is the best or most efficient way. Again, I have questions, perhaps Obama is 100% correct and has a very thorough plan, I don't know. he has made a choice not to answer questions and to be vague. I do understand that there are reasons that a leader may take this course of action.

It is not.

But, ace, answering your yes-or-no questions is pointless because they aren't necessarily in relation to my initial point.

It would seem to me that you'd rather have let Gaddafi slaughter his own people than risk the risks that are currently being risked.

For the record, I'd rather have had some kind of intervention in Rwanda than was the case. I'd rather have had some kind of intervention to prevent a death toll climbing to 500,000 to 1,000,000 (or 800,000, depending on your sources), or 20% of the country's population.

What would you rather have done in Libya? Let Gaddafi burn it out? With upwards of 1.3 million Libyans if that's what it took? You'd rather those lives get burned out and have the "war" over with rather than prolong it? The war in Somalia is still raging on 20 years later. Maybe we should stop meddling in it and prolonging that, eh?

So another Afghanistan? Rather than another Bosnia...or Kosovo?

How many times do I need to present the point that the no fly zone will not stop Kadafi from slaughtering his own people. If the goal is to stop Kadafi from slaughtering people, given the circumstances, he has to be removed from power. Anything less than that and people who are vocal or have rebelled against Kadafi will be killed one way or another.

Imagine it this way, you see a drowning person. Immediately you can make a decision with the objective to A) Save the person or B) Throw the person a flotation device. In option A it is clear that you will dive in if necessary, call for additional help, pull the person to shore, administer CPR until help arrives or until the person becomes functional, etc, etc. However, if your objective is to throw the person a flotation device, you throw it, but if it is clear that option B is inadequate what was the point? Personally, I could not simply throw a rope, and walk away - if I am confronted by the situation described, I am all in! I won't walk away. I will do everything in my power to save the life, everything! The thought of throwing a rope and walking away is beyond my understanding.

What about Ahmadinejad saying his goal was to wipe Israel off the face of the map? Is that any less real than kadafi threat against his own people?

Where do you draw the line between perceived threats and taking proactive humanitarian action compared to what may be hyperbole?

I have clearly said what I would do. If the cause is worthy, I am all in. As soon as I use the military, I commit to finishing the job and I do it as soon as possible.

I actually agree with ace... I am very happy if we do good in Libya. I don't think we will. I pray I am wrong.

Are you suggesting the no-fly zone has had no impact? Are you suggesting that no one is talking about anything else? Are you suggesting that everything is static and neatly delineated as though it were written on paper in under 2,000 words? I don't think many people are keen on leaving Kadafi in power, but I don't think many are keen on total war. Are you?

What does this have to do with anything? :confused:

For starters, what Ahmadinejad does is a threat. What Kadafi was and is doing is are actions. Is Ahmadinejad's threat real? Yes. Are Kadafi's actions real? Yes. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

When Iran's honor guard starts shooting up Jews and when Iranian warplanes start bombing and strafing Nazareth and Haifa, I'll let you know how I think they compare in real terms.

I guess it depends on the situation. This is a loaded question.

So total war and unconditional surrender? You should be clear if you say you're being clear.

Where did the above question come from? The no fly zone clearly had an impact. What I have said is that it is inadequate. Kadafi quickly changed his military tactics and regained the upper-hand. What has our response been?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/wo...a/05libya.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/wo...a/06libya.html

The West has the capacity to end the conflict, but we have not.
The West has not coordinated actions with the rebels.
The West is doing less now than last week - doing less when more is needed.
The Rebels appear to have an expectation of assistance from the West that does not exist.
The West is trying to manage a bureaucracy when quick front line decisions need to be made.

What the hell are we doing? What are we trying to accomplish? Are we doing what needs to be done to accomplish our goals? Are we committed to accomplishing our goals? Was the goal simply to "throw a rope" and walk away so we can say we did something?

as of this afternoon, nato estimates the the air strikes have destroyed about 30% of gadhafi's military capacity.

there is a persistent problem of organization amongst the rebel forces. there is no small degree of confusion about the role--if there is one----for people who were with gadhafi's military that went over to the rebels.

there are also a lot of negociations....one thing that's been clear is that gadhafi is looking for a way out. but at this point things appear to be at an impasse because his sons were seemingly under the impression that it'd be cool for them to hang out and it isn't so far as the rebels are concerned.


the rebels didn't manage to hold onto brega---they claim, as they have been saying, not to be able to match gadhafi's weaponry. the solution there is probably to arm the rebels faster. no-one knows who's not on the ground exactly what is happening on that front. the fog of disinformation...


there was to be a tanker into tobruk to export a million or so gallons of oil under the aegis of the rebel government in benghazi. it would not be at all surprising to find that preventing this from happening is the objective behind the push into brega.


its delusional to imagine that short of ground involvement that the west--or any part of the west, including the united states---is in a position to simply stride manfully into libya and straighten shit out. there's problems of the united states military being stretched thanks to conservative policy incompetence in the bush period that generated such chaos that there's been no way out of either quagmire to this point. the british are saying that they're stretched as well thanks to iraq and afghanistan. so more excellent outcomes from conservative incomptence.

france is finding itself getting sucked into the civil war in the ivory coast.


basically, the rebel forces need to play for time.
there's no way for nato to stop the air strikes.

the united states is backing down from running the show in libya. so "we" aren't really "doing" anything alone. i don't see anything in this "what are we doing?" nonsense. this is an international operation. this is a basic empirical fact.

the gambit that gadhafi seems to be playing is that there isn't the stomach for a real fight---and he's structured the militia situation so that he's in a position to bring it on to the rebels.

at the same time, the defections from the government are real.
and there is a search on for a way out from gadhafi's side.

---------- Post added at 07:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:33 PM ----------

aside, later: all afternoon i've been seeing tweets and other fragments from the rebels arguing that they're not being given what they need, that nato isn't doing enough. i wasn't sure i understood it until i saw this:

Nato lacking strike aircraft for Libya campaign | World news | guardian.co.uk

Why wasn't it delusional from the beginning to think that a no fly zone was going to be adequate? In the short-term the no fly zone had an impact and given the dynamics of war, conditions changed. If NATO and UN goals were in sync and if the words on paper matched the words spoken the next steps would be clear. At this point the errors at the beginning are now obvious.

Obama was elected to end, as you put it, the quagmire, he has had two years - and Iraq was winding down when he took office. And even if you call what Bush did a quagmire, it can be legitimately argued that the Bush doctrine planted the seeds of the current revolts in the ME. We can not go back in time and pretend to say "if only" we had not invaded Iraq that we could do more to help Libya - we must deal with current realities. The current reality is that if we chose, we could do more in Libya.

Let's not mislead people - what we do or what we don't do is a choice.

Looks like even in other countries people won't make a sacrifice for a cause that our President sold as humanitarian. If people were actually willing to commit and sacrifice for a cause, the resources would be there. Leadership failed to get public support.

BBC News - Public support for Libya action 'mixed'

Make sure to see the video report at the link above.

In the 16 or so days of this, France has managed to send 16 whole attack aircraft over to Libya. Britian has managed 8. Canada - six whole attack aircraft. As usual, the pussies in Europe and Canada raise their hands to save the downtrodden, but they can't seem to raise their rifles or their wallets. "That's Yank work, dontcha know." No doubt, this will somehow be all our fault.

...

With all due respect, those six fighters consist of nearly 8% of Canada's air attack fleet of CF-18s. If those Yanks sent in 8% of their fleet, it would be nearly 500 aircraft.

Forgive us if less than 2% of our GDP goes towards shiny machines of destruction. We ain't Yanks, after all. Our military budget is $21.8 billion.

And it's not that we don't have other commitments, like in Afghanistan.

and so we go back around again.

one of the problems that's being revealed by this action in libya is the extent of the consequences of iraq and afghanistan.

this does not follow from some vaporous matter of "leadership" in the sense of getting on television and telling people without power what it is that they want to hear.

this problem is about the realities that operate amongst people who have political and military power internationally and who are in a position to recognize the damage that conservative incompetence has done to the american empire in particular and everyone who aligned with the lunatic campaigns of the bush period in general.

there's no amount of marketing of war to people with no power that's going to change that reality.

the central problem you really have, ace, and all your conservative avatars have it as well, is that you cannot face the magnitude of this. you'd like to pretend it's caused by other things. well......it isn't.

the problems of empire that are being played out in libya follow directly from afghanistan and iraq and the problems of the mortgage backed security crisis that undermined the position of the american financial oligarchy in an imperial context, something that **never** would have happened (in the sense of not that particular way, not never temporally) had the cluster fucks of afghanistan and iraq already been visited upon ALL OF US by people who think the way you do.

unless you think that the commands of all the militaries involved are joking when they talk about being dangerously stretched logistically.

because you'd know better than they. obviously.

This is pure b.s. Resources are available, however no one is willing to sacrifice anything - even Obama is not willing to put too much at risk, he is doing as little as he can get away with.

I think you may be underestimating the power of public support for a cause.

Bush bashing never gets old, does it? When will it end? Also, your position seems to be a contradiction. Occasionally you argue there is no difference between the two political parties, and if true why single Bush out in a argument about US colonialism. To someone who has read what you have written, you are far too frequently incoherent.

I am still not clear on this "marketing" concept of yours in the context of war. But it is clear that most people do not understand what our real objectives are in Libya. I also believe that many in the Obama administration and in the military never bought into Obama's rhetoric on this issue.

The central problem I have has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. I am and I have been correct on this issue from the beginning and every step of the way. Anyone looking at this objectively with an open and questioning mind could see the problems and lack of clarity from Obama.

Sounds like you are making excuses for a failed endeavor. Obama and our military knew what resources they had before entering into the Libyan conflict, I believe they also knew what would be required to win it. If they were not prepared to win or accomplish their objective - then they were fools to initiate military actions.

i was looking around in janes defense weekly, which is always a creepy pass time unless you like the transnational weapons bazaar (one result of which is situations like the action in libya using weapon systems from one area of the bazaar to neutralize weapon systems for other areas of the bazaar). here's an analysis about longer-term implications of the ongoing turbulence in north africa/middle east.

nb: i can't post a link to this because the url runs through a proxy. you'd not be able to access it anyway. if you have access to janes, this was posted on 11 march of this year.

I love the USA but why in the hell are we getting involved with any of the middle east America hating countries? We need to stop giving money to every tom, dick and zacari bin titty. We need to stop involving ourselves in these 5000 year old who's religious cock is bigger competitions that we don't understand. They don't want us on their land and they don't want our way of life. Let's get our troops home and focus on our future which will be our toughest battle to date. We have a huge gold plated kick in nuts debt, a junkie type dependency on oil and political leaders giving us the Ole "Hope and Change" tug job. One last thing and I'll stop. Islamic extremist are doing everything they can to destroy us while we do everything we can not to take our big ass size stealth bomber size shoe and stomp you extinct. Just let it be.:crazy:

...

:orly::confused::orly:

yeah. well, it's good there are people who make ace seem sensible i suppose. jesus.

Your comment here is childish and unnecessary. In addition, what I have posted here has merit. If you focused on the issues in each post rather than personal attacks you would see a higher level of discourse here.

The post you mock has a solid basis in generally held views by many in this country.

Read more: Fox News Poll: Qaddafi Seen as More Committed than Obama - FoxNews.com

I suggest you take an objective look at these issues and try to understand what is going on and why on this issue.

the rebels are not a coherent military. they were not magically transformed into one by the un resolution. now there's some curious idea being tossed around of sending in some british special forces people to whip the rebels into a fighting force in a month. this despite the fact it took 10 to accomplish the same plan in kosovo.

there is a consensus that a stalemate is unfolding. there's no consensus about either what that means or what to do about it. the "plan" of whipping the rebels into a coherent military in a month is, they say, largely about trying to tip this stalemate away from "de facto advantage gadhafi" to "de facto advantage rebels"

there is obvious mission creep. this has nothing to do with marketing. this has to do with the speed with which the action was conceptualized and the speed with which gadhafi's actions made it necessary to act. there was no "special contingency plan in case gadhafi starts massacring his political opposition" that could be drawn on.

this also has nothing to do with the chain of command in itself.

but it does have something to do with the fact that the united states has largely withdrawn its capacity from the action, which has undercut the power of the airstrikes. the reason for this withdrawal is universally acknowledged except in that special crackpot world of fox news----the effect of iraq and afghanistan---that is, of neo-conservative arrogance and incompetence.

the "obama hasn't explained things" is a simple-minded substitute for a serious problem the sole purpose of which is the allow the right---which lately has started to crumble politically again---to gain some advantage.
it's yet another cheap conservative talking point.
there is no reason to take either it or anyone who repeats it seriously.

Read my posts #36 and #42 in this thread dated 3/21. The problems were clear from the start. The questions presented were not talking points, but are very real and some still go unanswered.


For a change try to be intellectually honest.

first, this is not an american operation. i don't understand why you have such trouble with this empirical situation.

second, your insistence that the "problem" is some "lack of clarity" from obama is nothing but the repetition of a lame conservative talking point. so you demonstrate my point from the post just above yours. well played. it's great to watch someone with your skills eviscerate themselves. again. bravo.

third, your "civil war" interpretation is arbitrary---we've already been through this. others have too. you make a pseudo-historical argument, get pushed off it because you don't know what you're talking about, then try to bring it back again.

finally, your assertion about the rebels "being lost from the start" is simply pulled from the air.

the only point in your summary of yourself that's real is the question about not knowing who exactly the rebels are. but everyone's been saying this from jump.



in contrast, there are some interesting alternate readings of the libyan action.
this one, for example, is written by someone who sees it as a neo-colonial enterprise.


Al-Ahram Weekly | Opinion | Libya: Who wins?

It is your problem that you don't understand what I have written regarding my view of American involvement. At the most empirical level this is a Libyan situation. Once we get beyond that, any pretense held that American does not have the most influence over how event will go has very little credibility.

My post regarding Obama's lack of clarity predates any formal talking points.

Is your point that the conflict in Libya is not a civil war?

Or, a simple assessment of the situation prior to the UN resolution passage and the implementation of the no fly zone. Come on, look at the dates. Match what was going on inside and outside of Libya on a time-line. The rebel cause was clearly a lost cause prior to the UN resolution - my questions that followed involved what our level of commitment would be. Encouraging people to fight on in a lost cause, giving them the false impression of support that may not materialize borders on immoral depending on the circumstances and how events play out.

And I emphasize the importance of knowing that before we engage our military. A clear error in leadership.

1. pedantic horseshit aside, you concede the point. fine.

2. right. so the talking points were taken from you. fox is repeating you. i hope you're getting the royalties you so richly deserve.

3. you're being obtuse.

4, i am well aware of the time-line that's involved with this conflict to now.
your interpretation is pulled from the air.
what it's probably based on is the flip of it. which is circular. to wit: the un intervened to prevent a massacre. had that intervention not happened, there would have been one. ergo, the rebels would have lost "from the start"------so you can't even account for the fact of the intervention. so why are you bothering to talk about this situation in libya at all?


5. speaking of time-lines, maybe you ought to review actual material about the speed with which this situation tanked. the resolution was pushed through extremely fast. but you seem "honest" in that special way--chronology is important when you think it suits some purpose, and is irrelevant when it doesn't. fast and loose with the facts as always.

if you actually bothered to read the article i posted above---which you clearly did not---you'd have an alternative scenario. but why bother reading?

"leadership"---->meaningless b-school meme. we've been through this too. over and over. good christ. no learning curve at all.

If not for your post #242 I was pretty much done with this thread. I concede nothing to you. You are incapable of an honest, objective and fair discussion. I have concluded that the only reason you post here is to have your ego stoked - and since I don't stoke your ego you will not respond to my posts in a rational manner. My reading and commenting on something you cite has never lead to anything other than your personal attacks. Eventually you will sharing information that does not engage anyone - I will just partake in poking fun at your odd comments here and there.

Like the above odd comment.

"Leadership" came long before b-schools - if your premise is that "leadership" is not real or does not have an impact in world events, why not clearly state it or be more specific in your objection to my premise. Otherwise, I will continue to assume you are not serious or that you have not given the issue any serious thought. I am sure "leadership" was meaningless to this guy:

http://showandknow.com/wp-content/up...os-215x300.jpg

You may know him as Alexander The Great, or maybe not - read up on him and get back to us on this issue you have with "leadership"

meanwhile, out in the wider world:


in egypt there's continued angst about the direction the revolution is heading in...there's good reason for concern, too. lately there's been a spate of overviews on the order of these:

Al-Ahram Weekly | Opinion | Explaining the slow pace of change

7 Popular Myths about the Revolution

which are interesting i think. complicated situation. lots of uncertainty. there's a sizable demo in tahrir square today


that we are all khaled said refers to as a "day of purification"---the demo is a way to keep pressure on the existing government to continue getting rid of ndp people, to continue dismantling the mubarak-period oligarchy of which they are part.


as an aside, this is a quite lovely 5 minute clip shot a week ago today at tahrir:

Libya: rebel defences 'failing' as Gaddafi forces move towards Benghazi | World news | The Guardian

this is a problem, yes? can nato allow itself to effectively be defeated? will it?
oops, sorry about that guys.

this was not given in advance.
and the problems here are not a matter of marketing. i don't imagine anyone cares what political advantage american conservatives try to gain from this by setting up ridiculous criteria or making surreal frames to place over by all the blather about leadership yada yada yada.

let's do a quick recap:

there was a revolt centered in eastern libya.
the metropolis has never really liked gadhafi so saw this as a way to support his ouster, and as a way to continue trying to get out in front of the revolts against the national security state/neo-liberal imperial order that's still unfolding across north africa/middle east. get out in front so as to contain/channel.
it's not a real contradiction discursively for the us to do this as it simply requires aligning its policy a bit closer with the sort of values/words that american politicians like to say the united states is about anyway--freedom and all that---but particularly since the 1980s (leaning on the cold war) neo-conservative "realism" has resulted in the continued american sponsorship of dictatorships which played nice with us interests in the region. those interests are really important, so getting in front of the revolt is a strategic imperative. neo-con "realism" would be entirely incapable of it. not clear and manly enough, you see.

once the situation in libya escalated into military action, things moved very quickly in a downhill sense. the united states dithered for a while about supporting the security council action requested by the rebels and uk and france---they finally supported the resolution on a friday---by sunday the bombing had started. and things went the other way for a short time while the americans ran the show and used their technologies.

the story since then is obvious---a period of retreat for gadhafi followed by reversal followed by retreat followed by the above, which coincides with (a) the nature of the air strikes (b) the role of us equipment in the air strikes and---here's a key change it appears (c) gadhafi's adaptation to the fact of the strikes.

one problem is that resolution isn't terribly precise about what the objective of the action is...humanitarian or overthrowing gadhafi. i think that so long as things appeared to be heading toward a military defeat for gadhafi, the humanitarian and military/political objectives could be conflated.

but now, if the dynamic above continues, it is possible that the objectives could change fundamentally and that nato begins to act to extricate itself from a potential defeat---so acts in its own interests as an independent military unit involved in a civil war in libya.

so escalation or defeat.
i don't see anything good coming of either one. and i don't see any immediate alternative scenario---unless there is a political resolution of the conflict. but that aside, i think this action may be nearing a tipping point.

i think there's been a significant underestimation of what nato was getting itself into and---what seems to be worse----a slowness to react that seems to be what is giving gadhafi the space to deliver what could well be a fatal blow to the rebels if he can take banghazi.

right now, it appears that things are moving too fast for the style that nato....

The Independent - Print Article

it's hard not to see this main points here, really. that the libyan action is not being sold using a logic that mirrors the actual motives for action.

that there have been any number of situations in which innocent people have been massacred in great number---but so long as the interests of capital were being served, none of the metropolitan states gave a fuck about humanitarian issues.

that libya is the no. 10 oil producer globally makes humanitarian claims problematic...that this is a fraught and/or ambiguous situation. that the claim ---to paraphrase above-- malign motives bringing about a desirable end should be enough to override ambivalences....see iraq:

Johann Hari: I was wrong, terribly wrong - and the evidence should have been clear all along - Johann Hari, Commentators - The Independent

that the result of this intervention may well end up being exactly the sort of thing the intervention was supposed to get rid of, on the order of what's happened in iraq since 2003---which is continuing to happen now (witness the colonial repression of protests against the continued occupation).

Iraq: Wikileaks Documents Describe Torture of Detainees | Human Rights Watch


note in particular the responses of pakistanis to obama's claims regarding american concern for human rights above....


awesome.

To all the liberals who constantly said Bush lied about Iraq:

Where are you at? Why the silence on this new war? Why hasn't Obama consulted with Congress or gotten congressional approval? Why is NATO violating the UN mandate with no complaints? Why isn't Obama addressing the American people directly? why is no one demanding answers? There are so many questions, and I am shocked by what appears to be double standards.

{added} What about the whole issue of Executive power and checks and balances? A big issue when Bush was in office. Where are the calls for impeachment?

ace...are we back to this again?

The comparison between a UN sanctioned operation (Libya) vs one that had no UN sanction (Iraq).

The comparison between an invasion with tens of thousands of ground troops (Iraq) vs no US ground troops (Libya).

No consultation with Congress? Much like Reagan's bombing of Libya in 86. One could make the case that Obama used the War Powers Act in the same nebulous manner as Reagan (in bombing Libya and invading Granada) or GHW Bush's invasion of Panama.

Violating the UN mandate? Explain please.

Why do some people think that Obama doesn't have liberal critics? Most of the more reasonable criticisms of Obama (ie, not the ones that rely on islamophobia, misinformed uses of the word socialism or conspiracies about birth certificates) have come from folks on the left.

There are plenty of leftward folks who aren't happy with Obama and plenty of them don't trust the president any more than they trusted Bush.

Speaking of supporting our actions in Libya, your lady Palin thinks we haven't gone far enough.

The UN mandate has been violated.

would people in the Obama administration be willing to say under oath, subject to the penalty of perjury that there is and have been no US military troops on the ground? Would they testify that no Nato troops, with US knowledge and approval, have not been and are not on the ground, in violation of the UN mandate?

I am a defender of executive power, you on the other hand have consistently been on the other-side of the argument, but for some reason not now. Pleas explain.

Why? Is it not clear that the argument could be made? Do you not understand those arguments? Again, why play juvenile games? If you want to seriously discuss the issues involving the real possibility that the UN mandate has been violated, first can you acknowledge that reasonable people can even make the argument? If your assumption is that I am just making stuff up because I don't like Obama nothing that follows will matter.

We've been through this before, ace. There has been no violation of the UN mandate.

Go back and read it again.

I don't see many reasonable criticism from liberal here.


I believe we need to be all in or not in at all. If we were all in I think Kadafi would be gone. My position is a bit different than hers.

---------- Post added at 08:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:57 PM ----------

You need to read it again and then read the reports of what NATO has been doing, not to mention the things that are being done that is not being reported. Simply, the bombing of Kadafi's compound can be argued as a violation. The mandate is not regime change or assassination attempts.

I can't make you see the sky, either. It's still there.

What do you want me to see? Are you suggesting that liberals are as vocal now as they were when Bush was President regarding war, executive power, preemptive war, occupation, motivating terrorists, violating international law, etc. Not to mention Gitmo, habeas corpus, expanding the war in Afghanistan, not bringing our troops home from Iraq. I am flat out saying that liberals are generally silent (including here) and appear to hold Obama to a different standard.

Comparisons to the Bush era are irrelevant. Neither side is monolithic and there are elements of both sides that will never criticize their leaders. However, if you think all liberals have been silent, then you haven't been paying attention. Maybe you should start polling folks at co-ops instead of your local Safeway?

ace...the only ones complaining about NATO violating the UN mandate are you and the Russians....and no one takes either one of you seriously.

We don't have Safeways in my area but, I will start here, tell me what you think: has Obama violated executive powers as outlined in the Constitution? Would you support impeachment?

---------- Post added at 10:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 PM ----------

I am the first to admit that I have a slight obsessive compulsive disorder. When it comes to certain topics the only way to stop it is to ignore me.

---------- Post added at 10:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 PM ----------

You see, that was my point. So, why did you ask me to go into details about the mandate violations?

Outside of my point it kinda shocks me that you don't take the Russians seriously and that you don't think anyone does? They still have veto authority in the UN Security council, don't they?

Is it possible that that others have a problem with what is going on in Libya in context of the UN mandate and are not yet vocal about it?

Just me and my silly little questions, please ignore them - please end this - please put us out of our misery. I am right, the horse is dead!:)

No, I wouldn't support impeachment unless we were going to throw everyone out. I support it in the alternate reality where it would be productive.

For the record, I'm more vocal now about torture, rendition, wiretapping, the wars, etc. than I was under Bush simply because I didn't expect this of Obama. I've even got a whole new list of things under Obama like the treatment of Bradley Manning, ruining our (liberal's) bargaining position on financial reform, healthcare reform, and other areas, and a number of other things. Don't assume for a second that liberals are going to defend President Obama, turning our backs on our principles. Elections don't change who I am.

FYI, I don't support impeachment either. I did not support it when some liberals want to impeach Bsuh. I did not support it when Republican did it to Clinton. I think it wastes time and resources and would always be partisan based rather than merit based.

---------- Post added at 10:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:58 PM ----------

Are you going to vote for him in 2012?

President Obama? Probably. As much as I disapprove of him, I'd rather him be president than a religious extremist like Huckabee, a lying turncoat like Romney, an egotistical gimmick like Palin, or a bastard's bastard like Gingrich. Between Obama and Ron Paul, I might vote Paul simply because he'd try to end the wars and might actually champion civil liberties, but he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. And he has a 14 year old Rand fan's understanding of economics and a Huckabee-esque understanding of science.

I wish there was a progressive who could give Obama a challenge in 2012. If Sanders or Kucinich ran, I'd throw my money and volunteering behind them 100%.

Rebels close to a breakthrough
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/12/wo...a/12libya.html


UPDATE: Libyan Rebels Seize Control of Misurata’s Airport – NY Times

I find it hypocritical that Obama can support involvement in Libya, however we do not even talk about Syria. I am realistic about Syria. Syria has chemical weapons, and is very close with Iran and Hezballah, all of which does pose a threat if we do get involved. On top of that who knows what will come next if they fall.

That being said, we should not have gotten be involved there or Libya. We can not take a moral high ground and say we went in to Libya and ignored Syria.

It was my understanding that recently the Obama administration has all but crossed the line in delegitimizing Bashar al-Assad. What do you make of the sanctions? I've heard they're virtually ineffective.

Oh, and there's this:
Why the U.S. Won't Act on Syria - Yochi J. Dreazen - International - The Atlantic

The retaliation risk in Libya was on their own people. Was there a risk outside of Libya? Is the Syrian retaliation risk real?