![[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 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)
Date: 30/3/11 07:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 07:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 07:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 15:53 (UTC)http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/950522.html?thread=73594106#t73594106
and
(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 17:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 07:48 (UTC)Exactly, but I'm not the one that made the case it would strain our military. But since it was brought up, I figure, hey it's not a big deal.
(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 08:03 (UTC)A bold declaration from a man whose ass won't be on the front lines.
(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 08:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 23:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 07:45 (UTC)Bullshit. I already addressed it when I said that they could go ahead and wipe their own goddamned asses without our help if they support this action, and the only reason they're asking us to get involved is so they can have someone to blame when it goes wrong, which it will.
[...] will not strain our military.
Assuming everything goes according to the vaguely defined timetable that's been set forth. Except that Iraq and Afghanistan have already proven that those timetables always get extended, and that the people who promise to pick up the slack in our stead are never ready to do so when they promise they'll be. It's MORALLY wrong to put your faith in such promises.
(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 07:52 (UTC)Conjecture. And I'd addressed your "straining our mlitary" points already, so bye :P
(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 07:56 (UTC)No, you didn't. This is OBJECTIVELY a lie, and you know that for a fact. You just said, "Nuh-uh, it won't strain our military." I cited how our military is already overtaxed, and how we ALWAYS go beyond the initially predicted parameters under which we can credibly conduct such campaigns successfully. In other words, you're necessarily arguing in favor of positions that you already know to be untrue.
(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 07:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 08:01 (UTC)I love that you're being so glib about sending our soldiers off to die so that you can score political points on your agenda.
The blood from this will be on the hands of everyone who supports it.
(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 08:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 08:58 (UTC)See, I can bring in completely unrelated topics too, and your opinions make much more of an evil human being than mine too.
Don't even TRY to engage me in this way. You WILL lose.
(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 20:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 23:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/3/11 22:32 (UTC)