Obama declares war on Lybia

Come on Dave.



The point is neither the Taliban nor the country of Afghanistan attacked the US. It was a group of no more than 50 individuals. You don't start wars with three countries (and counting) for something a small group of individuals did.

jvquarterback wrote:
Come on Dave.



The point is neither the Taliban nor the country of Afghanistan attacked the US. It was a group of no more than 50 individuals. You don't start wars with three countries (and counting) for something a small group of individuals did.

Yeah, JV, I think I get that. Did I say something that indicated I didn't get that?

jvquarterback wrote:

taekwondave wrote:
[

Bottom line for me is that, depending upon the specifics, stopping one country's attempt to take over another country, when it affects our national security, is justifiable, at least in my books.

"When it affects our national security." Sounds like Fox News empty rhetoric to me. I think you could ALWAYS make the argument that anything going on in any part of the world "affects our national security" but where do we draw the line? It seems to me that to convince Americans today that we should do something we just need to yap about "national security" "Al Qaeda" and "9/11" for fifteen seconds and we're all go for launch. When will we live by principle rather than circumstance? Until we do we will continue to fight WWIII one country at a time.

A fair concern. Here's what I meant at least: If Namibia invades Botswana, that would probably not be enough for me to say we should send in troops to stop it. I cannot discern a national security interest justifying such action But Iraq ivnading Kuwait was different. The uncomfortable truth is that with Saddam next door to the Saudis, and at the time capable of taking them over, it would have jeopardized not only our economy, but most of the Western world too. We would have been hostage to a tyrant. So to me that is enough to justify President Bush Senior's decision to amass a coalition and act as we did.

If Saddam had stolen from Americans on US soil we would have been justified in attacking collectively. They didn't so an attack by the US was not justified. (Not selling oil at the price you want doesn't qualify). I find what Saddam did to the Kurds and Kuwatis morally reprehensible so if you had wished to volunteer for the Kuwaiti or Kurdish armed forces I would not argue with the morality of that action. But neither group is involved in a contract with any Americans compelling all Americans to pay for providing their defense.

I appreciate your point and think it is a valid one. For me, a direct threat to the Saudi oil fields constitutes a threat to our national security justifying intervention and a response. Am I happy about that? No. I just see the potential immediate shut down of Saudi oil to our and other country's economies as a direct threat to our national secuirty. I hope some day as a nation we can migrate away from our dependence upon foreign oil so this level of concern is mitigated. At present though it is not, in my view

What is national security and does it have any relation to defense? I'm just asking because one of those terms appears in the constitution and the other doesn't?



Certainly you are not implying Saddam taking the Saudi oil fields (which was never really a threat anyway) would prevent you or anyone else from buying oil. So the question isn't even of national security, it is a question of the price of oil. I find fighting an unjust, undeclared war over the price of oil as bad as it gets. And now we have three of them.

jvquarterback wrote:
What is national security and does it have any relation to defense? I'm just asking because one of those terms appears in the constitution and the other doesn't?



Certainly you are not implying Saddam taking the Saudi oil fields (which was never really a threat anyway) would prevent you or anyone else from buying oil. So the question isn't even of national security, it is a question of the price of oil. I find fighting an unjust, undeclared war over the price of oil as bad as it gets. And now we have three of them.

Saddam could have withheld the oil. I suppose we could have bought oil somewhere for a price so high that it would have caused the collapse of our economy and of other nations....And I disagree but the threat that Saddam would have and could have overrun the Sauds and the UAE was extremely great. I am with you on Iraq II 100 percent. We should not have done what we did. I support participating in the Libya no-fly zone but do not consider us being involved over oil on that one....

BoiseBYU wrote:

What is national security and does it have any relation to defense? I'm just asking because one of those terms appears in the constitution and the other doesn't?



Certainly you are not implying Saddam taking the Saudi oil fields (which was never really a threat anyway) would prevent you or anyone else from buying oil. So the question isn't even of national security, it is a question of the price of oil. I find fighting an unjust, undeclared war over the price of oil as bad as it gets. And now we have three of them.

Saddam could have withheld the oil. I suppose we could have bought oil somewhere for a price so high that it would have caused the collapse of our economy and of other nations....And I disagree but the threat that Saddam would have and could have overrun the Sauds and the UAE was extremely great. I am with you on Iraq II 100 percent. We should not have done what we did. I support participating in the Libya no-fly zone but do not consider us being involved over oil on that one....

So you buy Obama's humanitarian bit?

taekwondave wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:
What is national security and does it have any relation to defense? I'm just asking because one of those terms appears in the constitution and the other doesn't?



Certainly you are not implying Saddam taking the Saudi oil fields (which was never really a threat anyway) would prevent you or anyone else from buying oil. So the question isn't even of national security, it is a question of the price of oil. I find fighting an unjust, undeclared war over the price of oil as bad as it gets. And now we have three of them.

Saddam could have withheld the oil. I suppose we could have bought oil somewhere for a price so high that it would have caused the collapse of our economy and of other nations....And I disagree but the threat that Saddam would have and could have overrun the Sauds and the UAE was extremely great. I am with you on Iraq II 100 percent. We should not have done what we did. I support participating in the Libya no-fly zone but do not consider us being involved over oil on that one....

So you buy Obama's humanitarian bit?

The United Nations adopted a resolution declaring, in part, a no-fly zone over Libya. We are part of a coalition of nations agreeable to enforcing that resolution. I do not object to being part of an effort to stop or stymie a tyrant from slaughtering his own citizens.

BoiseBYU wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:

What is national security and does it have any relation to defense? I'm just asking because one of those terms appears in the constitution and the other doesn't?



Certainly you are not implying Saddam taking the Saudi oil fields (which was never really a threat anyway) would prevent you or anyone else from buying oil. So the question isn't even of national security, it is a question of the price of oil. I find fighting an unjust, undeclared war over the price of oil as bad as it gets. And now we have three of them.

Saddam could have withheld the oil. I suppose we could have bought oil somewhere for a price so high that it would have caused the collapse of our economy and of other nations....And I disagree but the threat that Saddam would have and could have overrun the Sauds and the UAE was extremely great. I am with you on Iraq II 100 percent. We should not have done what we did. I support participating in the Libya no-fly zone but do not consider us being involved over oil on that one....

So you buy Obama's humanitarian bit?

The United Nations adopted a resolution declaring, in part, a no-fly zone over Libya. We are part of a coalition of nations agreeable to enforcing that resolution. I do not object to being part of an effort to stop or stymie a tyrant from slaughtering his own citizens.

So you trust Obama AND the United Nations?

taekwondave wrote:

taekwondave wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:
What is national security and does it have any relation to defense? I'm just asking because one of those terms appears in the constitution and the other doesn't?



Certainly you are not implying Saddam taking the Saudi oil fields (which was never really a threat anyway) would prevent you or anyone else from buying oil. So the question isn't even of national security, it is a question of the price of oil. I find fighting an unjust, undeclared war over the price of oil as bad as it gets. And now we have three of them.

Saddam could have withheld the oil. I suppose we could have bought oil somewhere for a price so high that it would have caused the collapse of our economy and of other nations....And I disagree but the threat that Saddam would have and could have overrun the Sauds and the UAE was extremely great. I am with you on Iraq II 100 percent. We should not have done what we did. I support participating in the Libya no-fly zone but do not consider us being involved over oil on that one....

So you buy Obama's humanitarian bit?

The United Nations adopted a resolution declaring, in part, a no-fly zone over Libya. We are part of a coalition of nations agreeable to enforcing that resolution. I do not object to being part of an effort to stop or stymie a tyrant from slaughtering his own citizens.

So you trust Obama AND the United Nations?

I support the action taken.

[

BoiseBYU wrote:
I support the action taken.

Based on what principles?

taekwondave wrote:
[

I support the action taken.

Based on what principles?

I refer you to my comments above if you truly do want to know

Which boils down to the belief that you can compel me to pay for a war I believe to be unjust and will result in more death and destruction than if you had done nothing. Correct me if I misinterpret.

jvquarterback wrote:
Which boils down to the belief that you can compel me to pay for a war I believe to be unjust and will result in more death and destruction than if you had done nothing. Correct me if I misinterpret.

You refer to the Libya no-fly zone action? It appears to me that the action has stopped the slaughter of many Libyan citizens. There have been deaths as a result of the no-fly zone, but there are disputes about the number. I believe the no-fly action has and will save many lives. I've been around for a while and I have seen my country pay for all sorts of actions that I at least have considered unjust or immoral--killing Allende in Chile, paying tobacco farmers subsidies, paying for abortions, etc etc etc. That is nothing new.

BoiseBYU wrote:

Which boils down to the belief that you can compel me to pay for a war I believe to be unjust and will result in more death and destruction than if you had done nothing. Correct me if I misinterpret.

You refer to the Libya no-fly zone action? It appears to me that the action has stopped the slaughter of many Libyan citizens. There have been deaths as a result of the no-fly zone, but there are disputes about the number. I believe the no-fly action has and will save many lives. I've been around for a while and I have seen my country pay for all sorts of actions that I at least have considered unjust or immoral--killing Allende in Chile, paying tobacco farmers subsidies, paying for abortions, etc etc etc. That is nothing new.

How many lives have we saved in Iraq? Last numbers of dead Iraqis shows over a million. You just going with your gut on this assumption of yours? You think we'll suddenly get it right THIS time?

BoiseBYU wrote:

Which boils down to the belief that you can compel me to pay for a war I believe to be unjust and will result in more death and destruction than if you had done nothing. Correct me if I misinterpret.

You refer to the Libya no-fly zone action? It appears to me that the action has stopped the slaughter of many Libyan citizens. There have been deaths as a result of the no-fly zone, but there are disputes about the number. I believe the no-fly action has and will save many lives. I've been around for a while and I have seen my country pay for all sorts of actions that I at least have considered unjust or immoral--killing Allende in Chile, paying tobacco farmers subsidies, paying for abortions, etc etc etc. That is nothing new.

In a ground war with no air support I expect greater casualties. Is there a reason you don't?



And just because group of people has been trying to rob from and enslave another since the beginning of time does not make it right for you to do so.

taekwondave wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:
Which boils down to the belief that you can compel me to pay for a war I believe to be unjust and will result in more death and destruction than if you had done nothing. Correct me if I misinterpret.

You refer to the Libya no-fly zone action? It appears to me that the action has stopped the slaughter of many Libyan citizens. There have been deaths as a result of the no-fly zone, but there are disputes about the number. I believe the no-fly action has and will save many lives. I've been around for a while and I have seen my country pay for all sorts of actions that I at least have considered unjust or immoral--killing Allende in Chile, paying tobacco farmers subsidies, paying for abortions, etc etc etc. That is nothing new.

How many lives have we saved in Iraq? Last numbers of dead Iraqis shows over a million. You just going with your gut on this assumption of yours? You think we'll suddenly get it right THIS time?

Many, many lives have been lost in Iraq. It is tragic. I do not believe what has happened in Iraq predicts what will happen in Libya. So far the evidence is that the UN action has stopped a brutal dictator from slaughtering his own citizens. I cannot predict how the UN action will proceed, but I think most people are pretty sure that had the UN done nothing, many, many more Libyan citizens would have been killed by this evil man

jvquarterback wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:
Which boils down to the belief that you can compel me to pay for a war I believe to be unjust and will result in more death and destruction than if you had done nothing. Correct me if I misinterpret.

You refer to the Libya no-fly zone action? It appears to me that the action has stopped the slaughter of many Libyan citizens. There have been deaths as a result of the no-fly zone, but there are disputes about the number. I believe the no-fly action has and will save many lives. I've been around for a while and I have seen my country pay for all sorts of actions that I at least have considered unjust or immoral--killing Allende in Chile, paying tobacco farmers subsidies, paying for abortions, etc etc etc. That is nothing new.

In a ground war with no air support I expect greater casualties. Is there a reason you don't?



And just because group of people has been trying to rob from and enslave another since the beginning of time does not make it right for you to do so.

To answer your first question, yes. Since the UN resolution was announced, the dictato's forces have stopped their advances and are not killing Libyan citizens like they were before. And to respond to your second point, can't argue with that. I see the UN resolution as stopping a tyrannical slavemaster/ murderer from the further robbing and enslavement of his own people.

BoiseBYU wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:

Which boils down to the belief that you can compel me to pay for a war I believe to be unjust and will result in more death and destruction than if you had done nothing. Correct me if I misinterpret.

You refer to the Libya no-fly zone action? It appears to me that the action has stopped the slaughter of many Libyan citizens. There have been deaths as a result of the no-fly zone, but there are disputes about the number. I believe the no-fly action has and will save many lives. I've been around for a while and I have seen my country pay for all sorts of actions that I at least have considered unjust or immoral--killing Allende in Chile, paying tobacco farmers subsidies, paying for abortions, etc etc etc. That is nothing new.

How many lives have we saved in Iraq? Last numbers of dead Iraqis shows over a million. You just going with your gut on this assumption of yours? You think we'll suddenly get it right THIS time?

Many, many lives have been lost in Iraq. It is tragic. I do not believe what has happened in Iraq predicts what will happen in Libya. So far the evidence is that the UN action has stopped a brutal dictator from slaughtering his own citizens. I cannot predict how the UN action will proceed, but I think most people are pretty sure that had the UN done nothing, many, many more Libyan citizens would have been killed by this evil man

Weren't you around when we invaded Iraq? Don't you remember your exact words being used as justification for us going in then? "Sadaam is robbing from and brutally murdering his own people. It behooves us as humanitarians to stop him."



Can you think of a time we've invaded another country when that excuse WASN'T given as justification? We need to stop falling for it. A million dead Iraqis has NOTHING to do with humanitarianism.

A million, dude. A MILLION. That's almost the entire state of Utah. And yet we fly our flags at half mast for our few thousand fallen soldiers? We should have a whole month of mourning for all the Iraqis our "brave young men and women" have murdered in the name of humanitarianism. The only tyrants we need to worry about rhyme with Wush and Owama.

taekwondave wrote:

taekwondave wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:
Which boils down to the belief that you can compel me to pay for a war I believe to be unjust and will result in more death and destruction than if you had done nothing. Correct me if I misinterpret.

You refer to the Libya no-fly zone action? It appears to me that the action has stopped the slaughter of many Libyan citizens. There have been deaths as a result of the no-fly zone, but there are disputes about the number. I believe the no-fly action has and will save many lives. I've been around for a while and I have seen my country pay for all sorts of actions that I at least have considered unjust or immoral--killing Allende in Chile, paying tobacco farmers subsidies, paying for abortions, etc etc etc. That is nothing new.

How many lives have we saved in Iraq? Last numbers of dead Iraqis shows over a million. You just going with your gut on this assumption of yours? You think we'll suddenly get it right THIS time?

Many, many lives have been lost in Iraq. It is tragic. I do not believe what has happened in Iraq predicts what will happen in Libya. So far the evidence is that the UN action has stopped a brutal dictator from slaughtering his own citizens. I cannot predict how the UN action will proceed, but I think most people are pretty sure that had the UN done nothing, many, many more Libyan citizens would have been killed by this evil man

Weren't you around when we invaded Iraq? Don't you remember your exact words being used as justification for us going in then? "Sadaam is robbing from and brutally murdering his own people. It behooves us as humanitarians to stop him."



Can you think of a time we've invaded another country when that excuse WASN'T given as justification? We need to stop falling for it. A million dead Iraqis has NOTHING to do with humanitarianism.

Dave, I do not recall before Iraq II an instance when we started a war by invading another country. Cheap excuses can always be used to justify an action. The fact that the excuse is used falsely in one instance does not mean that the next instance it is also being used deceptively. You have to look at each instance and decide for your self. The fact that one million Iraqis died does not mean one million Libyans will die. The present facts show that, if anything, the best way to ensure lots of Libyans will die is for the UN coalition to have done nothing. Then the madman would have had free sway to pursue his evil designs.



You and jv like to ask questions and I have tried to answer them honestly. I have one for you that I have been pondering: Suppose you have a 16-year old son and he is walking down the street when he observes a 13-year old beating the crap out of a 7-year old. Indeed, the 7-year old is on the ground close to unconscious and the 13 year old is picking up a baseball bat to hit the little kid some more. Your 16 son goes over and stops the beating. Would you be proud of your son for saving the 7-year old?