Obama deserves our support re: Libya

It's pretty simple. This is not a unilateral action by the United States. This is a bilateral, multi-national, U.N. sanctioned military action to enforce a no-fly zone.

I would strongly oppose unilateral action against a country that has not attacked us or threatened to do so.

But when you have a general consensus around the world and in the United Nations that a dictator is on the verge of committing mass genocide against his own people, and the U.N. has sanctioned a response, it is incumbent upon the United States to cooperate and support its allies around the world.

Isolationism has its merits, but we belong to the U.N. and the community of nations for a reason. Attempting to avert great, horrific tragedies on a mass scale is one of them.

The US isn't the worlds police force.

I'm against this and you would be too if it was Bush as commander in cheif.

Besides, what was touted as a no-fly-zone has morphed into a
blow the fuck outta every thing that even looks suspicious on the ground.

This is simply more war.
It is simply feeding the savages what they desire the most: Legalized Murder.

Other countries are stepping up to the plate and are involved with enforcing the no fly zone.

...military or enforcing the NFZ.

There are no other countries actively involved in enforcing the NFZ.

mob mentality rules here

This isn't a post-August product rollout.

What did they think a no-fly zone entails? You have to take out military/air/radar installations in Libya to protect coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone.

Arab League knew this before they signed on. They are not dummies.

Unilateral, bilateral, or otherwise.

I oppose blowing people to bits with bombs, no matter how many people or organizations decided to start it.

Other people can sit on their hands all they want: I would rather try to help people who actually asked for our help.

Again one of my favorite quotes:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -Edmund Burke

... we've just committed an act of war against another country, without any debate or congressional approval?
WW-II: Congress actively declared war
Korea: Authorized by Congress
Vietnam: Gulf of Tonkin resolution -- approved for all the wrong reasons, but at least there was a debate and a vote
Gulf War I: congressional debate and a resolution
Gulf War II: congress gave Dim Son indefinite and open-ended carte blanche to fight terrorism, anytime, anywhere, by any means.

Now there isn't even a pretense. Presidents can start wars whenever they want, and the hell with what Article I, Section 8 says.
Yeah. I guess I'm old-fashioned.

J.

a. You're being cynical.
b. I'm crazy.
c. You're crazy.

On the off chance it's b) my delusion is this: when you drop 110 cruise missiles on a country in 12 hours ... you've committed an act of war,
and you are in a war. Obama's done this without consulting congress, without meaningful debate, with no congressional backing. *This* is
Obama's war.

J.

Fighters from the Balkans, Chechnya, etc.?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Thanks to joshcryer for pointing it out.

This is a humanitarian crisis, and even as a semi-pascifist (don't laugh) I support the efforts to protect the Libyan citizens. And that's saying a lot for me. I don't like military actions.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Mexico....just to name a few.

We are acting with our Allies in Libya to assist in the securing of their oil supply from that country, and that is the reason they have reacted to quickly.


-Mojavekid

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The UN went ahead when the Arab league voted for the measure.

UnRec.

Too many unanswered questions.
Plus the US has a poor record of Military Interventions in the Middle East.
NONE (0) have ended well, or ended at all,
and every single one was SOLD to the American People with the EXACT SAME marketing.


We put the Taliban (Mujahideen) in power in Afghanistan,
and are NOW forced into an extended WAR to keep one of the worst criminals in the Middle East (Karzai) in power.

In Lebanon, it was Hezbollah that emerged from the ashes.

We Took Out Saddam without a good plan for what happens after.
Look what happened there.

I cannot support this escalation of the WAR in the Middle East,
and am surprised that so many on DU are parroting the exact same Pro-WAR marketing that was used the last time...
and the time before that....
and the time before THAT.

ALL other concerns aside, getting involved in ANOTHER WAR with additional WAR funding will NOT play well for Obama & The Democrats in 2012.
Does ANYBODY here believe we will be OUT of Libya before 2012?

but I do agree with your post.

Just because the UN Security Council and the Arab League have approved this military action does not make it a wise move for us, or even for the people of Libya.

considering that Congress wasn't notified and THEIR approval/authorization wasn't sought. Last I checked, Congress is the "decider" here...

These are my reasons for opposing military action, posted in another thread. Please note reason #1:

1. It is an act of war, and as such should not be undertaken without the consent of Congress. Given how military engagements today do not fit the model understood by the framers of our Constitution I don't think a formal declaration of war is necessarily called for, but Congressional consent before an act of war is imperative to uphold the intent of the Constitution and to restrain the impulses and possible ulterior agenda of the executive branch. Of course, the Commander In Chief must have the authority to direct a military response when imminent threat does not permit time for Congressional deliberation.

2. I support having a body of international law such as the UN that can, when necessary, authorize military action for humanitarian purposes. Atrocities such as genocide or widespread starvation in the midst of anarchy or civil war justify -- and perhaps even demand -- outside intervention in a civilized world. However, I don't think Libya has crossed this threshold, and worse humanitarian disasters elsewhere remain unresolved.

3. This intervention in Libya primarily seems to be taking sides in a civil war against a tyrant who serves no purpose for the major participants in the military strikes. On the other hand, we find ourselves in the position of taking no action against other tyrants in the region cracking down against democratic uprisings -- tyrants with whom we have close ties and who do serve our purposes. Given our history in the region, the principle at work here can appear more self-serving than humanitarian in nature.

4. Even if this is essentially a humanitarian mission to safeguard the lives of Libyan civilians, there appears to be little thought given as to how this goal can be achieved on a long term basis. The enforcement of a no-fly zone by no means guarantees a resolution of the ongoing civil war, and could very likely prolong the conflict along with the suffring of the Libyan people. This could be an open-ended costly commitment for us with the inevitable bad options of abandoning the effort with Gadhafi still in power, or escalating the cost and scope of our involvement.

which are very relevant. Let's remember that even if Obama was justified in seeking to bomb Libya, in our nation, he is supposed to go to congress before he decides to do so

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

This is one of those situations that really challenges me. I supported involvement in Kosovo for similar reasons.

I'd like to see us close down the two Bush-era unilateral wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We simply can't afford three wars at one time.

Preventing genocide is a noble-sounding, cover-our-ass justification. The Libyan forces will be glad to drop their arms, advance to the rear, and allow the good ol' U.S. of A. to fight this one for them. Here we are, decades since Viet Nam, and whether we're Democrat or Republican, we haven't learned a fucking thing.....

It's the same old garbage, just reheated and reseasoned.

I'd really like to know the age of the folks who are mindlessly following the leader here.

I'd suspect that few were alive during the any part of the Vietnam War.

The 120 missiles launched yesterday killed people, lots of them. Some were "targets", some weren't. I think the innocent people killed and their families would likely disagree with supporting their deaths.

I have not seen a single report.

There are no other countries actively involved in enforcing the NFZ.

or Afghanistan, or Iraq. NO MORE WAR!!!

The only reason that this has UN consensus is because a bunch of nations have financial ties to Libya and don't want a long, drawn out conflict that will interrupt their ability to get at oil. If the military activity in Iraq was wrong because the US wanted the oil, then the military activity in Libya is wrong too.

This has nothing to do with a dictator committing genocide. Darfur says hi.

point made in 3 words - awesome - good insight. :thumbsup:

Thanks for putting it clearly, and best hopes for peace there soon.

"Attempting to avert great, horrific tragedies on a mass scale" is well worthwhile, regardless of how it might be spun politically, or in comparison to other actions or inaction elsewhere.