Reps flip-flopping on Libya

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Syzygys, Mar 24, 2011.

  1. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Hey, he didn't see any contradiction for going after Bill Clinton for having an affair...and having one himself at the same time!
    (from the above link)

    And his THIRD wife was a congressional aide, started as his "ride on the side."

    Newt Gingrich, Epic weasel, and manwhore.

    Any other lying on the record out of these True Americans (tm)?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    This and That

    Didn't you hear? The reason he treated his first two wives so poorly was because he loves his country so much.

    • • •​

    There are two primary lessons to the 2010 midterm election:

    • There is nothing about the GOP that isn't completely predictable.

    • Voters in many places across the nation simply can't figure out the above.​

    I noticed, though, that throughout the Libya debate, as members of both parties criticized President Obama for failing to come to Congress first, nobody seems to have mentioned the fact that his use of force was fulfillng a UN resolution, and therefore our role in that body according to treaty. That idea doesn't end the debate by any means, but I doubt even Rep. Kucinich, who has raised the idea of impeachment, could win the point if it came to trial.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. jmpet Valued Senior Member

    Newt Attacks Obama For Bombing Libya Weeks After Demanding Obama Bomb Libya
    Benjy Sarlin | March 23, 2011

    What's Newt Gingrich's position on the Libya? The answer might depend on what day you ask.

    As ThinkProgress notes, Gingrich called for immediate strikes against Qadaffi earlier this month and aggressively condemned President Obama for his restraint.

    "Exercise a no-fly zone this evening," Gingrich said on March 7 when asked for his policy prescription, adding the administration was "inept" in its reponse. "This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with."

    But Gingrich appears to have had a change of heart since then and is now aggressively going after Obama for getting involved in Libya at all, telling The Today Show that he specifically "would not have intervened" and not "have used American and European forces" based on America's commitments elsewhere and the danger of creating a broad humanitarian justification for war.

    I think the Republicans are just now starting to realize they're trapped in a losing Catch-22 yet again and the absolutely last they want is Obama to show how to overthrow a country the right way.
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Can this really end well?

    I think they've known for a while. The Bush 43, for certain. Clinton, most likely. Bush 41, maybe. But the last ten years, especially, have been an exercise in cognitive dissonance for conservatives in general. Economic and social conservatism alike are in upheaval, and near to turning on one another completely.

    And while it's true that "the absolutely last they want is Obama to show how to overthrow a country the right way", I'm not sure he can. I've wanted Qadafi for a long, long time. My first ever political cartoon, drawn in 1986, was about Colonel Q. But I'm not sure there's any "right" way to do this for the United States, no matter who is in the White House. Setting aside the writhing conflict of being at least a nominal pacifist, I can at least say that it probably shouldn't be our airplanes and bombs. This has the potential to get incredibly messy.

    Get the Arab League to acknowledge the need for regime change; put France on point for the Western contribution, and have the U.S. stand by for operational support and humanitarian relief.

    The more we blow up in Libya, the deeper our shit creek gets. I get Obama's rationale, and I want Qadafi down and out, but if that's the plan, it could have been done by now.

    I remember sitting in the Dubliner bar in Seattle's Fremont neighborhood on September 11, 2001, drinking with a friend. The news came on that we had launched missiles into Afghanistan, and while nobody specifically cheered, you could see the confidence and reassurance ripple through the room. Conversation rose from an amorphous, barely detectable whisper to a dull murmur.

    And then, later in the day, President Bush said we hadn't started shooting yet. I'm still not sure, then. If not us, who the hell hit Afghanistan? I've never heard the answer to that. Or maybe I have, and just missed it.

    But if we wanted Qadafi gone, that could have happened by now, when we still knew where the hell he was. The longer this goes on, the less confident I am that it can end well.
  9. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    "Flip-flopping?" Where? The GOP has been perfectly consistent for the past few years: everything Obama does (or does not do) is totally wrong. Even when he changes his mind and agrees with you.

    Oh God no, that's a fucking terrible idea. They'll just be more openly imperialistic, and less effective, and less able to sustain any kind of respectable coalition of support, than the USA or even Britain. Not that I don't like the idea of Europe getting the credit it deserves for imperialism for a change, but given what's happened the last few times we followed France's lead (Suez Crisis, Vietnam War), we'd be better off just blowing up everything in Libya and calling it a day.
  10. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    I agree with quadraphonics. They have not flipflopped at all. Their position is "Whatever Obama does is dangerously wrong". Obama is the one who flip flopped, by going from a state of no action to a state of action, and that makes it seem like the Republicans have changed positions.
  11. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    I agree Quad.

    Whenever I think of the French on the battlefield, I think of the Chauchat light machine gun (WWI) - a complete disaster. For a very long time, the French have not proven themselves to be very effective fighters.
  12. quinnsong Valued Senior Member

    If the Republicans keep it up I will not only have become a rascist bigot against my own race but because of these old white men I might change sexual preferences! On second thought (Michelle Bachman) Naaaah!
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    This and That

    In that context, I think of the Maginot Line.

    • • •​

    Well-pointed. The British, then. I got a bit of news a few minutes ago via NPR projecting the NATO authority structure to go forward as an Organization mission. We'll find better details later today, I think, but the early suggestion is that the U.S. is going to back off and run operational support in the form of detection and imaging, and aerial refueling. I can live with that for the American contribution, and the only thing I ask of whoever takes point on this is that they put better thought into it than Americans have their last couple adventures. It just can't be a US-led NATO operation. Doesn't matter who our president is; we'll just fuck it up.
  14. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    If NATO takes over military operations those operations will ultimately fall under the command of an American, The Supreme Allied Commander Europe. The NATO Supreme Allied Commander is appointed by the US president, confirmed by the Senate and confirmed by NATO.

    So whoever is placed in charge of the Libyian operation they will report to an American.
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2011
  15. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    I don't want to indulge the stereotypes about French battle prowess - they're overstated to begin with (Napoleon, anyone?) and kind of irrelevant (they shouldn't have much trouble dropping bombs on Qadaffi, especially now that he has no air defenses). It's the politics/foreign relations aspect of France that really makes them problematic.

    I suppose... the Arab League would have been the ideal point man, really. Except they got their panties all in a bunch once they realized that the "no-fly zone" they called for involved actually using military force against Libyan air defenses.

    Moreover I have to question the point of using another country as cover for US leadership on this question (even as I appreciate the appeal). At the end of the day, it seems that what intervention occurs is primarily a matter of US power and will - everybody else is either sitting it out, or riding our coat-tails (even the ones striking their own postures politically). So there's a real risk that such is nothing more than a cheap attempt to avoid admitting the primacy of our role, here.

    Right, and that sounds reasonable enough. It should - it's designed for internal consumption. What's not clear to me is whether anyone is actually going to step up to "take point," or whether such will actually work so well (France seems the most likely candidate, but I'm doubtful that such will get us any place we'd like to go, even if we do get some deniability out of the deal).
  16. quinnsong Valued Senior Member

  17. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    well you see obama supported it so it became a bad thing than.
  18. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    This is one incredibly stupid argument. First the US government said, they are going to wait and see. Then the UN had a vote, and since most Muslims were on board the US went with the majority's will.

    Where is the flip-flop in that???
  19. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Newt Gingrich is a slimy, two-faced, un-American, globalist vampire. It is however surprising that he would contradict himself so quickly.

    I heard it said recently that sometimes the best compliment is wrapped in an insult.
    Make the opposition think you're opposed to something, which strengthens their resolve and commitment. This, while you are secretly harboring the satisfaction that they have fallen into your trap, and given you exactly what you want.

    That is a good description of what we have with the Left-Right dichotomy. I sometimes think much of the tactics of the eilte is to get people to embrace an idea or action all for the sake of being the opposition. Being the reactionary.
    "OH! So you're gonna do that, eh? Well then I'M gonna do THIS!"
    Isn't that a Loony Tunes ploy? Get someone into a contradictory fight mode, and they eventually do exactly what you want them to?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    There's only one eye at the top of the pyramid.
  20. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Put Turkey on point

    I would only reiterate:

    ... put France on point for the Western contribution ....​

    Accent, of course, added.

    Although it does occur to me of late—as in, as I write this—that Turkey was the main opposition within NATO to France's plan. I suppose this would be as good a time as any to have Turkey take point. I also suppose I should read up to make sure that's even possible within its domestic political dynamics.

    So, yeah, I missed that completely last time. The disagreement with France was part of the NPR report I heard earlier.

    Now that I'm high, it hits me.

    Imagine that.


    Anyway ... er ....

    True enough, but if I might for a moment try one of my more cynical considerations: Even with our debt and deficit and what we just did to the world economy, one of the reasons I don't seriously think we'll face a genuine American apocalypse is that we are the de facto rulers of the world. To the one, we're not the Nazis, or the Holy Roman Empire, or Palpatine's Coruscant. And as long as we're not, we're it until someone bigger and better at the game comes along. Part of what prevents us from becoming Coruscant is if we make specific efforts to remind Americans that we are the "Leaders of the Free World".

    Realistically, no matter how we structure any international military operation in which the United States is participating, it is inevitably viewed by a significant portion of the world, including many of our friends and allies around the world, as an American operation.

    Few can imagine the United States, as part of an international joint effort, saying to Turkey, or even France, "Yes, sir." Rather, at our best, we end up saying, "Well, what do you need? Okay, well here's what we're willing to give. Make of it what you can." At our best. And it ain't going to happen. Because then we'll see what the rest of the crew is bringing to the show and run our own numbers, and decide it isn't enough; the domestic politics surrounding the idea of dead American service members begin to get in the way. And so it becomes a tacitly American operation, anyway.

    I think it is sufficient in such a context if we can sincerely identify, recognize, and respect the best advice we're getting from our neighbors, and heed their cautions with our best faith.

    Or, like I said, one of my more cynical considerations.

    I think we're going to have combat pilots in the no-fly, but any actions against ground targets are going to be France's gig, or something like that. We might not get out of this without shooting some more. But, yes, our primary focus is supposed to be recon and refuel. Our basic intel capabilities, you know. They're fucking ridiculous.

    I'm of the opinion that the reason we didn't hit Qadafi when we cruised the hell out of the place is that we didn't want to. I saw a headline earlier that Qadafi had made his first appearance since the shitbricking. I'm pretty sure we've known where he was. It's just not public information. We're not officially at war. You don't shoot at executives if you're not officially at war. Something like that. Or maybe it's just me. I wouldn't set that precedent.
  21. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    This non-Western contribution... it's a couple of F-15's from Qatar? Or what? There had been talk earlier on about Egypt getting real serious on this, but they seem to be exactly nowhere now.

    Oh God yes that would be so much better than the usual Western colonial powers.

    I don't really know, but offhand it seems like it should be. I.e., seems like Turkey has been looking to flex more muscle in the region for a while now, so...

    Yeah. But I don't even think it's precedent so much as simple politics. You go and directly affect regime change, and guess what? You are now an occupying power. There seems to be an strong urge to limit the scope of the mission to something short of that, and to head for the exit as soon as politically palatable.
  22. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    The Turkish Dimension

    Yeah, I may be overstating the potential conflict. I don't know which elements of dissent would be inclined toward blowing shit up at home to make some sort of point if Turkey was leading Western nations against Muslims. I might be wrong to presume any of them would.

    There is also the possibility that Turkey would do like many nations, and once they have the ball, freeze in astonishment at the gap between the complexities of scale of either doing it, period, or doing it right.

    Or they might be brilliant. I don't rule that out. Execpt that I'm not expecting this thing to go well, and I'm not sure how much better—or less badly, as such—it would go with Turkey on point.
  23. Ganymede Valued Senior Member

    The Republicans are a complete joke. How can anyone with a functional nueron not see the game they're playing. No matter what Obama does they're against it, who in the hell cares if they were for it in the beggining. That's because they know their constituents only want them to hate or oppose the opposition. They want a Republican dictatorship, that's why anyone who worked with Obama was voted out during the mid-terms.

Share This Page