![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
okmewriting.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsOn a day when opposition forces in Libya suffered battlefield losses, President Barack Obama made clear in interviews Tuesday with the three major U.S. television networks that he was open to arming the rebel fighters.
"I'm not ruling it out, but I'm also not ruling it in," Obama told NBC in one of the separate interviews he gave the day after a nationally televised speech on the Libya situation.
"I think it's fair to say that if we wanted to get weapons into Libya, we probably could," Obama told ABC. "We're looking at all our options at this point."
More here: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/29/obama.libya.interviews/
I have four thoughts on this:
1) The reason he's not ruling it out is because the American's are probably arming them through their subsidiaries. The Egyptians have been shipping weapons over the border with the full knowledge (and support one assumes) of the Americans.
2) How does arming the rebels protect civilians? Particularly those civilians who may well be opposed to the rebels actions?
3) Do the American's (and the Brits & the French) even know exactly who these rebels are? And then I found this article: Amid Rebels, 'Flickers' of al Qaeda
4) Have the American's (and the Brits & the French) learned nothing from Afghanistan?
Maybe someone can explain to me how it is a good idea to arm the rebels? Because I can't see how this is a good idea.
"I'm not ruling it out, but I'm also not ruling it in," Obama told NBC in one of the separate interviews he gave the day after a nationally televised speech on the Libya situation.
"I think it's fair to say that if we wanted to get weapons into Libya, we probably could," Obama told ABC. "We're looking at all our options at this point."
More here: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/29/obama.libya.interviews/
I have four thoughts on this:
1) The reason he's not ruling it out is because the American's are probably arming them through their subsidiaries. The Egyptians have been shipping weapons over the border with the full knowledge (and support one assumes) of the Americans.
2) How does arming the rebels protect civilians? Particularly those civilians who may well be opposed to the rebels actions?
3) Do the American's (and the Brits & the French) even know exactly who these rebels are? And then I found this article: Amid Rebels, 'Flickers' of al Qaeda
4) Have the American's (and the Brits & the French) learned nothing from Afghanistan?
Maybe someone can explain to me how it is a good idea to arm the rebels? Because I can't see how this is a good idea.
(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 05:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 06:11 (UTC)It's still the Mighty Whitey nations coming to the rescue of Those Poor Backwards Brown Folk with some seriously ulterior motives.
Well, the Libyan rebels asked for help, no?
so what the fuck makes him such a clear and present danger NOW that we can't, you know, let the people of Libya handle their OWN affairs, like the Egyptians are doing?
Because the Egyptian military didn't launch an out right war on its citizens? Because the Arab League supports this action?
We neither understand nor respect these people's culture,
Broad assertion, and complete conjecture. You don't know what "we" know, and who is the "we?" You? Me? The State Dept, NATO, The Arab League, the United Nations?
(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 06:32 (UTC)Good thing our troops aren't already over-committed and under-supported as a result of fighting two other wars, then. It's also a good thing that the UN has established a clear and consistent policy for when we should intervene, which means that we'll be taking action against North Korea any day now.
Because the Egyptian military didn't launch an out right war on its citizens?
Oh, so the Egyptian citizenry simply had a civil difference of opinion with their government, then? All the rioting and attempted suspension of their ability to communicate with the outside world and all the other TERRORIST tactics that the Egyptian government used against its own citizens, that were reported in the news, were simply IMAGINED, then?
Because the Arab League supports this action?
Good for them. Let them wipe their own goddamned asses, then. FUCK having America play Globocop, when so many of our troops have ALREADY died over wars of CHOICE rather than wars of NECESSITY.
Broad assertion, and complete conjecture.
Everything I witnessed during my seven years spent serving in the military, which included two overseas combat deployments as part of our "War On Terror," has led me to this "conjecture."
The U.S. doesn't know what the fuck it's doing over there, and the European Union doesn't give a shit that we don't know because all they want is our firepower to settle their own petty scores with Gaddafi, and the Arab League sees a win-win with our involvement, because they can rely our resources but still correctly blame us when things inevitably go wrong.
I DID this wartime shit, and even though I did it from the EASY side (seriously, being on board ship is NOTHING like being a ground-pounder), it was STILL an insanely tough road of hoe, and I will be godfuckingdamned if I let my fellow liberals, who RIGHTLY condemned Bush for throwing troops' lives away so casually, turn right around and support Obama doing the same fucking bullshit.
If it's so important to folks on the left OR the right that we start throwing our troops into the meat-grinder of YET ANOTHER WAR WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL, then let THEM fucking cowboy up, throw on some uniforms and serve on the front lines. If not, then maybe they should consider the possibility that they're nothing but cowardly hypocrites.
(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 06:45 (UTC)Don't know, the no fly zone doesn't seem to have made our military collapse yet. Seems fine to me. Do you have any information or sources that this action will the hair that breaks the camel's back?
Oh, so the Egyptian citizenry simply had a civil difference of opinion with their government, then? All the rioting and attempted suspension of their ability to communicate with the outside world and all the other TERRORIST tactics that the Egyptian government used against its own citizens, that were reported in the news, were simply IMAGINED, then?
Really? Were the Egyptian military forces bombing and executing their own citizens like the situation in Libya?
The U.S. doesn't know what the fuck it's doing over there, and the European Union doesn't give a shit that we don't know because all they want is our firepower to settle their own petty scores with Gaddafi, and the Arab League sees a win-win with our involvement, because they can rely our resources but still correctly blame us when things inevitably go wrong.
So everyone has an ulterior motive, we can't figure our ass from a hole in the ground, and Europe has an agenda for several terrorist attacks including the Lockerbie incident. I disagree.
Syria better wake up, they could be next on the list, and I wouldn't shed a tear if Bashar al-Assad go bye-bye.
(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 07:02 (UTC)You mean aside from the record-high numbers of suicides among our military members, who have already been stop-lossed and screwed over by the VA and told that their PTSD is nonexistent even though we have folks coming back from combat in Iraq so fucking traumatized from fighting in urban environments that simply getting stuck in TRAFFIC JAMS is enough to send them into FLASHBACKS? You're awfully fucking brave about asserting how tough it is for someone else to make the sacrifices that, unless I'm missing something, you haven't seen fit to make yourself.
Were the Egyptian military forces bombing and executing their own citizens like the situation in Libya?
Because that's the ONLY way a government can wage war against its own citizens, and anything less than that is perfectly A-okay.
So everyone has an ulterior motive, we can't figure our ass from a hole in the ground, and Europe has an agenda for several terrorist attacks including the Lockerbie incident.
Yes, yes and yes, especially to the last one. More terrorist attacks mean that governments get to exercise more authoritarian controls, which is why Osama bin Laden explicitly endorsed global warming theories in his speeches, to make it seem like he shared ideological common ground with the Democrats, thereby driving American voters away from them, because as long as Republican presidents continued to wage war on the Muslim world as oppressively as Bush, bin Laden would have been guaranteed a steady stream of new recruits. It's an incredibly rare instance in which sociopathy is not a prerequisite for political power.
Syria better wake up, they could be next on the list, and I wouldn't shed a tear if Bashar al-Assad go bye-bye.
Are you willing to see your own loved ones die to accomplish these goals? Because by blithely saying that we should simply send our troops over there, you're telling the families of American military members that these wars of CHOICE are worth potentially killing their sons and daughters for. I may be jaded as all hell, but even I'm not that heartless.
(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 07:16 (UTC)Sorry, you're the one that's making this extremely personal, not me. I mean, I address each objection you raise, and you go on a rant tying this back into the Iraq War (or Afganistan War), when it's not the same thing or spin up another point that has nothing to do with Libya, and why you think we shouldn't intervene in some general way. I get it. Really I do.
Because that's the ONLY way a government can wage war against its own citizens, and anything less than that is perfectly A-okay.
I'm pretty sure I never said that. Actually, I'm very certain.
Are you willing to see your own loved ones die to accomplish these goals? Because by blithely saying that we should simply send our troops over there, you're telling the families of American military members that these wars of CHOICE are worth potentially killing their sons and daughters for. I may be jaded as all hell, but even I'm not that heartless.
This isn't Iraq.
(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 07:26 (UTC)I'm pretty sure I never said that. Actually, I'm very certain.
You said that Egypt hadn't declared "out right war" against its own citizens, and you said it in response to my question about why we should get involved in one nation's civil war and NOT get involved in ANOTHER nation's civil war. That NECESSARILY means that you're condoning the actions taken against the Egyptian citizenry, if you feel that American military intervention is not justified there.
This isn't Iraq.
We WILL find a way to turn it into Iraq, and we'll do it on PURPOSE.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 07:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 07:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 07:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 07:46 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 17:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 08:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 16:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 20:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 20:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 23:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 31/3/11 00:21 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 20:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 16:39 (UTC)I expect better from someone as smart as you.
(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 17:25 (UTC)American men and women are going to DIE here. Do any of you little armchair generals get that? I'd be very curious to know how many of you who feel so strongly about the urgency of us entering into this fray have worn uniforms yourselves, much less interviewed the families of servicemembers who have been killed in action as part of our "War On Terror." Because just in the two sleepy little small towns covered by my newspapers, I've already conducted too goddamned many of those interviews. While the rest of you are rushing to support an un-Constitutional war of choice that it's not feasible to prosecute for any extended length of time, simply because it suits your lofty ideals, all I see are more dead 20-year-olds' photos on caskets and their crying mothers losing their shit while their dads completely shut down emotionally and do thousand-yard zombie stares. So you'll excuse me very fucking much if I commit the gross sin of "making this extremely personal," which
(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 21:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 21:05 (UTC)Those are all undeniably horrible and saddening.
Date: 31/3/11 15:53 (UTC)But this simply isn't that kind of conflict.
We've been lobbing cruise missiles and flying sorties to turn cheap Soviet surplus armor into burning slag. Which has been so successful that the Gadhafi loyalist troops are now abandoning their armor and using HiLux trucks like the rebels.
And now NATO has officially taken over command and control.
No US service person is kicking doors, unjamming sand-filled MK19's in the middle of firefights, or being turned into carpaccio by IED's.
The Libyans have made it very clear they don't want foreign boots on the ground. The UN specifically excluded the option from their resolution. There is no popular support for it, anywhere.
The only political wills pushing for it in the US are wingnut hawks like grandpa McCain, who can't seem to get enough American blood into foreign soil.
It just isn't going to happen.
(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 20:37 (UTC)