NOW:53110:USA00949
http://widgets.journalinteractive.com/cache/JIResponseCacher.ashx?duration=5&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.wp.myweather.net%2FeWxII%2F%3Fdata%3D*USA00949
28°
H 35° L 23°
Clear | 0MPH

The Way I See It!

I am an Ultra-Conservative, Alpha-Male, True Authentic Leader, Type "C" Personality, who is very active in my community; whether it is donating time, clothes or money for Project Concern or going to Common Council meetings and voicing my opinions. As a blogger, I intend to provide a different viewpoint "The way I see it!" on various world, national and local issues with a few helpful tips & tidbits sprinkled in.

A Conversation Between Liberals & Conservatives on Libya

Liberals, Conservatives, War

 

I have replaced the people’s names with ideology with numbers.  Spelling and grammar is left unedited.

 

 

Sunday March 20, 2011

 

Question and comment from Liberal #1 to start the conversation –

 

Liberal #1 -

Its interesting, so many calls from the Right that we weren't doing enough in Lybia, and now we are doing something, they are demanding that the President come down to the Capital Building and explain himself, sorry Mr. Boehner, he doesn't have to tell you anything for 48 hours, and then it only has to be in writing.

 

Liberal #2 -

Obama played it right.  The calls were out there, and he was doubtless doing his thing behind the scenes.  ANd now he's standing out of the spotlight - my guess he'll let the French and even the Arab League do their thing.  He played it real cool.

 

Conservative #1 -

I’m actually ok with the libya thing.  i'm just wondering what the people of Iran are thinking right about now.  "hey, where was our love when WE needed it, Mr. O?" :-)

 

Conservative #2 -

Oh, and his play - with the UN - keeps the Left at abeyance about as well.  Yeah, smooth play!  Conservative #1 is right about Iran, but that is a lot tougher.  A lot.  The UN resolution on Libya was real, real smooth.  You know sure as shootin' that China or Russia would veto anything of consequence for Iran.  Libya, they were willing to throw under the bus.  China had 30,000 workers there until quite recently.  Someone's on the ball here.

 

 

Liberal #1-

Attacking Iran over the attempted Green Revolution would have been far trickier.  Ahmadinejad and Khamenei didn't overplay their hands as much as Qaddafi.  Plus, there was no democratic revolution in neighboring states to spring board the efforts of the Reformers in Iran.

 

 

Liberal #1 –

Plus the UN would not have backed our play, nor would the EU, or the Arab League.  Qaddafi had burned his bridges with his Arab neighbors a long time ago, and the only reason Why African States liked him was because he was willing to shower them with money and cheap oil at the expense of his own people.

 

 

Conservative #2 –

Yup.  What he said.

 

Conservative #2 –

Hey Conservative #1, in all the excitement, I sort of forgot - you a Rightie or Leftie.  Just askin'.

 

Conservative #1 –

Iran didn't need an attack.  just words of support for human rights, we stand shoulder to shoulder with those yearning to breath free, use the names of the political prisoners, yada, yada, yada.  but yes it was a tiny bit trickier.  but sin...ce all the hanky panky in Iraq, Afghanistan, Hezbola (sp?), etc. is funded by Iran, it was MUCH more critical.  plus, for the most part they have a pro-western, secular and well educated populace, it was ripe for the picking while expending relatively little effort, treasure or blood.  at least in relation to some previous conflicts.  but, as a major league Rightie (Conservative #2), i don't give a damn what the UN thinks about what we do.  we do NOT need their stamp of approval to do what's in OUR best interest.  it's nice to have.  maybe.  sometimes.  but i don't think it's the Holy Grail of foreign policy.  at best, it gives voice to, and puts murderers, despots and tyrants on an equal footing with places like, oh, you know, US.

 

Conservative #2 –

Cool.  Nice update.  I know the right tends to diss the UN, but it seems to me this time it earned its keep.  For the Arab League and Lebanon to have a forum to bring their grievances?  Valuable.  To get France and UK in the saddle while all we ...do is light off a gaggle of Tomahawks?  Priceless.  Bear in mind, if we did that on our own, it is an indisputable act of war.  Stuff like doesn't play as well as it used to - the world is in some ways growing more civilized.  And at best, it does what it just did.  it is at *worst* that it does the stuff you mentioned.

 

Conservative #3 –

I am fine with it as well, my only question is this a legal act of war or illegal act of war?

 

Liberal #1 –

A legal act of peace enforcement.

 

Conservative #3 –

But congress didn’t authorize it.

 

Conservative #2 –

Din't need to.  That's been out of fashion for a while.  They did pass a War Powers act saying the president needs to let them know when he goes off and does something.  So he'll do that by and by.

 

Conservative #3 –

Conservative #2 I did know that, but how it is different now.  Is this a blood for oil war?  Did the Libyans ask us for help?  Aren’t all wars illegal?

 

Conservative #2 –

Blood for oil is an engaging trope, once levied on the Iraq war.  Wasn't then, isn't now.  Cool Hand Luke (Obama) will ease out of the driver's seat on this one.  Libyans did ask - at least the rebels did!  And Lebanon raised the issue in the UN.  Finally, all wars are not illegal.  There are well recognized causus belli justifying one's involvement in war.

 

Conservative #2 –

The Kuwait war is probably as close as we've come to "blood for oil.”  And there, the legal groundwork was very solid.

 

Conservative #3 –

What is the end game in Libya for Obama and America?  Is it enough that the rebels asked for help and do we know what and who the rebels are in Libya?  Is there going to be a power vacuum there?  If asked should we commit ground troops?  Should we help Yemen next?

 

Liberal #2 –

‎"The Congress shall have Power To... declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water...”  The Constitution has gone out of fashion?  That's scary.  The only saving grace with the new war... in Libya is that it's a multinational coalition, and other nations are taking the lead so far.  As soon as this becomes another American-led effort or we escalate the situation to ground troops, Obama should be impeached for his audacity in unilaterally getting us involved in another conflict.  He promised to get us out of war; not to start new ones.

 

Conservative #3 –

US Intel: 'Desperate' Gadhafi Could Use WMD.  Do we escalate things now including our involvement?  How did we get the Intel?

 

Are we at war with Libya?  Did Obama think of the repercussions of our involvement in Libya?

 

Conservative #2 –

Like your Gadafi WMD headline!  No, I can about guarantee that the Obama-meister ain't sending in the Marines.  He won't be "audacious" in the manner you're saying, and he won't be impeached.  I really think you're in OK shape on this.

 

Conservative #3 –

Is the U.S. military trying to kill Gadhafi?  What are the goals?

 

Didn’t we have a U.N. Security Council Resolution with Iraq?

 

How can the coalition reconcile a military mission that could leave Gadhafi in power with the many calls for his removal?

 

Who is currently commanding the international military coalition?

 

Are the rebels asking for help the same as the Libya people?

 

Why are we helping the rebels in Libya, but didn’t in Egypt?

 

Are you sure Cool Hand Luke isn’t going to have a failure to communicate?

 

Conservative #2, you do know where I am going with this?

 

Liberal #1 –

We know he has chemical weapons because they are all cataloged for the OPCW.  However, the stockpile is minimal, not enough to stop him from being ousted by his own people, but enough, that if he used them, he would face War Crimes.

 

Liberal #2, the War Powers Act allows the president to use the US military for 48 hours before informing the Congress of the purpose or intent of the use.  Reagan used the WPA to invade Grenada, and Bush Sr. used it to invade Panama.  WE didn't impeach Bush for illegally using money appropriated for the War in Afghanistan to prepare for the War in Iraq (Berstein Bush at War), we won't impeach Obama for this.

 

Conservative #2 –

Dude, your lines are good ones - "failure to communicate!”  Hey, no guarantees!  I mean, you're being all logical and all, and I try to trade in emotion.  No - I didn't say that - I am the logical one on Dean's lists!  Oh dear...

 

Conservative #2 –

Earlier I said "about guaranteed" and now this?  Where do we end up together?  OK, we are commanding the coalition because we have the neatest toys and can blow things up the most expeditiously.  That command will shift within a week to a French admiral or a NATO guy or something.  And ousting Gadafi - the coalition hopes a Libyan sticks a shiv in him or something.  If that doesn't happen timely, then you'll start to hear "Stalemate!  Stalemate!"

 

Liberal #1 –

Conservative #3, the US military is not trying to kill Qaddafi.  His Command and control center for his forces was in his main palace.  He always feared it would be hit by a missile attack, that is why he slept in a Bedouin tent outside.  His family ...does not stay in that palace, so we weren't going kill him or his family.  Unlike the Bush directive to kill both of Hussein's sons if they were holed up and fought back (Berstein Bush at War).

 

We did not have a UN resolution for the 2nd Gulf War.  Bush was not willing to wait 9 months for another round of inspections by UNSCOM to look for any WMD.  So we went to war without UN sanction, and therefore had to create our coalition of the willing (US and UK, with a facade of 52 other countries.

 

What you are going to see is something similar to the NATO campaigns in Bosnia in 1995 and Kosovo in 1999.  We are going to bomb the shit out of him until the rebels can start to win.  And then I bet you all, we will try to organize some sort of ceasefire and negotiate Qaddafi's exit.  If he is smart enough to leave.

 

Liberal #2 –

That's exactly what they said about Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which we're currently occupying.  I don't think he'll be impeached, but he should be impeached.  The fact that our country can go to war on the decision of a few people, against the manner prescribed by the Constitution, without any consultation with Congress or the public (who will be required to kill, die, and pay for the war), is astounding.

 

Liberal #1 –

Conservative #2, it won't be NATO led.  Any NATO operation that includes US forces must be under US command.  NATO Charter.  It will probably have a joint French/UK command, or maybe Arab command.

 

Conservative #2 –

Liberal #1  - 52 countries is one helluva facade...

 

Conservative #2 –

Good going on the NATO thing.  Didn't think of that.

 

Liberal #2 –

I didn't see your post.  The War Powers Act is unconstitutional, too.  The Constitution clearly gives the power to declare and fund war to the Congress, and the power to direct troops in war to the President.

 

Liberal #1 –

Conservative #2 those 52 countries provided less than 10,000 troops, and non of them were combat troops.  The only countries providing combat troops were the US and UK.  So it was a facade.

 

Conservative #3 –

Do you support U.S. involvement in an international military force against Libya's Gadhafi?

 

http://world-news.newsvine.com/_question/2011/03/21/6312203-do-you-support-us-involvement-in-an-international-military-force-against-libyas-gadhafi

 

Ok...ay, we are safe, the polls show it is okay.  Phew that was close, if the polls said no, I am not sure what I would have done.

 

What all country’s are involved and are they the same ones in Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

Are we doing to bring any Libyan terrorists to club gitmo or was club gitmo closed?  Someone please help me out, I forget.

 

Liberal #1 –

Liberal #2, the War Powers Act has been deemed Constitutional.  I don't know the court case off hand, but you could look for it.

 

Conservative #2 –

Yeah, but that is that sort of unconstitutional like Dean's unions having an incontestable right to organize, or the Health Care act forcing people to buy insurance.  What the guy in the street thinks unconstitutional sometimes passes muster after all.  I think the War Powers act is a way of handling the fact that the Constitution does say Congress can declare war, but what is war, exactly?

 

Conservative #2 –

Club Gitmo -- oh yeah.  It proved sort of hard to close and now the Left just squints and sucks it up.  It is a very, very tough issue.

 

Liberal #1 –

Oh Conservative #3, you are silly :)  You should read Berstein series about the War on Terror.  You would see hand wringing galore about polls from the previous President.  And Bush Senior, he built up tensions so he could carry out his campaign to take out Noriega.  (Whom by the way, when he was CIA director, he knew Noriega was possibly aiding the Columbian Cartels on the side)  We needed him to fight the commies in El Salvador and Nicaragua, so . . .

 

Conservative #3 –

Iraq U.N. Resolution 1441???  Anyone???

 

Conservative #2-

 I see your 1441 and raise you 1773...

 

Liberal #1 –

Conservative #3, Bush didn't wait for 1441 to be fully enforced, as I said earlier.  AFter the passage of 1441, the Secretary General informed the US it would take up to 9 months for UNSCOM to carry out more inspections.

 

Conservative #2 –

Yeah, so this one is a good deal cleaner.

 

Liberal #1 –

Conservative #2, what does the extension of UNIFIL have to do with Iraq?

 

Conservative #3 –

Liberal #1  is very right on the fact that Obama will never be impeached even if we do commit ground troops, it just will not happen.

 

Liberal #1 –

We won't commit ground troops, there is no need for that

 

Conservative #2 –

Yeah, it is sort of in the overall noise.  No one cares enough, nor in sufficient numbers.

 

Conservative #2 –

To impeach.

 

Liberal #1 –

Well this has been fun, but I have a literature review on global education that has to be written and it won't right itself.  Nor will the 18 plus articles I have to read will get done if we keep chatting.

 

Liberal #2 –

The fact of the matter is that we can't afford our neo-imperialism anymore.  We can't run around the world overthrowing governments, installing dictators, securing safe supplies of bananas, and undermining the sovereginty of other states.  We...'ve never had the right, we've never had the authority, we no longer have the ability.  Even if this is the first conflict we've been involved in since WWII where we were actually on the side of justice, the international community, especially Arabs, Middle Easterners, and North Africans, will see this as just another American-led effort to increase our own power at others' expense.  If Libya does manage to overthrow Gaddafi and install a democratic government, we'll undermine the legitimacy.  I can appreciate the international community coming together to help an oppressed people live in freedom.  I can't appreciate our helping in that effort.

 

Conservative #3 –

Liberal #1 you never know, the need to protect the oil fields and the Libyan people might make ground troops necessary.

 

How long should have Bush waited?

 

Conservative #3 –

Liberal #2  you are very right we cannot keep being the world police, Yemen is next though as they don’t want the U.S. backed leader in power.  Where does it stop?  Bahrain?? Who is next???

 

Liberal #2 –

Yemen already almost happened.  Thanks to Wikileaks, we now know Obama offered to send ground troops to help their leader with his insurgency.  This is shameful.  The supposed leader of the free world shouldn't be going behind his own citizens' backs, and the winner of a Nobel Peace Prize shouldn't be a warmonger.

 

Conservative #2 –

If it ain't us, who?  It's a burden.  But really beer and cigarettes in the big picture, at 5% of our GDP.  For that price, saving some innocent people is worth something.

 

Conservative #2 –

Liberal #2 "first legitimate" use of military since WWII?  There wasn't a whole lot of dispute about the Korean war.  UN resolution and all.  The Kuwait war?  Pretty slick all the way around.  Bosnia, for that matter.  Some folks are tense about the justification for Iraq - and we know the cost is pretty high - but that one is probably heading toward being an actual Arab democracy which in the next twenty years will be vastly important.

 

Liberal #2 –

South Korea is our puppet state. We got Iraqis killed in the Gulf War when we lied to them about overthrowing Saddam.  The Bosnian War was never declared by Congress, either, and was therefore illegal.  Iraq wasn't technically a state for a period of time, since states by definition have sovereignty, because of our complete occupation.  None of that screams legitimacy.  What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?  Or Vietnam?  Or all of these?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_wars Considering the past 60 years of American interventionism and neocolonialism, why should we expect the war in Libya to be any different?

 

Conservative #3 –

One final question, did Libya do something directly to the U.S. to provoke us to attack them?

 

Liberal #1 –

If you call supporting terrorists who committed the Lockerbie bombing, the bombing of a bar in Berlin that was popular with US soldiers.

 

Liberal #1 –

Liberal #2, South Korea was a puppet then, but not anymore.

 

Liberal #2 –

it's still counts as sketchy.  and i think we still have bases there.  we're not responsible enough to be the world police.  our history of neocolonialism ruined our credibility, and non interventionism is the only way to get it back.

 

Liberal #1 –

The real issue is that this is a police action, just like Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Bosnia, Kosovo, 1st Gulf War.  etc.

 

Since it is a police action, the President can use the military for 2 months after informing Congress of his intent to use military force.

 

Liberal #2, most of the wars we participated in, were never declared by Congress.  The only official Wars were the Tripolitan War, War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Spanish American War, World War I, World War II.  In modern times, Congress has authorized the use of force numerous times, including Korean War, Vietnam War, Invasion of Grenada (ex post facto), Occupation of Lebanon, Invasion of Panama (ex post facto), 1st Gulf War (sanctioned by the UN), NATO's peace enforcement in Bosnia and Kosovo, maintenance of the UN's no fly zones in Iraq, and the War on Terror (al Qaeda) and the 2nd Gulf War.

 

So, in those terms, President Obama did nothing illegal, illegitimate, or unconstitutional.

 

Conservative #3 –

Is there a time limit on being provoked?

 

So what if the rebels turn out to be Al Qaeda, are we still okay with it?

 

Liberal #1 –

the rebels aren't al Qaeda.  Qaddaffi pretty much wiped out al Qaeda after the attempted coup in 1994, led by Islamist faction in Libya.  And then a joint action by Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, and Libya about 4 yrs ago pretty much wiped out ...al Qaeda in the Maghreb.  If there are a few left, they are outnumbered by anti-Islamists.  Libya was never a hotbed of revolution (Islamic revolution), and has a rather strong tradition of secularism dating back to before the Italians conquered Tripoli and Cyraenicea back in the late 1800s.  I know Fox News is running stories that the rebels may be rife with al Qaeada members, but that is a red herring to turn public opinion against the President.

 

You have to look at the bigger picture.  Qaddaffi had already come and said that the spread of democracy to Egypt and Tunisia threatened his dictatorship (he offered special forces to Ben Ali of Tunisia to put down the protests in that country).  If left alone he might have sought to destabilize those fledgling democracies to keep his hands on his own country and keep his people quiet.  Egypt more so, Tunisia to a lesser degree are US strategic interests.  We could not idly sit bye, let him slaughter his own people and then possibly try and destabilize Egypt.  Furthermore, the President said in his Cairo Speech that he is committed to seeing the spread of democracy in the Arab World.  Of course, no one is going to give him his (tear down that wall moment (which on a side note really did nothing to end the Cold War)) credit for calling for a revolution of democracy in the Middle East.

 

So while I understand people's apprehension of the use of force, in the terms of Realpolitik it is necessary, prudent, and in the end the right thing to do.

 

Conservative #3 –

U.S. Government Backs Libyan Al-Qaeda While Hyping Terror Attacks Inside U.S.

 

http://www.infowars.com/u-s-government-backs-libyan-al-qaeda-while-hyping-terror-attacks-inside-u-s/

 

UWikiLeaks cables, independent analysts and reporters have all... identified supporters of Islamist causes among the opposition to Col Gaddafi's regime, particularly in the towns of Benghazi and Dernah.

 

An al-Qaeda leader of Libyan origin, Abu Yahya al-Libi, released a statement backing the insurrection a week ago, while Yusuf Qaradawi, the Qatar-based, Muslim Brotherhood-linked theologian issued a fatwa authorizing Col Gaddafi's military entourage to assassinate him.

 

Liberal #2 –

no; all it means is that the presidents that started those euphemistically named "police actions" also started them illegally, illegitimately, and unconstitutionally.  in something as important as going to war, a strict interpretation of the... constitution is the most prudent.  the constitution's process keeps a separation of powers, and requires due diligence and deliberation.  our founding fathers rightly worried that a president with too much control in wartime could easily become a tyrant.  given the atrocities our government commits in the war on terror, we should still be worrying about that today.  reclassifying war as police action and giving the president the power to unilaterally declare war are dangerous to our liberty.

 

Conservative #3 –

U.S. fighter crashes in Libya, will things change from this?

 

What I like here is we are all staying on issues, no name calling, and no grammar & spelling police.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This site uses Facebook comments to make it easier for you to contribute. If you see a comment you would like to flag for spam or abuse, click the "x" in the upper right of it. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use.

Page Tools