Obama declares war on Lybia

jvquarterback wrote:
Libya is not a threat to the United States.

How do you know that?

jvquarterback wrote:

We have no idea who the good guys and bad guys are over there (or I should say the bad guys and the worse guys), for all you know you are helping a bunch of communists (in fact there is a very good chance of that).

Communists? I don't know a lot about the world, but I am pretty sure that Muslims haven't adopted communism by-and-large.

jvquarterback wrote:

But if you are so sure, I bet the rebels would accept you as a volunteer.

Is this just you being obtuse? Or are you an ass in real life too?

jvquarterback wrote:

Just don't ask the rest of us to fund another unjust, undeclared war.

Hey genius, I pay taxes too. I think you need a little perspective here.

jvquarterback wrote:

BTW it appears the only reason you think the other undeclared wars should be stopped (slowed?) is your fatigue.

You're damn right.

jvquarterback wrote:

And I think most of us recognize NATO has become no less an entangling alliance than any other. There is no reason we should subsidize the Europeans (who are no more at risk from Libya than we are) when they are plenty able to care for themselves in this case and every other.

I'm not arguing this point. But we are a full member of NATO, and will be for the foreseeable future. You don't just dump your allies in the real world.

[quote="BoiseBYU]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?[/quote]



Of course I would, and I can understand you thinking this parallel is adequate, but it's not. It's the same parallel I used to excuse us from invading Iraq (Specifically I used a children on a playground scenario. It almost sounds identical.) It's a powerful argument, it seems to really make sense and unfortunately it was the same argument used to convince Americans to go into Vietnam at the time. It is the same argument that has been used to get us to send our troops out EVERY time, regardless of our government's real reasons for it. This is all they have to say and we all sit back and fold our arms and say, "Yeah. It's good to stop one child from beating on another."



Here's where the argument is flawed: These aren't children and we aren't their masters. They are our fellows. And I'm sorry, but if the news is reporting accurately what is really happening in Lybia (and I doubt they are, just like with Iraq and every other war our globalist leaders try and shove down our throats) then what is going on in that country is a civil war. Does one side maybe have more firepower than the other side? Sure. But if one side is killing another side, they're at war. And what we have chosen to do, instead of letting it play out, is choose a side to fight for. That's all we've really done. We've walked onto that playground and seen one side fighting with another. We pick the side we think is going to lose and since we're so much bigger we know that once we help them win (if that's really what we're even trying to do. Again, don't believe their media goons) they will feel indebted to us. We'll stick around in their country to "stabilize" it (which means occupy it unlawfully, causing the remaining citizenry to hate us and turn on us) and essentially prop up leaders of OUR choosing and run their country like our own little puppet, much to the chagrin of everyone who actually lives there. And all the while we'll smile while holding guns at them saying, "It's for your own good. We're just here to help."

CAFB_04-12 wrote:

Libya is not a threat to the United States.

How do you know that?

jvquarterback wrote:

We have no idea who the good guys and bad guys are over there (or I should say the bad guys and the worse guys), for all you know you are helping a bunch of communists (in fact there is a very good chance of that).

Communists? I don't know a lot about the world, but I am pretty sure that Muslims haven't adopted communism by-and-large.

jvquarterback wrote:

But if you are so sure, I bet the rebels would accept you as a volunteer.

Is this just you being obtuse? Or are you an ass in real life too?

jvquarterback wrote:

Just don't ask the rest of us to fund another unjust, undeclared war.

Hey genius, I pay taxes too. I think you need a little perspective here.

jvquarterback wrote:

BTW it appears the only reason you think the other undeclared wars should be stopped (slowed?) is your fatigue.

You're damn right.

jvquarterback wrote:

And I think most of us recognize NATO has become no less an entangling alliance than any other. There is no reason we should subsidize the Europeans (who are no more at risk from Libya than we are) when they are plenty able to care for themselves in this case and every other.

I'm not arguing this point. But we are a full member of NATO, and will be for the foreseeable future. You don't just dump your allies in the real world.

1) Once again it is the aggressor (the US government in this case) that must defend its aggressive actions. There is no evidence Libya is a threat to the US. You must prove otherwise.



2) Have you seen the major parties in the proposed Egyptian elections? Look to see if you notice the communist party. Early projections are they take a large % of the vote.



3) Prior to the US entry into WWII many Americans volunteered in the British armed forces. It was an honorable thing to do. Perhaps joining the Libyans is honorable too, I'm not sure at this point. So if you want to join or send money or guns, I won't argue with you. But don't steal my property to fund something I don't wish to participate in. Here is the perspective you need: You and the US government are stealing my money to do something I believe is immoral. That is an inappropriate act. Just because that same government steals from you in other situations does not make it appropriate to steal from others in this case.



4) When your allies take inappropriate actions you most certainly dump them. When I was in high school in LA during the Rodney King riots, a friend of mine went looting and gave me grief for not "having his back" even though I had told him before I would. Same deal here. NATO is taking inappropriate action and we should call them on it and disassociate ourselves from them.

JV, I try so hopelessly to speak as clearly as you do. I commend you.

jvquarterback wrote:

1) Once again it is the aggressor (the US government in this case) that must defend its aggressive actions. There is no evidence Libya is a threat to the US. You must prove otherwise.

I agree. It's a shaky premise for an act of war, protecting civilian populations from possible genocide. America is damned if they do (Kosovo) and damned if they don't (Rwanda) on this point.

jvquarterback wrote:

2) Have you seen the major parties in the proposed Egyptian elections? Look to see if you notice the communist party. Early projections are they take a large % of the vote.

I haven't really followed politics in the Middle East since I finished my Masters degree in International Relations in 2008. But seeing as we're talking about Libya...in north Africa...

jvquarterback wrote:

3) Prior to the US entry into WWII many Americans volunteered in the British armed forces. It was an honorable thing to do. Perhaps joining the Libyans is honorable too, I'm not sure at this point. So if you want to join or send money or guns, I won't argue with you. But don't steal my property to fund something I don't wish to participate in. Here is the perspective you need: You and the US government are stealing my money to do something I believe is immoral. That is an inappropriate act. Just because that same government steals from you in other situations does not make it appropriate to steal from others in this case.

I honestly don't understand your point here. Why would I volunteer for the Libyan army? Do you believe all war is immoral? Perhaps you should take your money and property and plant yourself in a country more in line with your moral values, like Switzerland. Or just continue to vote your conscience in your native country, just like the rest of us. I don't think Obama's national health care plan is an appropriate use of money, but he won the election, so I'm stuck with what we have. But blaming ME for stealing YOUR money, presumably because my aircraft consumes jet fuel bought by tax dollars, is just childish.

jvquarterback wrote:

4) When your allies take inappropriate actions you most certainly dump them. When I was in high school in LA during the Rodney King riots, a friend of mine went looting and gave me grief for not "having his back" even though I had told him before I would. Same deal here. NATO is taking inappropriate action and we should call them on it and disassociate ourselves from them.

The Rodney King riots? Seriously, lets at least keep to some real international relations examples here. No, in the long term you don't simply dump strategic allies simply because they have a different set of interests than you do at the moment. Agreed that the U.S. needs to act out of its own self-interest and not get dragged into an unnecessary conflict just out of historic alliance, but I wager that you really don't know much about how deep the strategic military relationship with most NATO countries actually is. I think I have some perspective because I was stationed in England for four years and spent countless hours flying in NATO exercises in nearly every NATO country in Europe.



I think NATO's interest here, again, is shaky, seeing as how Libya is on a completely different continent. However, have you see the threat rings from Libya's now-kaput IADS system? Easily reaches Italy and France. Toss a couple canisters of mustard gas on one of those and guess what...NATO has a security problem. But Qaddafi probably won't do that...



The more important point that you're not even considering here is whether the American Congress is forsaking its Constitutional duty and allowing the President to wage war without its consent. I mean, even GW Bush got Congress to approve the war in Iraq.



[edited for spelling]

CAFB_04-12 wrote:
I haven't really followed politics in the Middle East since I finished my Masters degree in International Relations in 2008.

:love:

I do not support action in Libya for the following reasons:



1) Sean Hannity (i know, terrible source) estimated that 1/3 of all Iraqi insurgents were Libyan. Libya has been an al queda training ground, and without a rebel leader, who's to say that the next leader won't be worse than khadaffi? Yes, Worse. (see point 7)



2) 1 month costs for a no fly zone are estimated at $1B USD. We don't have that money.



3) I didn't vote for Obama, but he DID promise to get us OUT of wars, not IN wars.



4) had someone gotten involved when rebels were surrounding Tripoli, we'd be done by now. Obama's leadership takes yet another hit.



5) China doesn't participate in UN vote for Libya action but is nice enough to buy our deficit spending dollars to fund it. Difference?



6) War is ugly, messy, and brutal. Always has been, always will be (read "Lone Survivor"). The mission of "Protecting Civilians", while politically noble, tries to change a simple fact of war.



7) US track record in causing, instigating, supporting regime changes is ABYSMAL. Our success rate here occurs almost as often as French military victories.

Not sure why my post from last night isn't here.



1&3) The US government is only damned if it does. The correct pattern for undertaking a just war is outlined in D&C 98 as referenced by another poster. This one doesn't even come close. Perhaps the Libyan rebel army has a just cause, again I am uncertain. If you feel there is compelling evidence that the Libyan rebels are undertaking a just war, by all means join them. But do not force others to do the same. You ask what I mean by mentioning force. I had some idea that you were in the military considering the silly jargon you previously used. As such you are part of a government that compels the conscription of my property to pay for an unjust war. Such compulsion is immoral and unbecoming one who has access to a greater knowledge. The fact that the same government forces you to pay for things you find objectionable does not make your cause any more just.



The most ardent anti-war and anti-military folks I know are ex-military, including many of the founders of this USA. Many of those were conscripted and forced to fight as slaves, but other volunteered. They all came to the realization of what war and the military represent through studying inspired political philosophy rather than international relations -- by studying how things should be rather than how things are.



2) Yes, if you notice Egypt lies just to the east and they currently have a large communist party. Hopefully they won't come to power in Egypt or Libya, but the point is no one has any idea whether the cabal that comes to power, in the event of the defeat of the Gadaffi, will be any better than the current regime.



4) The principle is the same, when your allies make unjust decisions you do not support them in those decisions. No matter how deep your "strategic relationship" with them is. Even if they are family. I'm not saying you abandon them but you most certainly do not aid them as they commit immoral acts. If France tried to retake Algeria, the Belgians tried to take the Congo, the Italians Ethiopia or the Turks attacked Armenia and the US government aided them, it would be just as reprehensible as what it is currently doing.



5) On a practical note you think Gaddafi is more or less likely to fire missiles across the Mediterranean after the bombing of Tripoli?



Finally, I think most people who join the military do so for honorable reasons. They believe they are are fighting to preserve freedom. Unfortunately the nature of the state is opposite the ideals of freedom, so they end up fighting against those ideals they hold dear. We idolize the state and the military in public schooling to such an extent that anyone who speaks against the military is portrayed as a traitor. That is why I recommend people read what the founders of this country thought about the military. If you are really interested, I'd suggest the Federalist (http://www.thisnation.com/library/books/federalist/index.html) and Anti-federalist papers (http://www.thisnation.com/library/antifederalist/index.html) (A couple of those dealing with the military are F24 (and 25-29) and F67 and AF24-25 and AF74).