Obama Threatens Action in Libya

[moreluck]

 

[wkmac]

Well, that was quick! It usually takes some time for the gap between how a White House justifies a military adventure to the public, and the reality of what is really going on to be revealed. It took the fall of Saddam Hussein for the Bush administration’s pretext for war—the threat of weapons of mass destruction—to be shown up as a fabrication. But from President Obama’s televised address on the evening of March 29, in which he claimed that the intervention in Libya was not about regime change, to the Reuters story revealing that he had signed an order allowing covert U.S. operations in Libya at least a week before the speech, and possibly longer, took—what?—24 hours. And so in we go to Libya, as both neoconservatives and liberal interventionists have been pressing for all along.

Just Like Bush
What’s the difference between Obama’s Libyan war and neoconservatism?

 

[scratch]

We have had Americans training rebels in Libya a lot longer than people think.

 

[moreluck]

I'm sick of Libya.

Let's bomb Chad...

not the country, but Chad, the jerk on my block with two jet-skis.

 

[soberups]

Hypothetical scenario;

You are sitting in a lawn chair on your lawn, minding your own business, and you have a loaded pistol on your belt.

The woman who lives next door to you is sitting on her lawn, when her boyfriend/husband/significant other walks out of the house and starts beating the crap out of her with a tire iron. She tries to run but he grabs her and keeps hitting her while she screams for help.

Do you (a) walk away and mind your own business or (b)sit there and watch and do nothing or (c) walk away and call the police, knowing full well that she will probably be dead by the time they arrive or (d) walk over to the edge of the lawn and stand there and lecture the guy on the evils of domestic violence while he continues to beat her to death or (e) walk over there with your pistol and shoot the sonofabitch?

You pretty much have 5 options here, and they all suck. In my opinion, option (e) sucks the least, so it is the one I would pick.

Option (e) does not set a precedent. Option (e) does not mean that I must now resolve every case of domestic violence in my city. Option (e) does not mean I am a warmonger, or that I want to pick and choose which bad guys to kill and which ones not to kill based upon my own selfish motives. Option (e) simply means that, in that moment and in that particular situation, taking direct action was the least worst choice that was available to me.

 

[wkmac]

Hypothetical scenario;

You are sitting in a lawn chair on your lawn, minding your own business, and you have a loaded pistol on your belt.

The woman who lives next door to you is sitting on her lawn, when her boyfriend/husband/significant other walks out of the house and starts beating the crap out of her with a tire iron. She tries to run but he grabs her and keeps hitting her while she screams for help.

Do you (a) walk away and mind your own business or (b)sit there and watch and do nothing or (c) walk away and call the police, knowing full well that she will probably be dead by the time they arrive or (d) walk over to the edge of the lawn and stand there and lecture the guy on the evils of domestic violence while he continues to beat her to death or (e) walk over there with your pistol and shoot the sonofabitch?

You pretty much have 5 options here, and they all suck. In my opinion, option (e) sucks the least, so it is the one I would pick.

Option (e) does not set a precedent. Option (e) does not mean that I must now resolve every case of domestic violence in my city. Option (e) does not mean I am a warmonger, or that I want to pick and choose which bad guys to kill and which ones not to kill based upon my own selfish motives. Option (e) simply means that, in that moment and in that particular situation, taking direct action was the least worst choice that was available to me.

The example you gave I understand but the problem in relating this scenario to Libya is that you are describing a situation in which all parties are private and not public in nature. And the other problem is that private persons in these type situations are held to a vastly higher standard than state actors in a similar setting. Case in point would be if a innocent by-stander was hit and killed, you would have to stand and account for that as a private person. In the case of the state, it's collateral damage and the mission moves onward.

If all men are created and judged equal, why the different standards for men as private persons verses men who collectivise into public persons? This to me is where the morality of statism runs head on into moral and ethical conflict with natural law. Remove the state fictions of immunity protections on public persons and then rephrase the whole question again!

 

[Lue C Fur]

Hypothetical scenario;

You are sitting in a lawn chair on your lawn, minding your own business, and you have a loaded pistol on your belt.

The woman who lives next door to you is sitting on her lawn, when her boyfriend/husband/significant other walks out of the house and starts beating the crap out of her with a tire iron. She tries to run but he grabs her and keeps hitting her while she screams for help.

Do you (a) walk away and mind your own business or (b)sit there and watch and do nothing or (c) walk away and call the police, knowing full well that she will probably be dead by the time they arrive or (d) walk over to the edge of the lawn and stand there and lecture the guy on the evils of domestic violence while he continues to beat her to death or (e) walk over there with your pistol and shoot the sonofabitch?

You pretty much have 5 options here, and they all suck. In my opinion, option (e) sucks the least, so it is the one I would pick.

Option (e) does not set a precedent. Option (e) does not mean that I must now resolve every case of domestic violence in my city. Option (e) does not mean I am a warmonger, or that I want to pick and choose which bad guys to kill and which ones not to kill based upon my own selfish motives. Option (e) simply means that, in that moment and in that particular situation, taking direct action was the least worst choice that was available to me.

If your a good shot you could pop a cap in his leg...just a flesh would ya know.

 

[trplnkl]

If your a good shot you could pop a cap in his leg...just a flesh would ya know.

merely a scratch

 

[over9five]

Now that we know Barry LIED (No boots on the ground in Libya), can we say:

Obama lied and people died.

 

[wkmac]

Now that we know Barry LIED (No boots on the ground in Libya), can we say:

Obama lied and people died.

I've been saying it even before Libya along with O-Bomb-A! Welcome to the club!

 

[hubrat]

I do not hold as strong a line as Moreluck does, but even if I did what business is it of yours? You are telling everyone what they should or shouldn't believe, yet you say you are free to believe anything you want.

I told no one what they should or shouldn't believe any more than you have.

Destroy is not what anyone is really thinking. Try this on for size. IF, I say IF, 0bama is a muslim he doesn't want to destroy the USA, he would want to "change" it. Change? hmmm, seems he ran on change didn't he? As Over eluded to, if he had claimed to be a muslim, he wouldn't have even gotten the democratic nomination to run for president, so of course he says he is a christian. That makes me wonder, being a christian, how did he ever get elected? According to you christians are so much worse than muslims.

I never said one group was better than the other.

LOL, the LOONWATCH, yep the LOONS are watching. Very credible source there.

The pics of the race card are a bit lame, but the meaning is that every time anyone( other than liberals) objects to what 0 is doing they are called racist or haters. By the way this is done in a very hateful way.
Be careful how you use the word bigot, by definition you are bigoted against conservatives. Yea, by observation I would agree that you are playing with a full deck, but is a stacked deck of race cards that don't apply to everyone you are addressing.

I know what the race card means. I also know at this point we weren't discussing any objections to Obama. The comment was, paraphrasing, "based on (my) knowledge of these two families I do not tolerate any Muslims. All 7 million in this country want to practice Sharia law." I over reacted to that. I have apologized to the person I was speaking to. Just b/c you are in the room and are privy to the conversation doesn't mean it is intended for you. Quite frankly, if you think I intended anything for you, you should check your ego.

 

[bbsam]

The example you gave I understand but the problem in relating this scenario to Libya is that you are describing a situation in which all parties are private and not public in nature. And the other problem is that private persons in these type situations are held to a vastly higher standard than state actors in a similar setting. Case in point would be if a innocent by-stander was hit and killed, you would have to stand and account for that as a private person. In the case of the state, it's collateral damage and the mission moves onward.

If all men are created and judged equal, why the different standards for men as private persons verses men who collectivise into public persons? This to me is where the morality of statism runs head on into moral and ethical conflict with natural law. Remove the state fictions of immunity protections on public persons and then rephrase the whole question again!

But the innocent by-standers were not going to be such when Qadafi got to town. He made it clear he meant to unleash absolut terror on the entire east of the country. And what is the public but a bunch of privates living in unison under the same social structure?

 

[trplnkl]

I told no one what they should or shouldn't believe any more than you have.



I never said one group was better than the other.







I know what the race card means. I also know at this point we weren't discussing any objections to Obama. The comment was, paraphrasing, "based on (my) knowledge of these two families I do not tolerate any Muslims. All 7 million in this country want to practice Sharia law." I over reacted to that. I have apologized to the person I was speaking to. Just b/c you are in the room and are privy to the conversation doesn't mean it is intended for you. Quite frankly, if you think I intended anything for you, you should check your ego.

So now you are telling me that if I read something on here, I should keep my opinion to myself? Once you click on the post reply button it becomes public info open to debate. If I cared to look I bet I could find where you have expressed an opinion where you weren't invited.

 

[hubrat]

So now you are telling me that if I read something on here, I should keep my opinion to myself? Once you click on the post reply button it becomes public info open to debate. If I cared to look I bet I could find where you have expressed an opinion where you weren't invited.

There you go making inferences again. My, my, you are self-important. I said it wasn't intended for you. Comment on what you like. Continue to harass and stalk me. Weird hobby, dude, but it's your prerogative.

 

[trplnkl]

There you go making inferences again. My, my, you are self-important. I said it wasn't intended for you. Comment on what you like. Continue to harass and stalk me. Weird hobby, dude, but it's your prerogative.

This is getting ridiculous, I'm done with this. I will however reserve the right to reply to your posts, whether I agree or disagree with you.

 

[over9five]

And I really can't tell who's stalking who....

 

[moreluck]

....and who has an exit strategy ????

 

[bbsam]

Maybe the idea of an "exit strategy" when it comes to war is nothing but a talking point. Maybe war changes day by day. Date certains and exit strategies really mean nothing.

 

[moreluck]

Just like...."I'm going to close Gitmo...."

 

[bbsam]

Sure. If that's the way you want to look at it. But really war has just become too politicized and precise. Start carpet-bombing and get it over with.