So now we're at war with Libia.

I don't think people appreciate how much we spend on ordinance that will blow up one car, and leave another one less than 15 feet away relatively untouched.

I know of no other nation or military that bears the cost of discriminant weaponry that the USA does.

But I'm sure all the people who are CERTAIN we butchered %25 of the Iraqi populace with our evil weapons won't stay quiet about our long range weapons shot into Libyan territories, because they must obviously be slaughtering civillians left and right.

I'm not so sure that's true, with respect to the Bush/Obama equivalency. Though there's certainly more similarity than I was hoping for...

But change is hardly ever broad and fast (revolution aside). Even as things aren't changing as quickly as I want them to, there are cries that Obama is making incredible headway in disassembling the American way. Healthcare reform, financial reform, withdrawal from Iraq... It's simultaneously slower than many people want it, and faster than others want, (or more extant than others want).

To bring this back on topic, addressing (sort of) SVreX's question about differences between Bush/Iraq and Obama/Libya, I'd say this (and this is a thought; I'm definitely conflicted about the whole thing): The primary issue in Libya is that Gaddafi's squashing people who are trying to stand up for themselves (no, I don't have a great answer for when a group of dissidents becomes a legitimate power; I think that Gaddafi's apparent insanity and obvious brutality make this a less-grey-than-usual area). And that is already well underway, so if that is the motivating factor, it is not preemptive. With Iraq, while there were other concerns, the primary factor given was the potential harm to us, which had not yet happened; thus I would view that as preemptive.

Obviously, if our concern about Libya was the idea that they might attack the U.S. or our allies, then this would be preemptive. Similarly, if our main motivation in Iraq had been the internal issues there, that would not have been preemptive. But those are now how I understand the two situations. Apart from preemption, Iraq had the whole issue of dubious WMD intelligence and interpretation, which left a bad taste in my mouth.

None of what I've said should be construed as enthusiasm for the status quo or for the generally available political options.

Apologies for any gaps in understanding. I'm not a foreign policy wonk. I'm not even a foreign policy wank.

I seem to be in the minority, but I'm glad were finally doing something. I think we missed opportunties to help in Tunisia and Egypt. If we want proclaim to be the world's bastion of freedom and democracy, then helping support citizens overthrow their dictator is a good start. If the people saw we were serious to help we could help shape the replacement gov't into one more friendly to our way of life. Instead we left them open to be influenced by groups like Al Queda and the Iranians.

ransom wrote: To bring this back on topic, addressing (sort of) SVreX's question about differences between Bush/Iraq and Obama/Libya, I'd say this (and this is a thought; I'm definitely conflicted about the whole thing): The primary issue in Libya is that Gaddafi's squashing people who are trying to stand up for themselves (no, I don't have a great answer for when a group of dissidents becomes a legitimate power; I think that Gaddafi's apparent insanity and obvious brutality make this a less-grey-than-usual area). And that is already well underway, so if that is the motivating factor, it is not preemptive. With Iraq, while there were other concerns, the primary factor given was the potential harm to us, which had not yet happened; thus I would view that as preemptive.

the only issue with that perspective is that we encited the opposition to Saddam to try and overthrow him, giving them the ol wink and nudge that we'd like to see Saddam gone.

Then we abandoned the rebels, and Saddam slaughtered them and their sympathizers.

This was just after the 1st gulf war.

So from some perspectives, it wasn't pre-emptive. It was a decade late.

In reply to madmallard:

Interesting point. I think I need to go do some reading. The tangle of winks, nudges, implied promises, and motivations is quite something.

As an aside, it sure takes up a bunch of wrenching time to try to understand what's going on and why. Recent history, older history, movements of money and influence... I just started reading a history of postwar Europe and it's interesting, but a lot more work to read than GRM...

In reply to ransom:

Still fighting an undeclared war in Iraq....check.

Escalated another undeclared war in Afghanistan....check.

Keeping prisoners without charging them with any crime in Gitmo....check.

Continually bailing out and supporting the banksters....check.

Don't kid yourself...there really is little to no difference between the two. Sure one gives better speeches and one had no problem making decisions, but they both a playing from the same playbook, just with different styles. I am not an Obama fan, but don't really dislike him any more than I did Bush.

In reply to T.J.:

I see your points, and I mostly agree with them. My point is that small change is not the same as no change, and that no matter who was elected (Dem, Rep, Other), I doubt we'd see much if any more change than this, no matter how much some of the change I'm still waiting for chafes.

What change could we get quickly when the country is more or less divided down the middle about which direction any change should be?

The pendulum seems to swing further with each election with respect to each side trying to get everything on their agenda before their time's up and the backlash undoes it all and more. That doesn't seem like the way towards meaningful and lasting change.

It's tough figuring out what might be useful when the division makes any hope of a solution that people can agree on seem like a complete and utter pipe dream. Moreover, I haven't recently seen an alternative to the two sides of this coin that I had any interest in voting for.

the problem is people can't or refuse to correctly define problems with common terms.

I was wondering how many people would rant about military strikes and how we should just have a no-fly zone, without realizing that to setup a no-fly zone you have to strike at their air defense capabilities.

I recall during the last election hearing everyone say the Republicans did well because the Democrats had done too much too fast. Now I'm hearing they're all the same.

I recall last week hearing Republicans chide the President for not getting involved in Libya. Now he's being chided for getting involved.

I'm not wild about getting involved in any of this stuff. I’d like to hear more from the President and I understand the members of Congress who are feeling a little slighted. Seems a little odd that we did nothing, but then all of a sudden… But I don't see much similarity between this and Iraq. I believe they asked us to get involved in this, didn’t they?

I think this might be a good time to let the political rhetoric take a break. Lots going on over there in the middle-east. I don't pretend to understand the implications of it all. I don't think anyone knows for sure. Reminds me a little bit of watching the Iron Curtin fall. Only back then we were pretty sure it was good. Not as clear with any of this. Libya? Wasn’t a good situation for us, so change may be better than what we had. Egypt? That’s a tougher one. Hope it works out the way we, well, hope it will. People thought the Iranian revolution was going to be great. That one didn’t work out so well. I have a better feeling about Egypt, at least at this point.

What I know for sure is things are changing. In a few years we’ll look at the middle east and it will be a different situation than we have been used to for a while. It’s historic change. Let’s hope it’s change for the best.

We’ll see.

ransom hit it on the head: the US is divided on what should be done. Half of the country wants him put out by any means necessary, collateral damage be damned, and the other half wants surgical strikes which do no collateral damage. Neither position is realistic; the truth will, as always, be somewhere in the middle. The problem is neither side will admit this. FWIW, the lefties scream a lot louder than the righties when things don't go the way they think it should. Maybe that's due to dat ol' debbil liberal media again.

To get my perspective in the open: I have no problem with squashing Gaddhafi (or however it's spelled this week) and I accept there can be some damage. I just have a real problem with the rest of the world expecting us to go it alone. It seems that problem has been addressed; if The O and/or Hillary managed to bring that about I tip my helmet to them. (That doesn't mean I like the rest of their policies. But I do believe in giving credit where credit is due.)

Wally brought up Tunisia and Egypt. There was a 'wait and see' attitude on the part of the world as these situations played out which turned out to be the right decision. The difference was the leaders involved. Mubarak saw the handwriting on the wall and got the hell out in one piece while he still could, Ben Ali in Tunisia did much the same. But unfortunately Quaddafi (another spelling I saw) is as crazy as a E36 M3house rat. He refuses to accept that he can't stay in power. Khaddafy (yet another spelling) has decided to dig his heels in. He reminds me a lot of Castro that way.

The last I heard today was that the coalition was going to shut down his forces yet allow him to stay in power. Ummm, don't think that is going to work. Since we (and by that I include Europe) are (allegedly) too 'civilized' to assasinate another head of state the best we can hope for is that 1) he becomes collateral damage or 2) one of his own offs him. He's cannier than Saddam, so that might be tough.

The problem is, the President waited 2 weeks until the UN did something, then waited until France military did something. By this point the rebels were all but crushed by Kadaffhi, his money, and his paid African Mercenaries he hired to shore up his numbers against the rebels.

And now that those 2 parties have moved, Obama didn't address Congress for the need of action, he 'unilaterally' ordered aggressive strikes against Kadaffhi's air power.

Its understandable why the reactions are mixed up. Thats because the actions are mixed up.

It was important enough to Obama to get the 'world coalition' involved to risk the rebellion being totally anihilated before he did something, no matter how long it took to get a resolution. (to be fair to him, so was everyone else.)

But for whatever reason, Obama thinks the military attacks he ordered do no constitute a state of war and didn't seek powers from Congress. Republicans have a problem with this because of the unequal way Bush was treated, even though they likely would have supported striking Libya. Democrats are upset that Obama did an end run around Congress as significant chunk would not have supported any action at all.

The truth of the matter is, there is always collateral damage. This is military, not police. And the more people complain about the USA being the world's police and trying to get them to act like policemen instead of warriors, the more confusion, and death will result. Police and Military are not synonamous.

Good points on the last post, the bad part underlying all of this is that the President isn't supposed to declare war, or go and do something without congress. Oddly enough O campaigned against this stronghanded tactic that Bush used, and now here he goes doing the same thing.

In reply to madmallard:

Police and Military are not synonamous.

Police: patrol, keep the peace, arrest and use force when necessary.

Military: break things and kill people.

madmallard wrote: Republicans have a problem with this because of the unequal way Bush was treated, even though they likely would have supported striking Libya.

Yeah. That's pretty much what I thought. We'll bash this guy because they bashed our guy. It's pretty much the definition of "no win situation". When it's politically expedient to call him a Socialist, he's too far left. When it's politically expedient to call him a war monger, he's just like Bush. Whatever paints him with the worst brush possible. That's all that matters.

Not saying the Democrats were any better. Just seems like a bunch of elementary school kids. Boehner doesn't even sound like he means anything he says. Just sounds like he came out of a meeting. Subject: what can we hang on Obama today? Last week, he's not doing enough. Today, we don't know what the mission is. We'll think of something new next week. If there's any time left over we might think about what might be best for our country or the world.

But it's okay, because "they" did it to Bush! See- we're much better than "they" are.

madmallard wrote: I don't think people appreciate how much we spend on ordinance that will blow up one car, and leave another one less than 15 feet away relatively untouched. I know of no other nation or military that bears the cost of discriminant weaponry that the USA does. But I'm sure all the people who are CERTAIN we butchered %25 of the Iraqi populace with our evil weapons won't stay quiet about our long range weapons shot into Libyan territories, because they must obviously be slaughtering civillians left and right.

Man, that's a good point. That's the cost of being "world police". Good old fashioned bombs are a whole lot cheaper. If we didn't have to tip toe through every part of the world with a problem we could save a lot of money.

tuna55 wrote: Oddly enough O campaigned against this stronghanded tactic that Bush used, and now here he goes doing the same thing.

eggsractly..

The man isn't exactly living up to his promises.. Though, to be honest.. I don't think anyone would be doing better at this point. The incoming Pres was handed a E36 M3 sandwich, whoever he was, He was going to piss off 50% of the population.

T.J. wrote: I am not an Obama fan, but don't really dislike him any more than I did Bush.

I saw Bush on Oprah. It was a rerun. I saw it last time it was on too. I'll be damned if I could dislike the guy. I think he did what he thought was right. I think maybe they really believed the whole 'welcomed as liberators' stuff. Iraq was just a bad idea, but I think he did it for all the right reasons.

It was still a bad idea, though.

fasted58 wrote: Military: break things and kill people.

yes. At the specific direction of elected officials of the republic voted into power by democratic elections. And with the tools provided to them by the same.

ultimately: You and I.

I mean, as long as we're going to make cheap-shot, intellectually empty little quips, you better be prepared to see it to the ultimate conclusion of that line of thinking.

Glad someone said that, I was pretty annoyed too, how do you blame our heroes for responding to the demands of the government.

Oh and for the record

"In the United States, the war was initially described by President Harry S. Truman as a "police action" as it was conducted under the auspices of the United Nations."

This was for the Korean "Police Action"

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Yeah. That's pretty much what I thought. We'll bash this guy because they bashed our guy. It's pretty much the definition of "no win situation". When it's politically expedient to call him a Socialist, he's too far left. When it's politically expedient to call him a war monger, he's just like Bush.

Ooh ooh, pick me!

Bush was a socialist too! So he's both like Bush and a socialist. I am serious.

tuna55 wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Yeah. That's pretty much what I thought. We'll bash this guy because they bashed our guy. It's pretty much the definition of "no win situation". When it's politically expedient to call him a Socialist, he's too far left. When it's politically expedient to call him a war monger, he's just like Bush.

Ooh ooh, pick me! Bush was a socialist too! So he's both like Bush and a socialist. I am serious.

Bush43 wasn't a socialist, but he was never a conservative either. The jury is still out on Obama but his his pre-candidacy record can raise some eyebrows.

The President may soon pull the US out of any major role in enforcing the no-fly zone. That leaves the Brits, French and a few others to bear that task and to decide if they wil initiate ground interference. US involvement was solely to stop the annihilation of civilians under attack from government troops, but from the air only.

If Kaddafi, Ghadhafi, Quaddafi (et al) decides he's going down fighting, a lot of people are going to die. The US either joins or sits on the sidelines and either way, gets a public relations slaughter-fest. With all the variables, it's hard to find a winner in all this mess.

OPEC is the winner

When the UN says 'we' in this instance, don't they mean US