|
Post by sidheguitarmichael on Mar 21, 2011 13:59:37 GMT -5
My flip-flopping is based on insightful analysis of the subtleties of each situation. The other guy's flip-flopping is craven opportunism. Isn't that obvious? I don't flip flop. Buuuuuut, if I did, my flip-flopping would be based on insightful analysis of the subtleties of each situation, while the other guy's flip-flopping would be based on blind adherence to charismatic demagoguery. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Mar 21, 2011 14:01:12 GMT -5
the criticism that deserves no real consideration will be from those who originally supported the Iraq misadventure. Could we say, conversely, that whose who opposed the Iraq war and now support the Libya operation are to be similarly dismissed? I didn't get that part either. I supported the Iraq invasion. At first. Then later, not so much. I got duped. Does that mean that I'm too stupid to be listened to now?
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 21, 2011 14:12:16 GMT -5
My flip-flopping is based on insightful analysis of the subtleties of each situation. The other guy's flip-flopping is craven opportunism. Isn't that obvious? That should clearly go without saying. But I'm sure it will continue to be mentioned at every opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 21, 2011 14:14:19 GMT -5
Could we say, conversely, that whose who opposed the Iraq war and now support the Libya operation are to be similarly dismissed? I didn't get that part either. I supported the Iraq invasion. At first. Then later, not so much. I got duped. Does that mean that I'm too stupid to be listened to now? Don't worry Jim. The conservatives will make some room for you on their little, tiny Soundhole bench. Then you can sit and listen to the grown-ups chat.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Mar 21, 2011 14:56:31 GMT -5
Peter, Jeff, do you guys think the US should have opposed the UN resolution? Or do you think that it was okay to support the resolution but we shouldn't have offered to assist in the effort?
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Mar 21, 2011 15:08:14 GMT -5
Another conservative chiming in:
I dunno, Don. The President is walking a minefield. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Personally, I don't care much whether or not we supported the resolution. It's the UN. Yawn. What I do care about is our material involvement, and I don't like it. One, we didn't have an end-line before starting. In that regard, Bush I did a good job of defining the end point. The day it was reached we pulled out. So yes, I'm critical of that aspect. On the other hand I'm pleased with the President's general tone throughout. I think his caution was warranted.
To summarize: I dunno.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Mar 21, 2011 15:11:33 GMT -5
My thinking on this doesn't start with the UN. In fact, the UN is really the furthest thing from my mind.
My thinking starts with "What vital interest does the US have in Libya?"
Finding none, my interest in military intervention quickly evaporates.
I get that there is the theoretical possibility of a humanitarian disaster in Libya. Not unlike the theoretical possibility of WMD in Iraq, now that I think of it.
Not enough to risk US lives and treasure, IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 21, 2011 15:18:13 GMT -5
I also don't see the difference between Iraq and Libya, except for the fact that Libya is kind of in Europe's backyard. Both countries run by loonies that openly flaunt international will and do not hesitate to massacre rebel uprisings.
I also don't pretend to know anything about the foriegn policy implications, but I think it's pretty smug and condescending to sit and claim that there's a huge difference that warrants our going in this time when last time it was just those douche bag neo-cons and deluded conservatives.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 21, 2011 15:19:15 GMT -5
I get that there is the theoretical possibility of a humanitarian disaster in Libya. Not unlike the theoretical possibility of WMD in Iraq, now that I think of it. With one key difference that's easy to overlook with the hindsight of realizing that, despite Hussien's claims to the contrary, there were, after all, no WMDs. The difference is that if there had been WMDs we would have had a national security interest to link to a war effort. Yes, the "theoretical" part of both is not lost on me -- but only with one does the US face a potential threat. And if history holds any indicator of our future, we actually face a bigger national security threat by getting involved in yet another war that we cannot win, propping up yet another revolution whose goals we can't even predict.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Mar 21, 2011 15:28:28 GMT -5
I get that there is the theoretical possibility of a humanitarian disaster in Libya. Not unlike the theoretical possibility of WMD in Iraq, now that I think of it. With one key difference that's easy to overlook with the hindsight of realizing that, despite Hussien's claims to the contrary, there were, after all, no WMDs. The difference is that if there had been WMDs we would have had a national security interest to link to a war effort. Yes, the "theoretical" part of both is not lost on me -- but only with one does the US face a potential threat. And if history holds any indicator of our future, we actually face a bigger national security threat by getting involved in yet another war that we cannot win, propping up yet another revolution whose goals we can't even predict. To Russell's earlier question, sort of, both Poland and Hawaii are democracies now rather than the benevolent dictatorships they were so it all turned out OK in the end. Let's hope for the best while expecting the worst so we won't be disappointed either way.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Mar 21, 2011 16:20:18 GMT -5
Jeff wrote:
I don't see any difference at all both are wars than we had no business in and entered with out constitutional authority. Both have made criminals out of the President and any members of congress who voted any money for them.
|
|
|
Post by sidheguitarmichael on Mar 21, 2011 16:26:53 GMT -5
I see differences between Iraq and Libya, but not enough to change my opposition to them both from the very start, FWEIW.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2011 16:31:39 GMT -5
Could we say, conversely, that whose who opposed the Iraq war and now support the Libya operation are to be similarly dismissed? I didn't get that part either. I supported the Iraq invasion. At first. Then later, not so much. I got duped. Does that mean that I'm too stupid to be listened to now? No. But, the seduction of war fever is pretty intoxicating, more so for some folks than others. It's probably in approximate proportion to the support/opposition to the Iraq war, where the official justification was pretty unconvincing. I suspect that about 60-70% of our population would initially support nearly any military adventure, IF the US government made a credible effort to create a causa bellum. That percentage cuts across a pretty wide range of brains, experience, education, and income. Iraq is a great example, because the purported justification was somewhat credible. Some folks demanded details, and were generally ignored. Some folks merely needed to hear the accusation, and went with the flow. I'd LOVE to believe it was a "lesson learned", but that would be wildly optimistic. I have NO DOUBT, whatsoever that if the US CIC decided to trump up yet another invasion, there would be the same percentage of people willing to approve (at least initially). Nothing much to do with intellegence, apparently. I think its the quality of skepticism, and ability to not reflexively rally to the sirens. But the WMD scare was, by historical standards, extremely weak, and the US consistantly refused any revelation of what facts it was based on. There was no fake attack, no US ship mysteriously blown up, no planted evidence. Just the repeated refrain about mushroom clouds over NY. It kind of lowers the bar for false flag provocation. That SHOULD have provoked considerably more inquiry/skepticism. So, if someone was fooled by THAT effort, yeah, I think maybe they should be a little humble about their opinions on the next debate about US intervention. I don't argue with Omaha's point that folks who were skeptical about phony WMD's should be equally skeptical about this. In fact, nearly all of them probably are skeptical here. I think it will draw less attention simply because there's no apparent effort (right now) to take us all in to spread democracy in Libya. I'd vote against US military strikes in Libya for now, but I don't see much chance that it will devolve into several decades of fitfull occupation. So, anti-war efforts won't have nearly the same draw to those opposed to this.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Mar 21, 2011 16:56:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by paulschlimm on Mar 21, 2011 16:59:55 GMT -5
That's about right, Dharma. The 5% have always been able to stir up a good portion of the remaining 95% to do some seriously heinous stuff.
I also think America has historically been rough on anti-war opinions. viewing them somehow as inherently weak.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Mar 21, 2011 18:21:42 GMT -5
Wars are not about politics or governments. Wars are about you son or daughter coming home in a box. If it isn't worth the life of your child then we don't belong in a war.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Mar 21, 2011 19:00:53 GMT -5
I don't think so. This little intervention makes me pretty nervous, given our record of keeping our noses where they belong in the Middle East, but this is nothing like Iraq. Not even in the same universe. And the reasons to oppose or support are nothing like each other.
Tim
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Mar 21, 2011 19:28:09 GMT -5
"This little intervention makes me pretty nervous, given our record of keeping our noses where they belong in the Middle East, but this is nothing like Iraq. Not even in the same universe. And the reasons to oppose or support are nothing like each other."
Thanks for noticing that, Tim.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Mar 21, 2011 20:17:23 GMT -5
Somebody mentioned earlier that CNN was casting the rebels as heroes. I looked for the post but couldn't find it. (Maybe it was on a different thread?)
Anyway, I didn't get that impression when I watched CNN this morning. Tonight when I got home I flipped between CNN, Fox & MSNBC during the 7-8PM hour. My findings:
CNN: I don't get the complaint. They seem to be considering all the angles.
MSNBC: Very critical of the whole operation and Obama in particular, comparing him to Bush/Cheney and calling for his impeachment.
FOX: The most positive of the three, fully backing Obama.
Maybe I caught the different channels at just the right time to give me the wrong impression. But it sure looked like everything was backwards tonight.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Mar 21, 2011 20:31:59 GMT -5
I was just getting ready to turn the TV off and saw that a CNN poll has 70% of Americans in favor of the military action in Libya.
Earlier I had seen a poll on FOX. I forget how they phrased their question, but it was more qualified - you'd have to be more in favor of the military action to answer positively. Their survey had 51% in favor, 49% against.
|
|