The Wheels on the Bus Go Round and Round

No one could have predicted:

Britain said Tuesday it will send a team of up to 20 senior military officers to Libya to help organize the country’s haphazard opposition forces.

Foreign Secretary William Hague said the military advisers would join a group of British diplomats already cooperating with rebel leaders in Benghazi.

The decision ran into immediate opposition from a member of Prime Minister David Cameron’s Conservative Party, Reuters reported.

“We are now looking at regime change and we are clearly backing the rebels,” Peter Bone, a Conservative M.P. said in an interview with Sky News. “We seem to be taking sides in a civil war. That may well be right but it’s not for the government to decide, it’s for parliament to decide.”

Regime change! It’s what is for dinner:

Our duty and our mandate under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Qaddafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qaddafi in power. The International Criminal Court is rightly investigating the crimes committed against civilians and the grievous violations of international law. It is unthinkable that someone who has tried to massacre his own people can play a part in their future government. The brave citizens of those towns that have held out against forces that have been mercilessly targeting them would face a fearful vengeance if the world accepted such an arrangement. It would be an unconscionable betrayal.

Furthermore, it would condemn Libya to being not only a pariah state, but a failed state too. Qaddafi has promised to carry out terrorist attacks against civilian ships and airliners. And because he has lost the consent of his people any deal that leaves him in power would lead to further chaos and lawlessness. We know from bitter experience what that would mean. Neither Europe, the region, or the world can afford a new safe haven for extremists.

There is a pathway to peace that promises new hope for the people of Libya — a future without Qaddafi that preserves Libya’s integrity and sovereignty, and restores her economy and the prosperity and security of her people. This needs to begin with a genuine end to violence, marked by deeds not words. The regime has to pull back from the cities it is besieging, including Ajdabiya, Misurata and Zintan, and return to their barracks. However, so long as Qaddafi is in power, NATO must maintain its operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds. Then a genuine transition from dictatorship to an inclusive constitutional process can really begin, led by a new generation of leaders. In order for that transition to succeed, Qaddafi must go and go for good. At that point, the United Nations and its members should help the Libyan people as they rebuild where Qaddafi has destroyed — to repair homes and hospitals, to restore basic utilities, and to assist Libyans as they develop the institutions to underpin a prosperous and open society.

Hoocoodanode.

And again, there is no statement here about whether or not this is the right thing to do, whether or not Obama has the authority to do this, etc. All I am stating is that this simple Arab League humanitarian mission, as it was sold to us, was bound to spread and metastasize into something much bigger. And now we will have this on our plate indefinitely.

And before the real bullshit starts, I have an Obama 2012 sticker on my car already and am a member of Team Obama at the DNC, with an auto withdrawal every month from my checking account. I am voting for the guy in 2012 no matter what, because even though he has many flaws, he will be head and shoulders above whatever swamp thing crawls out of the primordial ooze of lies, homophobia, racial resentment, fearmongering, religious triumphalism, and class warfare that will be the GOP primaries.

*** Update ***

Post edited to add a better first link covering the British advisors.






217 replies
  1. 1
    burnspbesq says:

    There is no good alternative here. All we can hope is that by luck and the grace of God, we stumble upon the least bad alternative and execute it more or less competently.

    Welcome to the real world.

  2. 2
    Zifnab says:

    :-p Colonialism 4.0: Freedom’s March Edition

  3. 3
    Bob Loblaw says:

    Jesus, again with the Arab League shit? Did you really expect that the Arab League actually cared about Arab people? You really thought Qatar and the UAE were going to war with Libya?

    Whatever. I’m sure this thread will be enlightening and informative…

  4. 4
    BGinCHI says:

    Didn’t see a Stalin renunciation in there, Cole.

  5. 5
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    At this point, given the perma-cluster-fucks that are Iraq and Afghanistan, I can only hope for the best.

    Of course, there is no exit strategy for this…”intervention”, “liberation”, “police action”, what have you. The Powell Doctrine is truly dead, on both sides of the partisan aisle. No one cares anymore about how to extricate ourselves from the mess, because the need to feed the MIC is now tacitly agreed to on both sides.

  6. 6
    cleek says:

    i’ll just get my side of the inevitable conversation out of the way, pre-emptively:

    no, that’s not what i said.
    you don’t have any evidence of that.
    yes, yes. i know you hate Obama.
    yes, but i had hoped they’d find a way to avoid this.
    believe it when i see it.
    President Bachmann thanks you for your support.

  7. 7

    Joe from Lowell incoming in 3 … 2 … 1 …

  8. 8
    Nemo_N says:

    I’m sure the next war will be the long-sought perfect one.

  9. 9
    kdaug says:

    Who’s up for a little Yemini adventure? Too soon?

  10. 10
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    I shall remain in the boat.

  11. 11
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @kdaug:

    I’m looking forward to the Wallenda-level mental gymnastics that will be required for the Saudi intervention.

  12. 12
    Comrade Mary says:

    I have an Obama 2012 sticker on my car already and am a member of Team Obama at the DNC, with an auto withdrawal every month from my checking account. I am voting for the guy in 2012 no matter what, because even though he has many flaws, he will be head and shoulders above whatever swamp thing crawls out of the primordial ooze of lies, homophobia, racial resentment, fearmongering, religious triumphalism, and class warfare that will be the GOP primaries.

    Let me slip that onto the scale, Cole. Hmm …. Hmm … Yeah, that’ll do. But you do know that next week’s quota will be 15% higher, right?

    On topic: I was deeply conflicted, then a reluctant supporter of intervention, and then a hopeful supporter, and now I’m fucking frustrated and depressed again.

  13. 13

    Let the Brits do it.

    We know that the US cannot be trusted to insert “advisers” without suffering significant mission creep. As I remember history, the French also have difficulty with that issue. Don’t know about the UK. Maybe they can do it.

    Anyway, anybody but us.

  14. 14
    WyldPirate says:

    President Immaculate Perfection can do no wrong.

    ‘Murica, we’re number #1…at something…

  15. 15
    Hermione Granger-Weasley says:

    UK’s William Hague says Britain will send military advisers to Libya to help rebels.

    I’m confused about what your point is..
    We already have advisors on the ground. So does Egypt and they are in the Arab League.
    If your point is Humanitarian Imperialism is a nasty bit of policy goods, I agree.
    But there is no correlation here between domestic and foreign policy.
    Obama can drone afghani children and help give Katyushas to the NTC, and he can still be consistant on improving domestic policies and what is best for american citizens.
    It is not inconsistant at all.

  16. 16
    Dave says:

    If the Brits want to put boots on the ground, that’s their call.

    I’ll be concerned if and when Obama does so. And I haven’t seen any inclination by him to do that.

  17. 17
    OzoneR says:

    Cue complaints from the right that this proves America is no longer relevant in 3…2…1…

  18. 18
    Linnaeus says:

    And before the real bullshit starts, I have an Obama 2012 sticker on my car already and am a member of Team Obama at the DNC, with an auto withdrawal every month from my checking account.

    You really shouldn’t have to say this, John. And now I’ll drop that hot potato.

    Re: Libya. It was hard for me to see how the original intervention would not eventually morph into deeper involvement in the country’s civil war. There’s still a lot that could happen in the meantime, but things are looking eerily familiar.

  19. 19
    Bob Loblaw says:

    @kdaug:

    Not happening. Pay closer attention to Syria though.

    If Syrian events continue to escalate, watch the R2Pers drown in the sea of their own hypocrisy.

  20. 20
    eemom says:

    let’s look on the bright side: at least the French have Cote d’Ivoire covered, so we don’t gotta listen to the firebaggers sneering “Oh YEAH? If Obama’s such a great humanitarian how come he doesn’t wanna help the people there, HUH?”

    ‘course, there’s always Bahrain. They loves ’em some Bahrain.

  21. 21
    gene108 says:

    This is something the French, British, and maybe Italians want to do as much as or more than the Americans.

    I can’t really object to the way we have involved ourselves in Libya. We’ve handed off a lot of the duties to NATO, for better or worse, and the outcome doesn’t rest solely on our shoulders.

    Also, too Qaddafi doesn’t have that tight a relationship with us that we’d block international action against him. It’s not like China’s relationship with North Korea, where China has some reason to keep North Korea a communist state.

  22. 22
    OzoneR says:

    And before the real bullshit starts, I have an Obama 2012 sticker on my car already and am a member of Team Obama at the DNC, with an auto withdrawal every month from my checking account. I am voting for the guy in 2012 no matter what, because even though he has many flaws, he will be head and shoulders above whatever swamp thing crawls out of the primordial ooze of lies, homophobia, racial resentment, fearmongering, religious triumphalism, and class warfare that will be the GOP primaries.

    What does the British sending military advisers to Libya have to do with Obama? Isn’t that was the left wants? Someone else to police the world?

    Personally, I don’t object to overthrowing Gaddafi, especially and mainly if someone else wishes to do it, just as I didn’t care when the French invaded Cote D’Ivorie.

  23. 23
    soonergrunt says:

    While I agree whole-heartedly with Cole about Obama vs ANY republican, I gotta say again that there is NOTHING in Libya worth the life of a single American Soldier, and if the Brits and the French feel that this is in their best interests, they should do it themselves.

  24. 24
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Dave:

    We don’t have Infantry, per se, on the ground, but there are Americans there now.

    As far as I’m concerned, we’re involved in a serious way that will result, eventually, in escalation to full scale “boots on the ground”. Although I don’t know where they’ll come from, seeing as we’re already grossly overcommitted in Iraq and Afghanistan already.

    The old “two and a half wars” doctrine has taken a beating over the last forty or so years.

  25. 25
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Linda Featheringill: Yes, as I understood the concerns people were expressing, it was US troop presence that was objectionable. I do not see that here. If the the US stays in a backseat supporting role, is this a problem?

    @WyldPirate: What the fuck does your little screed even mean?

  26. 26
    MattR says:

    So who else assumed that first link would go to an article that had some sort of details?

  27. 27
    Linnaeus says:

    @Dave:

    If the Brits want to put boots on the ground, that’s their call.

    I’ll be concerned if and when Obama does so. And I haven’t seen any inclination by him to do that.

    The fact that it’s the British and not the US is, right now, what makes me less concerned than I would have been otherwise.

  28. 28
    eemom says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    aw, c’mon! The water’s FINE!

  29. 29
    PIGL says:

    @Bob Loblaw: Because going to war would prove their love and devotion to their fellow Arabs like nothing else, except perhaps dropping lots of bombs from a safe distance.

  30. 30
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @gene108:

    It’s not like China’s relationship with North Korea, where China has some reason to keep North Korea a communist state.

    Communist nominally, not actually. Both are basically crony-mono-capitalist states that treat their workers with all the disdain of Scott Walker, and then some.

    While Lenin may not be rotating in his tomb over this, Marx and Engels certainly should be.

  31. 31
    Hermione Granger-Weasley says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: surely you jest. Any intervention in KSA will cause lite sweet crude to go 200$ a bbl overnight.
    Even Obama isn’t proof against 10$/gallon gas.

  32. 32
    Corner Stone says:

    @soonergrunt: why do you capitalize “soldier” ?

  33. 33
    Libby says:

    Sigh. Outsourcing all my Libya commentary to you John Cole. What a clusterfuck and so frustrating there’s no way to stop or change the inevitable trajectory. And yes I’m still voting for O too, for the same reason.

  34. 34
    Lupin says:

    I object to the ugly character assassination of swamp things on this blog.

    DC’s Swamp Thing is a good elemental.

    Marvel’s Man-Thing protects the nexus of realities.

    The Heap is basically misguided.

    And Ted Sturgeon’s It (the granddaddy of ’em all) is a dear.

    All in all I’d rather have a swamp thing than a Republican.

  35. 35
    Paul in KY says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: I think its been revamped to seven 1/2 wars.

  36. 36
    Joe Beese says:

    @cleek:

    yes, but i had hoped they’d find a way to avoid this.

    Yeah, you’re pretty dumb.

  37. 37
    Uloborus says:

    Actually, I don’t see this as different from what was sold. We created (and started handing over to NATO as fast as they could take it) a no-fly zone. It was done at the request of our European allies, the Arab League, and the rebels themselves. A certain amount of bombing is involved (which is the only place I see any mission creep so far at all, and then not much). Advisors, trainers, diplomats, CIA – these folks are there always. They should be assumed.

    Obama is telling us what his motivations and goals are here. He accepted because he saw horrible massacres on the horizon, the international community wanted the US to help (important), and we were able to step in. He doesn’t see any good way for this to end other than Qaddafi leaving power.

    That is ALL he’s telling us. There’s been a lot of ‘why are we here?’ and this is the answer. The banana is just a banana. The only inference you can draw is that he’s going to be damned disappointed if the rebels can’t take Qaddafi out themselves. There’s a big step from that to taking him out ourselves, but if these are his priorities that’s at least a theoretical possibility. But it’s a BIG step. Don’t be blinded by 8 years of neocons who actually loved war and looked for excuses to wage it.

    As for my perspective, I don’t think we should have intervened. I feel like there are too many subtle ways this could be made worse by even the most well-intentioned. But ‘I can’t sit here when Qaddafi’s threatened to butcher a city of 700,000’ is an argument I can sympathize with.

  38. 38
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Hermione Granger-Weasley:

    The question is, which side will the intervention favor? The Bandit House of Saud, or the masses screaming for freedom from the Wahabbist nightmare?

  39. 39
    Hermione Granger-Weasley says:

    uz trollin’ amirite?
    never gets old does it Cole?
    why not have a discussion of why Humanitarian Imperialism Interventionism is an evil doctrine?

    Because its more fun to concern troll Obama and lather up your commentariat?

  40. 40

    Those few of you who have been reading my little stories from the beginning would recall the time I spoke about a young Sarah Palin and her generosity with the chamomile tea at the Miss Alaska beauty pageant back in 1984.

    I didn’t see her for a long time after that, which was fine by me. I keep track of her though. I do like to maintain a close eye on the high functioning psychopaths who cross my path. I didn’t make it to the age of 92 by being stupid. I have a friend at the CIA office in Anchorage who owes me a good number of favors, and he sends me an email with updates on young Ms Palin every few months.

    (Personal to Sexypants in Anchorage – Keep being a good boy or Mr Spanky will come out, and you know you don’t like that.)

    Anyhow, in April 2008 I went on a trip to Grapevine in Texas. That’s where my son Jeremy lives with his wife Dogface and their loutish and ever expanding brood, whose names are Trail, Mammary, Tree, Bagpiper and Math (or something unfortunate like that).

    I had a lovely time. I handed out presents and sweets and kisses. I gave the little ones too much red jello and then watched them vibrate around the house until their mother screamed at them. I snuck into Trail’s bedroom and cut off the horrible little rat tail he’d been growing and then planted the scissors on one of his sisters. There were indeed shenanigans.

    When it came time for me to go home, Jeremy drove me to Dallas/Fort Worth to catch my plane. I let Tree and Bagpiper come to the airport because they’re the only ones I don’t actively dislike.

    When we arrived I handed over some cash to the children, kissed them all goodbye and sent them on their way. I quite like airports – the sense of anticipation, the frenetic energy, the shops full of booze, the obligatory nuns, the hosties in their short skirts and tight pants. Being at an airport is an experience Grammy Sarah likes to experience on her own, thank you very much.

    Eventually I went to the Delta desk where I was told that there was a problem with my plane, but they were going to fit me right in on an Alaska Airlines flight to Anchorage, which had a layover in Seattle, but which left half an hour before the flight I had booked. There are advantages to having been a frequent flyer since 1942. The nice young lady summoned up a nice young security guard called Trevor who shepherded me through to the front of the check-in queue and then very kindly walked me to my boarding gate. He was very pretty – blond, sweet and dumb – just like Grammy likes ‘em.

    I knew from my briefing emails that Sarah was going to be in town for a Republican Governors Association meeting on energy policy, so I wasn’t surprised when I saw her waiting at the front of the line to board. What did surprise me was that she appeared to be fairly pregnant. My source hadn’t mentioned this to me at all.

    I joined a group of old dears from the United Daughters of the Confederacy who were off on an excursion. I didn’t think Sarah would recognize me as I was wearing a pair of Jackie’s old sunglasses (which I snaffled one Christmas at the White House) and my new Candice Bergen wig, but it never hurts to be careful.

    I peered out at her through the haze of White Diamonds, mothballs and urine smell that seemed to have enveloped me.

    Sarah was wearing a cheap rip-off of a Dries Van Noten thigh-length coat – you could tell from the poor stitching on the collar and around the cuffs – and she was stuffed in to it fit to bursting, like Chris Christie in a thong. It looked for all the world like she’d swallowed a big square pillow. She was nattering away to a man with a face like a dyspeptic badger, who was wearing ski boots, a shell suit and a leather jacket with a Slayer logo on the back. I assumed this was Todd. He nodded agreement every now and then but didn’t appear to add much else to anything. While she spoke at him, she kept patting at her stomach like the baby was kicking.

    I was a bit concerned about getting on to the plane without her seeing me, but fortunately a nice flight attendant spotted my Balenciaga jacket and my bespoke Dior shoes and took all us old biddies on to the plane first. Always wear your best to the airport. The gays like it and it can be worth an upgrade.

    When Sarah saw that someone was getting on the plane before her, she made a face just like the one that Joan Rivers makes when you tell her there’s no more booze.

    I hid in the middle of the group until we were on the plane, and then hunkered down in my seat right at the front with a strategically positioned newspaper.

    When I woke up from my little nap, we were in the air and three-quarters of the way to Seattle. Most of the plane was dozing. I took a look around with my makeup mirror while I fixed my face. Sarah and the Todd were two seats behind me and across the aisle at the back of the first class section.

    He was playing some kind of electronic game, and he sniggered occasionally like Muttley from Whacky Races.

    She in the aisle seat reading Cosmo. Every now and then, at quite regular intervals of five minutes or so, she would let out a little noise and clutch at her stomach, then look around furtively, almost as if she was checking to see if anyone had noticed. This went on for the best part of half an hour.

    Of course, all the hosties had on their best “not my problem” faces, so they barely noticed that she was there, let alone her rhythmic grunting.

    Next, she jabbed Todd in the gut and made a gesture with her head. Todd reached into his bag and fished out a bottle of water. She had a drink and then, lowering the bottle down to seat level, she splashed water around her feet. A little bit went into the aisle and glistened there. She handed the bottle back to Todd, and then made a little “o” sound of surprise.

    Whatever reaction she was expecting from the flight attendants, it did not eventuate.

    She pouted for a while and then got up to go to the toilet up at the front of the plane. I pretended to be asleep, but I was wearing my sunglasses so my eyes were wide open. Just as she passed me, her entire baby-bulge moved directly downwards about eight inches and I saw the bottom of a bright green polyester cushion (with yellow flowers, no less) poke out from under the edge of her coat.

    She grabbed at it and barely stopped it falling all the way out, then tried to shove it back in but only made it worse, looked around in panic and bolted for the toilet.

    Todd didn’t notice and he only looked up from his game of Donkey Kong about twenty minutes later when she hadn’t come out and the steward had to knock on the door and make her come out because the plane was preparing to land.

    I retreated behind my newspaper again, but I did see that when she sat down she called Todd a name that’s so nasty it isn’t even in my vocabulary.

    When I woke up again, the plane was deserted and the nice gay flight attendant was shaking me by the shoulder. His name was José. He helped me off the plane and into a taxi and handed me his number as the car drove off. We write to each other every week, and he’s become firm friends with my nephew Charles and his flatmate Kevin, although I can’t imagine what the three of them have in common.

    All in all, it was a very nice trip.

  41. 41
    Linnaeus says:

    @MattR:

    For folks who want more details, here’s the Guardian’s article on this.

  42. 42
    General Stuck says:

    And from your post, what is it again that Obama is actually doing here that would deviate from what we are doing now? I mean talking about regime change is one thing, and should be common sense for any hopes of a reconciliation between the split Libya of now. Regime change is one thing, actually taking action to change that regime is entirely different. I don’t care that the British are sending in mil advisors, they can do what they want. So Yawn, until we send in our own troops, then get back to me. It is kind of cute you going through all the credentialing as an Obama supporter though.

    I am not going to slam anyone that opposes this intervention, long as they don’t blow smoke up my ass when making their case.

  43. 43
    Hermione Granger-Weasley says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: there are no favorites in the marketplace. Only winners (the bankstahs again) and losers (people paying 10$ for a gallon of gas and blaming Obama for it).

  44. 44
    Paul in KY says:

    @Sarah, Proud and Tall: ‘leather jacket with a Slayer logo on back’, you have just summed up Todd with an 8 word turn of phrase. Bravo!

  45. 45
    Hermione Granger-Weasley says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    The Bandit House of Saud, or the masses screaming for freedom from the Wahabbist nightmare?

    umm…that is a bizarre description. The House of Saud are whabbist (ideological descendents of the khajirites) in the sense that their main goal is arab unification.
    Wahabbism is hardly a “nightmare”.
    Wahabbism is sunni, and the KSA population has a large shi’is basis, but not a majority.
    But the House of Saud are the titular defenders of the faithful and protector/custodians of Mecca and Medina.
    Sunnis have mostly ruled shi’ia since the martyrdom of Imam Ali that split dar ul Islam.

  46. 46
    Corner Stone says:

    @Uloborus:

    The only inference you can draw is that he’s going to be damned disappointed if the rebels can’t take Qaddafi out themselves.

    To make sure here, the “he” is Obama, right? Obama will be disappointed the rebels can’t win?
    Because they can’t. And Obama knows that better than any of us.

  47. 47
    Joe Beese says:

    @General Stuck:

    So Yawn, until we send in our own troops, then get back to me.

    Will do. I’m sure you’ll have come up with another excuse for the Warmonger In Chief by then.

  48. 48
    Corner Stone says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: I can only assume you’re goading here, because I think we all know the answer to that question.
    Supporting freedom fighters would mean a severe and protracted disruption to the flow. And the spice must flow.

  49. 49
    General Stuck says:

    And once again, for those who missed it the first time. If in fact you are right, and this is ” a trajectory” toward US ground involvement in another ground war to remove a dictator in the pan arab world, or anywheres else then Obama will be primaried almost certainly and would likely lose the nom, depending on who runs, as such an action would be pol suicide with a dem base and party fed up with land wars anywhere that are not the result of us getting attacked, and may well include that case as well. And i will vote for such a primary challenger to Obama, if the above happens.

    edit – so Beese, use yer grubby little firebagging cheeto stained fingers and bookmark this comment for posterity, just in case.

  50. 50
    BGinCHI says:

    @Sarah, Proud and Tall: Betty White meets Graham Greene.

  51. 51
    dmbeaster says:

    For those blowing raspberrys at Cole’s post, the point is that mission creep into explicit regime change was inevitable, unless we got lucky and the limited war was successful. It was predictable that it would not be, which is why going to war with inadequate force to achieve the objective of regime change was so stupid. The fact that it is the Brits making the noise at the moment is not really the point. This intervention has always been about regime change, even though falsely sold as just humanitarian. And if that is your goal, why go about it with half-measures? (advisers are another and probably inadequate half-measure as well, but it reflects the military awareness that the rebels are largely untrained and hopelessly inadequate).

    What is stupid is to jump into wars half-assed as has been done here, with phony political window-dressing to disguise the naked purpose of getting rid of Qaddafi. If you are for the intervention, you should be for boots on the ground. If you are not, you are a hypocrite and fool about what it means to go to war.

    Realize that the half-assed nature of the intervention itself creates a humanitarian crisis. The civil war will drag on, creating far greater suffering to civilians than what we were allegedly intervening to prevent. That is what is so insufferable about the pro-intervention side – it embraces a crappy half-measure rather than acknowledge the true cost of the policy of going to war.

  52. 52
    OzoneR says:

    Realize that the half-assed nature of the intervention itself creates a humanitarian crisis. The civil war will drag on, creating far greater suffering to civilians than what we were allegedly intervening to prevent. That is what is so insufferable about the pro-intervention side – it embraces a crappy half-measure rather than acknowledge the true cost of the policy of going to war.

    I remember when this was the Republican argument against intervening in Darfur.

  53. 53
    John Cole says:

    @dmbeaster: Why do you hate Obama?

  54. 54
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Hermione Granger-Weasley:

    So, girls being left to die in fires because they’re not properly clad head to toe is not a nightmare.

    Your outrage seems to be highly selective.

  55. 55
    danimal says:

    I’ve been conflicted and I’m not about to slam anyone with an honest and realistic conclusion for the other side, but the inner peacenik in me has won the day.

    GTFO of Afghanistan and do not escalate in Libya. Let the Brits and the French invest in that sinkhole if they wish.

    Time to bring our troops home and tend to our own affairs.

  56. 56
    General Stuck says:

    @dmbeaster:

    If you are for the intervention, you should be for boots on the ground. If you are not, you are a hypocrite and fool about what it means to go to war.

    Dumbest comment ever

  57. 57
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    Well, this thread appears to be headed in the usual direction for these kinds of things.

  58. 58
    tkogrumpy says:

    I for one am disappointed that crushing Eye-ran seems to have been put on the back burner.

  59. 59
    General Stuck says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    nah, I was in Galt, but had to respond. And unless someone gets nasty, i am back at that noble pursuit.

  60. 60
    Dennis SGMM says:

    While walking the dog this morning I heard an Italian admiral who was pretty high up in the NATO mission state that things are not moving forward in Libya. He wouldn’t go as far as to say that it’s a stalemate though.

    He did say that NATO is finding it difficult to reduce Qaddafi’s advantage in firepower due to the lack of NATO boots on the ground. The problem is that Qaddafi’s mortars and missile launchers are being sited in urban areas and NATO is having trouble targeting them accurately enough to take them out from the air without risking high numbers of civilian casualties.

    Now for my two cents worth. That the mission has gone from preventing genocide to regime change seemed inevitable: Qaddafi is neither the type to go away peacefully nor is he the type who will forgive and forget. As long as the boots on the ground aren’t being worn by American troops I could care less what NATO does. If Obama or Admiral Mullen start talking about “America’s unique capability” again then all bets are off.

  61. 61
    WyldPirate says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    What the fuck does your little screed even mean?

    Just expressing my preemptive agreement with the Obama Hallelujah Chorus–(which you would be a prime member of here on BJ) that Obama can do no wrong. I’m brainwashed, like the rest of you clowns here and want to make sure there is no expression of dissatisfaction with the Greatest President in US history here on BJ.

    Now run along and pull your drawers out of your ass-crack, Omnes Omnibus.

  62. 62
    RP says:

    Is Obama now in charge of Britain’s military?

  63. 63
    Stillwater says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: I shall remain in the boat.

    But man, those mangoes are so close you can taste-em!

  64. 64
    Keith G says:

    This intervention has always been about regime change, even though falsely sold as just humanitarian.

    I just always assumed that the only way to fully realize the humanitarian outcome was to push Qaddafi out one way or another so I was sold nothing.

    It’s not like Qaddafi would ever turn into Nelson Mandela.

  65. 65
    Jamie says:

    It seems that no one in European or American government remembers any twentieth century history anymore

  66. 66
    cyntax says:

    @dmbeaster:

    Realize that the half-assed nature of the intervention itself creates a humanitarian crisis. The civil war will drag on, creating far greater suffering to civilians than what we were allegedly intervening to prevent. That is what is so insufferable about the pro-intervention side – it embraces a crappy half-measure rather than acknowledge the true cost of the policy of going to war.

    Oh, let besse and Stuck talk past each other like they always do. Better to make this about each poster’s individual take on Obama than the actual topic at hand.

  67. 67
    Chyron HR says:

    @WyldPirate:

    Why don’t you call the President “Blackity-Black Ni**er Jesus” anymore? Did you get tired of the “crack hos” falsely accusing you of being racist?

  68. 68
    Davis X. Machina says:

    Shouldn’t we of the Left be cheering the defeat — or at least non-success — of the rebels?

    Aren’t the puppets of the big oil companies being smashed?
    The octupus-like reach of multinational capitalism being revealed for all to see?
    Isn’t Qadaffi giving imperialism a big black eye ?
    And isn’t the UN, and especially the UNSC, being shown for what it basically is — a tool of Israel and its supporters in the United States?

    And now there are persistent reports that the indigenous peoples of the third world — Algerians Chadians, Mauritanians, etc, — are fighting back, side by side with their Libyan brothers, against this EU/NATO/US neo-colonial invasion.

    Or is everything I learned in the 60’s and 70’s wrong?

  69. 69
    Keith G says:

    @WyldPirate: Ya know WP, you can have some real spot on observations that are interesting to read, particularly when science is involved. But when you reel off things like this:

    Just expressing my preemptive agreement with the Obama Hallelujah Chorus—(which you would be a prime member of here on BJ) that Obama can do no wrong. I’m brainwashed, like the rest of you clowns here and want to make sure there is no expression of dissatisfaction with the Greatest President in US history here on BJ

    You end up seeming like a parody.

  70. 70
    Stillwater says:

    @Keith G: I just always assumed that the only way to fully realize the humanitarian outcome was to push Qaddafi out one way or another so I was sold nothing.

    As did others. When this was mentioned, branches of the ‘pro-intrvention’ tree took swipes at us because the UN res. explicitly didn’t call for regime change. Followed by a snide ‘so there’. But even that story is being walked back in the face of the new official policy of regime change, ie., that RC was built into the UN Res. all along!

  71. 71
    Hermione Granger-Weasley says:

    @Corner Stone:

    The spice must flow.

    Some days its melange, some days its bitter dirt.

    @Cole, your update makes things no clearer. WE ALREADY HAVE SPEC-OPS on the ground advising the libyan oppo and the Egyptians ALREADY HAVE forces on the ground advising the libyans and giving them rockets and other arms. AND EGYPT IS PART OF THE ARAB LEAGUE.
    WTF are you trying to say?

  72. 72
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @WyldPirate: Well, I am glad to see that the “We’re all fucked, everything sucks, the brakes don’t work so I might as well not steer.” crowd is here. Christ, sport, you’re like a fucking black hole of depression and gloom.

  73. 73
    Jamie says:

    It is hard to keep a Humanitarian strictly humanitarian if you still are fighting the national government for control of the country. So is Zimbabwe next?

  74. 74
    General Stuck says:

    @cyntax:

    I rarely respond to mr beese. And was not talking past him this time. I laid my cards on the table concerning Obama, and handed them to any who might be interested.

  75. 75
    Paul in KY says:

    @Hermione Granger-Weasley: You need to live the whabbist lifestyle (especially with a husband/younger brother/nephew as your elder) & then tell us whether or not you think it is a ‘nightmare’.

    Probably for some women it is not. But I think you would find it a little constricting.

  76. 76
    WyldPirate says:

    @dmbeaster:

    What is stupid is to jump into wars half-assed as has been done here, with phony political window-dressing to disguise the naked purpose of getting rid of Qaddafi. If you are for the intervention, you should be for boots on the ground. If you are not, you are a hypocrite and fool about what it means to go to war.

    Amazing. Someone here actually understands what this Libyan misadventure is about and can see where it is likely leading.

    Too bad so many Obama ass-kissers here can’t see how ineffective the most powerful military machine mankind has ever seen in achieving these types of “military” objectives against grossly out-manned and out-gunned guerrilla fighters.

    I suppose it is all good as long as we get our dictator installed in place of Qaddafi.

  77. 77
    Xantar says:

    @RP:

    Is Obama now in charge of Britain’s military?

    This. Obama and the US are quite simply secondary actors in Libya now. And that’s the way it should be.

  78. 78
    "Serious" Superluminar says:

    @Omnes Omnibus

    Well, this thread appears to be headed in the usual direction for these kinds of things.

    A highly nuanced discussion of the costs and benefits of humanitarian intervention, where the usual suspects don’t allow their hobby horses to override all sense and reason, no?

  79. 79
    Jamie says:

    Maybe we should have a new poll question to answer before we get involved in these messes and if a majority of the country can’t find the prospective battle ground on the map, we won’t commit troops to a prospective civil war.

  80. 80
    Hermione Granger-Weasley says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    So, girls being left to die in fires because they’re not properly clad

    Throwing radar chaff.
    Let me explain…what you think about Islam doesnt matter because
    1. It is none of your bidness.
    and 2. you cannot do anything about it.
    The pop of KSA is 100% muslim. One cannot be a citizen without being a muslim. The KSA mutaween do many horrible things that are legal in KSA.
    And because we get oil from them we can’t do a damn thing about it.

  81. 81
    tkogrumpy says:

    @Davis X. Machina: Probably.

  82. 82
    Hermione Granger-Weasley says:

    @Paul in KY: WTF?
    Let me explain AGAIN…what you think about Islam doesnt matter because
    1. It is none of your bidness.
    and 2. you cannot do anything about it.
    The pop of KSA is 100% muslim. One cannot be a citizen without being a muslim. The KSA mutaween do many horrible things that are perfectly legal in KSA.
    And because we get oil from them we can’t do a damn thing about it.

    And I would never marry a wahabbist. I am a mevlevi.

  83. 83
    cyntax says:

    @General Stuck:

    When it comes to this issue you both are playing a loop about your opposition to or support of Obama.

    This was always about regime change; that’s what picking sides in a civil war gets you. That’s how these things go every time.

  84. 84
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Jamie: Do you have any idea how many US bases we would need to close?

  85. 85
    fuzed says:

    When have the French EVER started something they couldn’t finish and asked for help? cough*viet*cough

  86. 86
    Shoemaker-Levy 9 says:

    And before the real bullshit starts, I have an Obama 2012 sticker on my car already…

    There is no need for you to say this, John, we already know it. Just as there is no need for anyone who advocates a left of center policy position to add, “don’t get me wrong, I hate Stalin.” Just as there is no need for someone who makes a disparaging remark about Joe Lieberman to add, “don’t get me wrong, some of my best friends are Jewish.” Just as there is no need for someone who notices that Sarah Palin is lazy and vindictive to add, “don’t get me wrong, I respect women.” Everybody knows you are an Obama supporter, and just because you criticize a policy that he was involved with doesn’t mean you must immediately reassure the fanatical religious cultists in your comment section that you haven’t suddenly morphed into a birther.

  87. 87
    WyldPirate says:

    @Keith G:

    Perhaps I sound like a parody because I see the blind devotion, no-criticism-allowed, knee-jerk defense of anything and everything Obama does as worth of parody, Keith G.

    Cole ain’t trolling here. He’s an ex-soldier as I am. He’s not stupid and can see where this Libyan misadventure is leading. He’s rightfully making fun of all of the Obama drones here while admitting that even though he hates Obama’s policies on this war (and Afghanistan) we have no better political alternatives.

  88. 88
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @fuzed: Few actual historical parallels there, but mega-points for gratuitous France bashing.

  89. 89
    Hawes says:

    Yay! The British are coming! The British are coming!

    Apparently, as if The Four Feathers wasn’t awful enough, Cameron has decided to play Gordon of Khartoum. I can see him dancing around 10 Downing in his wee red britches.

    Britain and France took the lead on all this. Britain – and Cameron most especially – is likely still feeling the sting from the decision to let the Lockerbie bomber return to Libya. I don’t know what’s motivating Sarkozy beyond proving that the French are relevant.

    I don’t see Cameron surviving the next election, and if that should happen and a new Labour government pulls out of Libya, then I could see things getting sticky for us.

    I predicted that Ghaddafi/Khattaffee wouldn’t last past Cinco de Mayo. I still stand by that, just more shakily.

    But the Brits want to go full bore Beau Geste, that’s their call.

  90. 90
    FlipYrWhig says:

    How dare Obama contrive a situation whereby the British military gets more involved in a war in North Africa! He should know better than to allow some other country to do things with its military! Also, his powers are too expansive!

  91. 91
    Joe Beese says:

    @WyldPirate:

    Someone here actually understands what this Libyan misadventure is about and can see where it is likely leading.

    The DFHs had no problem seeing it – given how screamingly obvious it was to anyone whose memory extends past January 2009.

    The Obots could not see it – having their heads stuck far up the First Colon.

  92. 92
    Paul in KY says:

    @Hermione Granger-Weasley: Let me explain, Hermiome, that it doesn’t matter in the least that you say ‘it is none of my business, etc. etc.’.

    You made a comment in # 45 above that Wahabbism is hardly a nightmare. I then posited that you need to walk a mile as a wahabbist woman before you could properly evaluate whether or not Wahabbism is a nightmare (for women, from what I understand it’s a great sect to be a guy in).

    I will note that I comment all the time on stuff I can do nothing about. In fact, without being able to do that I think Balloon Juice would cease to exist.

    Cudlip ;-)

  93. 93
    "Serious" Superluminar says:

    Of course, with 20 military advisors on the ground, a full-scale war is obviously imminent.

  94. 94
    General Stuck says:

    @cyntax:

    Bullshit. read my comment. My first reference to Obama was in response to it being in the post thread. Beese made a remark concerning Obama, and I responded my position on that. And all of it related to putting US ground troops in Libya for another ground war to remove a dictator, the subject of this post. At least it seems that is the topic.

    And of course regime change has been a goal all along, it would be stupid if it wasn’t. The question is whether it is forced by the USA with ground troops, or not. I rabidly oppose such an action from the US, and Obama is the CiC for gawds sake. You can’t discuss this topic without mentioning him. And I do not care what other countries do, or don’t do, use troops, or they don’t. That is their business. Your strawman in this regard is well worn and weak.

    And I have always supported this basic intervention on humanitarian grounds to stop a massacre that was imminent imo.

  95. 95
    General Stuck says:

    When it comes to this issue you both are playing a loop about your opposition to or support of Obama.

    Yea right, my support for Obama was it. Being I clearly stated my intention to not support him for reelection if he starts another US ground war half way around the globe.

  96. 96
    Stillwater says:

    @General Stuck: I clearly stated my intention to not support him for reelection if he starts another US ground war half way around the globe.

    Word of warning Stuck. Even tho this appears to you to be a principled position, ABL may show up to teach you otherwise: that you’re a white liberal with lots of ‘shit’ to work out.

  97. 97

    No one could have predicted:

    That the British and French would be taking the lead in the operation and the US would play a background role?

    Uh…some of us predicted that from the beginning.

  98. 98
    Keith G says:

    @General Stuck: You need to go a step further. Such actions would likely lead to enough Lib and Ind detachment, that Obama would be crippled in the general election. It would be a sure ticket to life as a one termer.

  99. 99
    General Stuck says:

    @Stillwater:

    I like ABL, and I can’t stand your smarmy ass. Now there is a principled position for ya tiger.

  100. 100
    Sean says:

    Freaky. A friend told me he wished he could be excited about the 2012 election (he’s unhappy with Obama). I told him he would be, once he sees what crawls out of the pub primaries. And then, I swear to god I said “swamp thing, I reckon.”

  101. 101
    General Stuck says:

    @Keith G:

    excellent and true point

  102. 102
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Hermione Granger-Weasley:

    What I think about this version of Islam is pretty much what I think about some versions of Christianity, of Judaism, of Hinduism, of Mithraism, etc.

    Calling what can only be called an atrocity “chaff” is a pretty pathetic dodge.

    The Wahabbists get to do all the shit that guys like Robertson, Wildmon, and Dobson wish they could do.

  103. 103
    Stillwater says:

    @joe from Lowell: Now you’re deliberately missing the point Joe. Cole is saying that a limited defensive humanitarian intervention has morphed into regime change. And in our discussions, you vehemently (ROBUSTLY!) accused me of racism for merely saying what you now appear to be taking for granted: that RC is the natural evolution of limited HI.

  104. 104
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @WyldPirate: Wow, an ex-soldier. There are a lot of ex-military on this blog. That and $4.50 will get you a latte.

  105. 105
    Hermione Granger-Weasley says:

    @Paul in KY: proselytizer. ;)

    I then posited that you need to walk a mile as a wahabbist woman before you could properly evaluate whether or not Wahabbism is a nightmare (for women

    no i don’t.
    I explained that wahabbism is arab nationalism and sometimes interpreted horrifically badly by the mutaween, kinda like how americas mutaween shoot dogs and parents in no-knock raids.
    im fucking sick of penis measuring contests between christianity and islam.
    I don’t even HAVE a penis.

  106. 106
    cyntax says:

    @General Stuck:

    And of course regime change has been a goal all along, it would be stupid if it wasn’t. The question is whether it is forced by the USA with ground troops, or not. I rabidly oppose such an action from the US, and Obama is the CiC for gawds sake. You can’t discuss this topic without mentioning him. And I do not care what other countries do, or don’t do, use troops, or they don’t. That is their business. Your strawman in this regard is well worn and weak.

    Look, you like fighting with Beese–I already know that. But I find most of what each of you write to be the same boring crap you’ve both said in a hundred other threads, and that’s fine I usually scroll past it. Your “criticism” of dmbeaster OTOH, is crap–at least as baldly as you stated it there.

    If you’re point is you don’t give a shit about other boots on the ground, that’s fine. But it’s really goddamn naive to think that once any boots are on the ground, the chances we have our boots on the ground doesn’t go up. It does. And that’s how these things go. I don’t know what your failure to acknowledge how mission creep works is about, but there it is.

  107. 107
    Hermione Granger-Weasley says:

    moderation.
    great.
    my best comment evah.

  108. 108

    @Joe Beese:

    Will do. I’m sure you’ll have come up with another excuse for the Warmonger In Chief by then.

    Whatever, champ. Get on that as soon as you’re done writing your denunciation of Obama’s call for cuts to Social Security.

  109. 109

    @Corner Stone:

    Supporting freedom fighters would mean a severe and protracted disruption to the flow. And the spice must flow.

    You do realize that supporting the freedom fighters in Libya actually did result in a severe disruption in the flow of Libyan oil, right? That this disruption was the spark for the current high gas prices?

  110. 110
    Hermione Granger-Weasley says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: I explained that wahabbism is arab nationalism and sometimes interpreted horrifically badly by the mutaween, kinda like how americas mutaween shoot dogs and parents in no-knock raids.
    im fucking sick of pen1s measuring contests between christianity and islam.
    I don’t even HAVE a pen1s.

  111. 111
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Hermione Granger-Weasley:

    Yeah, it’s “Arab nationalism” to prohibit women from driving cars.

    There are a lot of criticisms of fundamentalist Islam that apply to fundamentalist Christianity. The problem isn’t Islam or Christianity…it’s FUNDAMENTALISM…and the totalitarian nature of that it.

    Get that through your cudlip head.

  112. 112

    @dmbeaster:

    And if that is your goal, why go about it with half-measures?

    Iraq: read about it. Why not send American ground forces to drive on the capital, overthrow the regime ourselves, and wait around until a handover can be accomplished? Uh…really? You need an answer to this question? In 2011?

    Realize that the half-assed nature of the intervention itself creates a humanitarian crisis. The civil war will drag on, creating far greater suffering to civilians than what we were allegedly intervening to prevent.

    Day 32. We’re on Day 32.

  113. 113
    General Stuck says:

    @cyntax:

    Sounds to me like you actually want US boots on the ground for some perverted firebagger pleasure. Otherwise, your comment is just a pathetic mix of straw men and various assorted memes concerning what I write and what you think about it. I don’t really care and it is nothing I haven’t heard many times before. So just piss off with your idiot hopes predictions of what you are sure is going to happen. You are just like the rest of us. An idiot with an internet connection. yawn

  114. 114

    @Stillwater:

    Cole is saying that a limited defensive humanitarian intervention has morphed into regime change.

    Then Cole is retarded, because the American, British, and French policy has been regime change since long before the humanitarian intervention. You wan to talk about deliberately missing the point? How about the mighty struggle to maintain the pretense of not understanding the difference between American/British/French policy and the UN humanitarian operation? You know, the distinction that has been explained to you several dozen times by now, including by the POTUS in a nationally televised speech?

    And in our discussions, you vehemently (ROBUSTLY!) accused me of racism for merely saying what you now appear to be taking for granted:

    No, I accused you of racism for denouncing the Libyan rebels as skeery al Qaeda Mooslims. Again more, deliberate obtuseness on your part.

    that RC is the natural evolution of limited HI.

    That’s an odd way of looking at things, since the British, French, and Americans announced that regime change – Khadaffy must go – was our policy weeks before the humanitarian intervention started.

    Willfully obtuse.

  115. 115
    Bob Loblaw says:

    Number of times the word Libya/Libyan shows up in the comments: 19.

    Number of times any Libyan city/leader/name shows up in the comments: 2, both Qaddafi.

    Number of times the name Obama does: 53.

    There’s probably a lesson here somewhere.

  116. 116
    Stillwater says:

    @General Stuck: No boots on the ground for Stuck! That’s the deal breaker! Fair enough. Everything else – even your backtracking tortured logic and myopic focus on the role US troops play to achieve the broader clearly offensive policy goals of the WH – as AOK.

    And of course regime change has been a goal all along

    When this was pointed out to during the speculative phase of the Evolving Mission in Libya, you were one of the reflexive robotic deniers that this was the case, and you accused those advocating such a position of firebaggery. And as predicted back then, and in evolving discussions as the US role became more pronounced, you retreated to the mere ‘boots onna ground’ condition as the line in the sand. Which you did some time ago, and reiterate now. But if US troop boots hit the ground, I’m sure you’d figure out a way to rationalize that as well.

  117. 117
    General Stuck says:

    @cyntax:

    Look, you like fighting with Beese—I already know that

    LOL, I exchange one comment with Beese, but you seem to be interested in arguing with me, Beese isn’t, but you are. And stupidly, I might add.

  118. 118

    @Bob Loblaw:

    There’s probably a lesson here somewhere.

    When someone writes a blog post about Libya for the purpose of dinging his domestic political opponents, you don’t get a useful discussion of the subject?

    Apparently, our policy in Libya, and that of our allies, is sort of like the merits of signing statements or the president’s authority to hire his own staff: so very, very interesting and legitimate a topic of debate that John doesn’t ever write about it, instead using it as a launching pad for an explanation of how totally not wrong he was.

  119. 119
    Joe Beese says:

    @joe from Lowell:

    Day 32. We’re on Day 32.

    1. “You can’t expect Obama to fix all these problems after only three months in office.”

    2. “You can’t expect Obama to fix all these problems after only six months in office.”

    3. “You can’t expect Obama to fix all these problems after only a year in office.”

    4. “You can’t expect Obama to fix all these problems after only two years in office.”

    5. “You can’t expect Obama to fix all these problems in his first term.”

  120. 120

    @Stillwater:

    No boots on the ground for Stuck! That’s the deal breaker!

    Ditto.

    @Stillwater:

    the role US troops play to achieve the broader clearly offensive policy goals of the WH

    What US troops are those?

  121. 121
    General Stuck says:

    @Stillwater:

    You are a lying sack of shit. My ONE AND ONLY CONCERN WAS NO US TROOPS DEPLOYED TO LIBYA. PERIOD. I DIDN’T THEN, NOR DO I NOW HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ANY OF THE OTHER UN SANCTIONED ACTIONS TO DATE, OR DESTROYING QUADAFFY’S MIL FORCES ON THE GROUND OR AIR.

    Stop your goddamned lying you mealy mouth sumbitch. You fuckers are so hellbent on creating shit where it doesn’t yet exist, that you will say about anything. What is up with that. BDS? ODS? or are you just stupid?

  122. 122

    @Joe Beese: As usual, you seem to have retreated behind irrelevant cliches in place of thought.

    I haven’t the foggiest idea what your blathering is supposed to mean, how it relates to anything I wrote, or whether you have any point at all.

  123. 123
    soonergrunt says:

    @Corner Stone: Because it is a title.

  124. 124

    @General Stuck:

    What is up with that. BDS? ODS? or are you just stupid?

    Their point is, as always, “No, I wasn’t wrong,” and they’ll say anything to convince themselves of that.

  125. 125
    Stillwater says:

    @General Stuck: I like ABL

    You’re two peas in very small comfortable pod.

  126. 126

    @soonergrunt:

    Because it is a title.

    OK, English teacher cap on.

    Some words can be used as a title, or as a common noun. For instance:

    I voted for President Obama.

    The president in 1942 was FDR.

    You didn’t use soldier as a title. In fact, I’m not sure if it actually is a title.

    Soldier John Cole? Soldier Johnson, come over here?

  127. 127
    Stillwater says:

    @joe from Lowell: Joe, that’s low even for you. You left off the ‘if’. That makes it a conditional. No wonder you think you never lose an argument.

  128. 128
    cyntax says:

    @General Stuck:

    Sounds to me like you actually want US boots on the ground for some perverted firebagger pleasure.

    Well, that’s probably because you only see this in terms of a fucking loyalty test–like you do almost any issue.

    And no, I don’t want boots on the ground anymore than Cole does, but maybe that’s because I’ve actually been in those boots before.

  129. 129
    General Stuck says:

    @joe from Lowell:

    What is hilarious, is that they are arguing with so many strawmen, hardly anything that is said gets through. The least of which is my upfront position that I won’t support Obama if he starts another ground war. It may have blown their tiny minds so much, they are just twitching and whinging from habit.

  130. 130

    @Stillwater: What are you babbling about? Here is your complete sentence:

    Everything else – even your backtracking tortured logic and myopic focus on the role US troops play to achieve the broader clearly offensive policy goals of the WH – as AOK.

    There is no “if” in this sentence.

    Perhaps the reason I don’t lose arguments is because I don’t make dumbass mistakes like that.

  131. 131

    @General Stuck: Yes, I’ve noticed that they keep accusing you of changing your position, without ever being able to identify any prior positions you argued that conflict with what you’re writing.

    Literally, I have never even once seen anyone quote anything you have ever written on this subject to demonstrate a contradiction – and you just know that there are plenty of no-life losers who’ve spent time looking through old threads.

    Very odd behavior.

    Anyway, gotta take the kid to see his auntie. Cheers, and here’s hoping Libya follows Egypt and Tunisia.

  132. 132
    Paul in KY says:

    @Hermione Granger-Weasley: Should have known you’d see it as a crusader whomping on the Arab Nationalists. I couldn’t crusade against Islam, as I’m too lazy.

    I think you’re a Sufi (right). You should be promoting Sufism as the best expression of the Prophet’s will (better than Wahabbism, anyway).

    Edit: For every horrible thing done by those who claimed it was ‘in the name of Islam’, I will remind you that Christianity has been around for 300 or more years than Islam, and no one of the Christian persuasion (as I was raised) should want to compare atrocities.

  133. 133
    General Stuck says:

    @cyntax:

    Well, that’s probably because you only see this in terms of a fucking loyalty test—like you do almost any issue.

    WTF are you talking about. Loyalty test? can’t you read moron or are you just crazy?. I won’t support Obama for reelection if he puts US boots on the ground. jeebus fucking christ. I’ve said it at least three times today, and did when this thing first started.

    @cyntax:

    And no, I don’t want boots on the ground anymore than Cole does, but maybe that’s because I’ve actually been in those boots before.

    You and Cole are not the only military vets on this blog, in case you didn’t know that.

  134. 134
    HyperIon says:

    If France and great Britain cannot get rid of Q, then they both need to rethink the money they spend on their military.

  135. 135
    Yutsano says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: I’m pulling you back in the boat. And making popcorn.

  136. 136
    Stillwater says:

    @General Stuck: What is up with that… ODS?

    Stuck, I think I’ve identified the problem. Nothing I have said has been critical of Obama. In fact, look through all my comments on Libya and you’ll glaringly notice one recurring theme: a failure to make a judgment about either Obama’s handling of Libya or the merits of intervention.

    In these comments (between us) I’m talking about you, not him.

  137. 137
    Keith G says:

    @joe from Lowell:

    Some words can be used as a title, or as a common noun. For instance:

    I think his usage was more similar to “Son of God”.

  138. 138
    Hermione Granger-Weasley says:

    @Paul in KY: Mevlevi is a sufi sect. We are followers of Rumi. And it is forbidden for Sufis to proselytize.
    We are universalists.
    Yours is better for you, mine is better for me.

    And I couldn’t proselytize christians even if I wanted to. Muslims and christians believe in the same Al-lah.

  139. 139
    General Stuck says:

    @Yutsano:

    Is there room for one more in that boat, or I may have to pull out my personal flotation device.

  140. 140

    @HyperIon:

    If France and great Britain cannot get rid of Q, then they both need to rethink the money they spend on their military.

    Britain and France, or even one of them acting alone, could put a ground force into Libya and overthrow Gadaffi within days or weeks.

    They, and we, just don’t think that’s a very good idea. Neither does the rest of NATO, or the rest of the UN, or the Arab League.

  141. 141
    Bob Loblaw says:

    I just love the preening moralism that’s ensued from such an utterly reactionary war.

    Sure, Misrata looks like Mogadishu right now, and sure everywhere from Sirte to Benghazi is a ghost town, but hey at least it’s not like Iraq. And isn’t that what really matters?

    Because the presence of boots on the ground is the real moral issue to worry about, and not forcing the quickest resolution to war possible by whatever means it takes.

  142. 142
    General Stuck says:

    @Stillwater:

    ) I’m talking about you, not him.

    GO. TO. HELL. I’m talking about you, not him

  143. 143
    Stillwater says:

    @joe from Lowell: Well, then you equally disingenuous, since the context of the sentence makes it clear that I’m referring to Stuck’s ‘myopic focus on the role US troops play’.

    No wonder you think you never lose an argument.

  144. 144

    @Bob Loblaw:

    Sure, Misrata looks like Mogadishu right now, and sure everywhere from Sirte to Benghazi is a ghost town, but hey it least it’s not like Iraq. And isn’t that what really matters?

    The Iraq War and the chain of events it set off killed hundreds of thousands of people.

    I’m sorry if this concern strikes you as “preening.” And by “sorry,” I mean “utterly disgusted by your moral vacuity.”

  145. 145
    Yutsano says:

    @General Stuck: THAT. DUCK. IS. AWSUM!!

  146. 146
    Stillwater says:

    @Yutsano: Spectators. At least you could cheer a little bit at the unfolding drama.

    ETA: And it’s prolly right to pull OO back in the boat, but keep an eye on him.

  147. 147

    @Stillwater: I see – you don’t explain yourself clear, can’t even remember what you wrote, but I’m the bad guy for not understanding precisely what you meant.

    Whatever, man.

  148. 148
    Paul in KY says:

    @Stillwater: I also like ABL. Sorry she left. Hope she posts here some more.

  149. 149
    General Stuck says:

    @Stillwater:

    I like ABL

    You’re two peas in very small comfortable pod.

    You are about dumb enough to think that is an insult. Clue, it’s not.

  150. 150
    Yutsano says:

    @Stillwater: Are you kidding? The suspense is still building. The cheers and catcalls shall come at the proper moment good sir/madam. And I can manage OO. Sort of. It’s not an easy task.

  151. 151
    Stillwater says:

    @General Stuck: Not an insult. Just pure description.

  152. 152
    Mandramas says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: Well, those incidents are not an argument to says that whabbism is an nightmare much more to says that Democracy is a nightmare since US armies burned a lot of kids with napalm in ‘nam in the name of Democracy.
    Selectivity is needed as a criteria of choice.

  153. 153
    Stillwater says:

    @Yutsano: First thing is to restrain him when he says ‘I’m not getting out of the boat’. That’s an indirect admission of temptation. And those damn mangoes always look so delicious.

  154. 154
    General Stuck says:

    @Stillwater:

    Just pure description.

    Then thank you, but such flattery will not get you any breaks from me dealing with your dumb offensive ass .

  155. 155
    Paul in KY says:

    @Hermione Granger-Weasley: I don’t really have one now. I was raised Methodist, but unfortunately there are several ‘facts’ that one must believe & I just don’t believe them.

    I’m glad you’ve found something that makes you happy. When I said ‘promoting’, I didn’t mean ‘proslytize’. But, I can see that to someone with the Muslim Super Power ‘Proslytizeaway’, it would sound like that ;-)

  156. 156
    General Stuck says:

    Well this has been fun as fishing for sewer trout in the local waste water lagoon. I got better things to do than argue with complete morons.

  157. 157
    cyntax says:

    @General Stuck:

    Can’t you read moron or are you just crazy?. I won’t support Obama for reelection if he puts US boots on the ground. jeebus fucking christ. I’ve said it at least three times today, and did when this thing first started.

    I could care less whether you vote for him or not. The point that I care about, and that this post is directed at, is that the justifications for going into Libya were half-assed excuses based on the fig-leaf of humanitarian intervention and willful disregard for mission-creep. And I don’t recall you at the time saying what you’re saying in this thread, which is that regime change was always part of the formula.

    You and Cole are not the only military vets on this blog, in case you didn’t know that.

    Gee, thanks for the news flash. Maybe accusing everyone of being a firebagger who doesn’t toe your line is kind of an asinine assumption.

  158. 158
    Bob Loblaw says:

    @joe from Lowell:

    Ah, I see. So now Libya is just like Iraq. Funny turn, that.

    I wouldn’t recommend using NATO troops in the east, as it would delegitimize the nascent TNC government, upset rebel morale and inflame nationalist fervor.

    But Libya is two countries right now. And the west is a humanitarian disaster. And if that disaster is allowed to persist, and ground troops from the EU or NATO could stop it but are withheld because people are too busy fighting the last war, then don’t tell me this is a humanitarian intervention.

  159. 159
    Yutsano says:

    @Stillwater: Ah yes, the Ulysses solution. I should have just gone there in the first place. And brought a supply of mangoes too.

    I could do this all day, but the tax cheats await.

  160. 160
    soonergrunt says:

    @joe from Lowell: That is how one would write it.
    One addresses a Soldier whose rank or name one does not know, as “Soldier”, for example; “Hey, Soldier, where’s your rank pin on your snivel gear?”
    Actually enforcing it as a capitalized word, as a title in official/semiofficial documents began about ten years ago.

  161. 161
    Hermione Granger-Weasley says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: but that is not the same thing at all.
    shariah is interpreted by local law enforcement and local clergy/government. The clerics ARE the lawyers and the government.
    women not driving is a local islamic jurisprudence ruling. It has nothing to do with following Wahabbi school.
    you don’t know anything about Islam, you seem unwilling to learn anything, and you keep trying to compare it to christianity or to secular democracy. None of these things are like the other.
    It is comparing apples to oranges to peaches.

  162. 162
    Hermione Granger-Weasley says:

    @Paul in KY: like i said to VDE, you know nothing about Islam, you are uninterested in learning anything about Islam, and yet you insist on pen1s measuring.
    I give up.

  163. 163
    General Stuck says:

    @cyntax:

    It’s not my fault you’ve made an emo ass out of yourself arguing with a strawman Stuck, “regime change” that flash you back to 2003, where many of you folks are stuck in time at. It is just a term unless accompanied with context of real or proposed events. I have heard no one say that either the UN or the USA, has any planned actions to force that regime change directly with military force. It will most likely occur, if it does occur, from within Ouadaffy’s inner circle, either they kill him or force him into exile.

    And both Obama and I have stated that in the long term, quadday must step down from power, as an end game to this mess. When he says he will send US troops to make him, get back to me.

    But you can certainly continue arguing with the strawman stuck, if it makes you happy. later alligator.

  164. 164
    Hermione Granger-Weasley says:

    @cyntax:

    Can’t you read moron

    I freely admit I cannot read moron. I cannot read retard or idiot either.
    ;)

  165. 165
    Bob Loblaw says:

    @Bob Loblaw:

    Because this is the state of Misrata, after a month of war.

    http://www.militaryphotos.net/.....-19th-2011

    It’s not just a place on a map, and war isn’t a video game.

  166. 166
    Paul in KY says:

    @Hermione Granger-Weasley: Did you read my last post to you?! I don’t see how you could have the way you responded.

    Why don’t you read it again.

    I also do know something of Islam. Not as much as you, miss muslimsmartypants, but I don’t see where I ever have indicated that I have no desire to understand Islam (in an academic way).

  167. 167
    cyntax says:

    @General Stuck:
    I’ll keep an eye out for the non-strawman Stuck, haven’t seen him yet.

    @Hermione Granger-Weasley:
    Heh. Good point.

  168. 168
    Stillwater says:

    Paul in KY:

    Are you still fearful Paul? Is you learning?

  169. 169
    Hermione Granger-Weasley says:

    @Paul in KY:

    When I said ‘promoting’, I didn’t mean ‘proslytize’. But, I can see that to someone with the Muslim Super Power ‘Proslytizeaway’, it would sound like that ;-)

    promoting means evangelizing. it usually involves proselytizing too.
    im sry if i misunderstood, but i see the confrontation between christianity or westernstyle secular democracy as an endless pen1s measuring contest.
    And i dont have a pen1s.

  170. 170
    Paul in KY says:

    @Hermione Granger-Weasley: I told you ‘I’ didn’t mean it that way. If one compares & contrasts the tenets of Sufism with Wahabbism, is that proselytizing? If a strong muslima mentions how liberated & empowered she feels by practicing Sufism, is that proselytizing?

    I’m beginning to think you just like typing ‘pen1s’. Cudlip ;-)

  171. 171
    Hermione Granger-Weasley says:

    @Stillwater: Do you fear me yet, Stilgar?

    When a creature has developed into one thing, he will choose death rather than change into his opposite. –a Fremen saying

  172. 172
    Hermione Granger-Weasley says:

    @Paul in KY:

    liberated & empowered

    western feminism boilerplate. Absolutely meaningless in sufism.
    More pen1s measuring.
    And i do.
    ;)

  173. 173
    Bob Loblaw says:

    @Hermione Granger-Weasley:

    It explains so much about you that you make Dune your reference guide to life.

  174. 174
    General Stuck says:

    @cyntax:

    I’ll keep an eye out for the non-strawman Stuck, haven’t seen him

    Nah, you just made a bunch of accusations you can’t back up. So you write a smart ass comment like this to cover your lying ass.

  175. 175
    Stillwater says:

    @Hermione Granger-Weasley: I think you’re a fucking joke. And the last straw was your expressing the desire to get ED fired. The petulant immaturity coupled with sociopathic disregard for others expressed by that puts you in a separate and unflattering category of internet troll.

  176. 176
    Paul in KY says:

    @Hermione Granger-Weasley: Please give me Sufist counterpart word(s) to the Western feminist claptrap I typed above.

  177. 177
    Corner Stone says:

    @joe from Lowell: Speculators are the reason for the current high oil prices.
    If you want to make the equivalence in oil production stability/capacity between SA and Libya please continue.

  178. 178
    Hermione Granger-Weasley says:

    @Stillwater: well….i tried to say it was sarc, but i got banned before i could say it. I’m not allowed to crit EDK you see.
    My point was that maybe Forbes didn’t know they hired a soc1alist.
    But EDK says they are cool with it.
    ;)

    i troll, so what? Cole trolls, DougJ trolls, ABT.
    ooooo! some one is wrong on the interntez!
    Why are you so…….invested?

  179. 179
    Corner Stone says:

    Boots Onna Ground(tm) !!

    Of course, until the 10th Mountain shows up in Libya it doesn’t matter what resources the US tasks to “assist”. They won’t be Boots Onna Ground(tm) !!

  180. 180
    Hermione Granger-Weasley says:

    @Paul in KY: i dont think there are any.
    Thats arabic for you. 77 words for different kinds of love and none for feminist claptrap. Maybe because Sufi shayykahs are pretty common.

    @Bob Loblaw:

    It explains so much about you that you make Dune your reference guide to life.

    /beams at bobloblaw
    and that you make Arrested Development yours.

  181. 181
    Corner Stone says:

    @soonergrunt: soldier is not a title, it’s a generic term. And specifically, as you used it in “American Soldier” it is not a title, it’s a noun.
    The use of “S”oldier is a PR tactic decreed by brass, and pushed down their their news and PR organs. They did their best to get Webster and other dictionaries to follow suit but IIRC they haven’t succeeded so far.

  182. 182
    mclaren says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Well, this thread appears to be headed in the usual direction for these kinds of things.

    Gets my vote for “best comment of all time.”

    In fact…this quote works anywhere. On any topic!.

    Hey–howzabout everyone just enter this as their comment on every thread from now on? And then we can all go home!

  183. 183
    mclaren says:

    There will never, ever be any American troops in Libya.

    They’ll all be “advisors.” There to “assist in planning.” And to offer “intelligence and oversight.”

    And don’t mistake U.S. air strikes in Libya for any kind of “war.” This is not a “war.” It’s a “police action.” Just like Korea/Vietnam/Cambodia/Lebanon/Panama/Somalia/Desert Storm…

  184. 184
    FlipYrWhig says:

    Just so I’m clear, _this_ is the thing that’s getting people riled up?

    Britain said Tuesday it will send a team of up to 20 senior military officers to Libya to help organize the country’s haphazard opposition forces.

    Have I entered a wormhole into the alternative history universe where George Washington lost or something? And Obama is the viceroy for Her Majesty’s Empire in the Americas?

  185. 185
    soonergrunt says:

    @Corner Stone: shrug

  186. 186
    Stillwater says:

    @FlipYrWhig: The second snip is from a letter Obama cosigned.

    Regime Change!!

  187. 187
    STUCKZILLA! says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    Have I entered a wormhole into the alternative history universe where George Washington lost or something? And Obama is the viceroy for Her Majesty’s Empire in the Americas?

    YES, on both counts. And Alice will be around with another spot of tea, and some freedom crumpets. And BTW, that ain’t a wormhole.

  188. 188
    Corner Stone says:

    @FlipYrWhig: Flip, let’s revisit this shortly. After these UK advisers have incredibly morphed into trainers and then even more sci-fi fantastically into weapons suppliers.
    People who continue to express awed naivete that the inevitable mission creep is in fact happening are interesting. Or maybe the opposite of interesting.
    Libya is going to escalate shortly. Maybe not this Tuesday, but shortly. And the US will supply men and materiel to accomplish regime change. Call it whatever you like.
    I like to call it: Boots Onna Ground(tm) !!

  189. 189
    Corner Stone says:

    @soonergrunt: Ok, fair enough. I just think it’s part of an enduring legacy of the post 9/11 Bush mentality. And one that does not serve us as a democracy.

  190. 190
    Hermione Granger-Weasley says:

    @Corner Stone: but there are already boots onna ground.
    Both the US and Egypt have special forces weapons trainers in Libya RIGHT NAOW.

  191. 191
    Corner Stone says:

    @Hermione Granger-Weasley: Please don’t. I think we all know that, thanks.

  192. 192
    mclaren says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Short version of U.S. foreign policy: Mission Creep R Us!

  193. 193
    soonergrunt says:

    @Corner Stone: Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

    OT–Bradley Manning is being moved from MCB Quantico to USDB Leavenworth.
    http://www.wired.com/threatlev.....ning-move/

  194. 194
    Hermione Granger-Weasley says:

    @Corner Stone: but it doesn’t matter?
    I think it might be useful to discuss Humanitarian Interventionism/Imperialism as a doctrine. I personally think it sukks.
    But pretending Libya is some slippery slope to the next OIF is just…. fake.

  195. 195
    Hermione Granger-Weasley says:

    @STUCKZILLA!:

    And BTW, that ain’t a wormhole.

    because there is no other side?

  196. 196
    Tsulagi says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Nah, it was just a previous Army Chief of Staff, GEN Schoomaker, didn’t want Marines to feel special. Have never followed that convention, though. I don’t capitalize president either unless referring to a specific one.

  197. 197
    Corner Stone says:

    @Hermione Granger-Weasley: God. Your catch phrases have solidified.
    Of course Libya is a slippery slope. What do you think is coming?

  198. 198
    Corner Stone says:

    @Tsulagi: I don’t think I do either. I usually write President Obama, but not “the last four presidents”.
    Shit…or maybe I do?
    Mission creep capitalization!

  199. 199
    Corner Stone says:

    @soonergrunt: Some times, de vez un cuando.

  200. 200
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Stillwater: @Corner Stone: Fine, let’s revisit it shortly. Because I don’t really see why Obama should be on the hook for something David Cameron feels like doing. When Obama does something, hammer it as you see fit. If this post is supposed to be “This is an ominous sign,” great. Seems to be more than that, though, because of that turn at the end to preempt Obot complaints, by which John managed–predictably–to provoke Obot complaints.

  201. 201
    mclaren says:

    @Hermione Granger-Weasley:

    But pretending Libya is some slippery slope to the next OIF is just…. fake.

    Absofuckinglutely!

    Just like the evidence that WMDS didn’t exist was just…fake.

    Until it wasn’t.

    Just like the evidence that the CIA had operatives in place on the ground in Libya long before we started to bomb Gaddafi’s forces was just…fake.

    Until it wasn’t.

    Just like the evidence that Obama never intended to pull American troops out of Afghanistan by July 2011 was just…fake.

    Until it wasn’t.

    Keep up that mindless mantra, kiddo. Each American war of aggression against some dirt-poor third world country “means nothing” and “isn’t a slippery slope.” We just keep accidentally sending more and more and more U.S. troops into endless unwinnable wars in third world hellholes by happenstance. It’s all a great big series of coincidences. It just happened that way by chance. Hoocoodanode?

    “No one could have expected…”

    That’s your new tagline, kiddo: “No one could have expected that Libya would turn into another Afghanistan…”

    “War is the province of chance. In no other sphere of human activity must such a margin be left for this intruder. It increases the uncertainty of every circumstance and deranges the course of events.” — Karl von Clausewitz

  202. 202
    dmbeaster says:

    My point of view on this is not about loving or hating Obama. I am an Obama supporter, and it has not changed because of the Libyan policy.

    What I hate is the easy casualness in which we go to war (a bipartisan failing), and pretend that we are not really doing so by resorting to anti-septic wars of just bombing, etc. Take mclaren’s quote above from Clausewitz to heart, as it expresses the real consequence of being warlike. Powell also had it right, as wars need to be fought with overwhelming force and with clear exit strategies in mind when you start.

    Humanitarian intervention may be a valid policy for deciding to go to war in Libya and elsewhere, but once you make the decision to go to war, then embrace all of the ugliness of that decision and get it over with decisively. If fighting the war with full vigor is somehow inconsistent with humanitarian intervention (or any other motive for supporting war), then it is the intervention concept that is the problem. You can’t dumb down the consequences of a war decision by calling it humanitarian intervention.

    In Libya, we have made the decision to intervene in a civil war (and despite what some say above, it was not sold that way out of the box), but we know very little about who we are supporting to replace Qadaffi (or who is likely to succeed), and we are not actually doing much to bring the civil war to an end (bombing is not going to do it). Those are stupid war policies, which in my view seem to be the result of holding one’s nose about full-blown war while endorsing going to war for humanitarian reasons. Fighting wars in a feckless manner only increases suffering.

    Humanitarian intervention, when pursued in that manner, ends up being an oxymoron.

  203. 203
    dmbeaster says:

    I read in this comment string or somewhere else the point that the airpower was having trouble targeting Qaddafi’s heavy weapons because they are cited in civilian areas, which will result in significant civilian casualties if struck. Anyone who expresses either surprise or somehow is frustrated by that is just being brain-dead. Its akin to complaining about the Viet Kong or other guerillas hiding amongst the populace – why don’t they show themselves so they can be shot!

    All of this was entirely predictable – it is the standard means to deal with airpower. It is why airpower alone is usually not going to work, and why it is foolhardy to have no Plan B once airpower alone will not deliver the result. Clinton was lucky that the Serbs backed down in response to airpower to get Serbs out of Kosovo. What would he have done if it did not work?

  204. 204
    General Stuck says:

    @dmbeaster:

    Whatever armchair generalling you want to do with this situation, the fact remains that at a certain point in time, Khadaffy’s forces were on the doorstep of Benghazi, ready to enter that city with little to stop them, and Q promising a massacre, or threatening one. That is reality, and why, and the only reason I supported and still support what we are doing. And talking about regime change, is just talk without intent or plans to make it happen militarily.

    The massacre didn’t happen because we intervened, (AND I MEAN WE IN THE FULLEST DEFINITION OF WE BEING THE WORLD COMMUNITY) and is not happening so long as we are doing the best that can be done to keep it from happening until the rebels get organized, or that the country is partitioned, which seems to be where things are going. Any discussion that dismisses OR denies those facts of life and death, or brushes it away with caustic terms like “regime change” is not really a debate. Nor are grandiose declarations that a bunch of bloggers “know” what will happen next, being getting the US pulled into a ground war quagmire. We maintained a 10 year no fly zone in Iraq, until a cowboy president wingnut decided he wanted to play George of Arabia. Barack Obama is not Bush, and there has not been the slightest wiggle room from him or any other high profile leader in the military or civilian that has left any opening for us to send in ground troops to Libya. And spare us the crystal ball of holding some kind of prescient powers to the contrary. Of broad sweeps of all or nothing know nothing musings on what it means “going to war”. There are other scenarios other than that simplistic black and white one. And I predict, that once again, hand wringing libs and progs that can’t bring themselves to trust this president, will have their asses handed to them again. Like so many times before. It makes me sad but also makes me laugh.

    cheers

  205. 205
    Bob Loblaw says:

    @General Stuck:

    That pretty much sums it up. Preventing the massacre was as far as people are willing to think. Anything after that? Fuck it, we’ve got moral credit to spare! For stopping the massacre, duh! Who cares what happens after that?

    Like Stuck says, maybe the country gets split in half or some shit. Who knows? That’d be pretty acceptable right? It’s what happened in Korea and Kurdistan. And look at how wonderful that turned out. Or maybe it just takes a few more months for the eastern forces to be properly trained and armed to move on Sirte? The people in Misrata can probably wait it out, right? Just rub some dirt on it, you pussies. We stopped the massacre in Benghazi, our conscience is clear! And besides what’s a few more months of war? In the long run, we’re all dead anyway. And the Libyans can always just rebuild two thirds of their country. They got oil money. No problem.

    The important thing is that the US and NATO mitigate their own liabilities. Our needs come first. Fuck endgames.

    And I predict, that once again, hand wringing libs and progs that can’t bring themselves to trust this president, will have their asses handed to them again. Like so many times before. It makes me sad but also makes me laugh.

    And you gave yourself away. You couldn’t care less about Libya. You have one objective, and it couldn’t be any clearer.

  206. 206
    General Stuck says:

    @Bob Loblaw:

    LOL, If you hoist yourself any further on that petard of superiority and mind reading ability, you are going to split your britches. I’m not the one making shit up out of whole cloth. Obama said there is “absolutely” no possibility of US ground troops being introduced. I believe him and think he has earned that trust. Those folks didn’t die in Benghazi, and nothing you sling at me will change that fact. I can live with all your pompous blathering loblaw and pearl clutches that there was no time to debate it and make a long term plan. You don’t seem to have a soul dude. Why is that? I almost feel sorry for you. Now explain to me again how cutting off the poor in Appalachia from foodstamps is a good idea.

    And I predict, that once again, hand wringing libs and progs that can’t bring themselves to trust this president, will have their asses handed to them again. Like so many times before. It makes me sad but also makes me laugh.

    Objective? faithless fools suffer their own foolishness. I can’t change or promote that. It just happens.

  207. 207
    Stillwater says:

    @General Stuck:

    or that the country is partitioned, which seems to be where things are going. Any discussion that dismisses OR denies those facts of life and death, or brushes it away with caustic terms like “regime change” is not really a debate.

    Stuck. I repeat myself in previous comments: the official US policy position regarding Libya is regime change. For better or worse, independently of how that effects people’s perceptions of Obama, whether it’s fodder for firebaggery or a rally cry, those are the facts. It’s what Obama said in his official capacity as Pres. and CinC.

  208. 208
    Bob Loblaw says:

    @General Stuck:

    Yes, yes, of course, I’m the one who’s being soulless for caring more about the actual Libyan lives affected here instead of some president and his promises that I don’t care about.

    I would rather see Obama break his promise and expedite the end of this feckless war than see the NATO commander moan publicly about how “nothing more can be done” to stop the attacks on Misrata. A war without a discernible end is not humanitarian. It’s just a war without discernible end, and it will destroy an entire generation of Libyan lives. Even should they win their freedom.

  209. 209
    General Stuck says:

    @Stillwater:

    Obama has always said it from day one. That regime change was one of the goals. That is no secret, nor breaking news with the letter posted in this thread. You folks are taking a once radioactive term and trying to conflate this situation with Iraq, now aren’t you. Regime change can happen many ways. It was Clinton’s policy for 8 years to “regime change” Saddam, but he didn’t do it, nor mean to do it militarily. And get off the Obama kick, I was responding to others first accusing me of only supporting this action due to some blind support of Obama. You fuckers can’t keep your bullshit sorted out there is so much of it.

    Our duty and our mandate under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Qaddafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qaddafi in power

    It is not to remove Quadaffy by force. How much clearer can that be. The reason why opinions about Obama are relevant, is that you all seem to not believe him. That is okay, but don’t pretend your opinions on this matter have nothing to do with Obama.

    When it comes to us using US ground troops to topple Quadaffy, it has everything to do with Obama. He is the only person that can make that happen, or not.

  210. 210
    General Stuck says:

    @Bob Loblaw:

    That is okay loblaw. As I stated in my very first comment in this thread.

    I am not going to slam anyone that opposes this intervention, long as they don’t blow smoke up my ass when making their case.

    @General Stuck:

    But I got slammed anyways . and I responded to that. This situation has no painless remedy. I made my decision to support it based on the imminence of a slaughter, you have other concerns. But notice, and you can go back through all the threads on this topic. I have never once, nor do I remember any other supporter using the consequence of not intervening to belittle those who didn’t support what we did . Or trying to guilt them in any way for a position that would have allowed that slaughter.

  211. 211
    Corner Stone says:

    @General Stuck:

    Regime change can happen many ways.

    Hmmm.
    Usually it takes the old regime not being there any longer.
    And that’s something the rebels are not capable of accomplishing.

  212. 212
    General Stuck says:

    @Corner Stone:

    And that’s something the rebels are not capable of accomplishing.

    No they aren’t capable of making it happen. That is why a partition is likely for now. There are lots of examples of dictators stepping down in similar situations after they and their supporters have stewed in their juices for awhile. Sometimes they get killed by those in their inner circle who see no future for things continuing the way they are, usually they get convinced to retire and go into exile. Other times sanctions move this end game along, sometimes not. The thing about this intervention, is the breadth of unity in the world community via the UN for taking this action and sticking to it. Especially with The Arab League for once being assertive and asking for the UN to intervene. Quadafy is isolated, with only his tribe for support. And if the country is partitioned, then maybe it should be, or should have been all along. I don’t know, but it seems like two distinct countries to me, as far loyalties go.

  213. 213
    Bob Loblaw says:

    @General Stuck:

    At the moment, joe from Lowell’s go-to rhetorical tactic is to accuse anybody disagreeing with him of being responsible for/desiring hundreds of thousands of deaths (isn’t he the cutest thing?), so I would be careful on the generalizations.

  214. 214

    @General Stuck:

    General, take a bow…this was the best damned comment I’ve seen here.

    “And I predict, that once again, hand wringing libs and progs that can’t bring themselves to trust this president, will have their asses handed to them again. Like so many times before. It makes me sad but also makes me laugh.”

    Yep.

  215. 215
    Corner Stone says:

    @General Stuck: The Arab League wanted someone else to blame when African Arab Muslims were dying at the hands of the UN/NATO Peacekeeping Force.
    They don’t give a shit about Libyan peeps, just like we do not.
    Regime change will happen one way with Gaddafi, lots of outside troops carrying lots of guns and killing lots of Libyans.

  216. 216
    General Stuck says:

    @Corner Stone:

    You know, I actually do care about genocidal actions, and doing something to stop them if that is possible. You can believe that or not, I don’t care.

  217. 217
    Paul in KY says:

    @Hermione Granger-Weasley: Ok, fair enough.

Comments are closed.