http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/04/22/mccain.libya/

Crazy

On the bright side, at least he's not President with a batsheesh-insane VP waiting for him to have a heart attack...

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/04/22/mccain.libya/
Crazy


I owe ya a karma point for being right about this war not being over in a few days.  You were right, I was wrong.

But I get the sense from you that it matters whether the Commander-in-Chief puts an (R) or a (D) behind his name.  Why does that matter?  If you live in the US, you're either for the expansion of US influence or you're not.  Insofar as the only world leaders who've opposed US/NATO involvement in the Libyan civil war have been Putin, Chavez, and Castro, I'll take my chances with Obama/McCain.

If I understand the Elephant position, the week before the bombs started to fly, Obama was ignoring the freedom fighters trying to overthrow the Jackass who flipped Reagan the bird in '86 but after the bombs start to fly, Obama was doing too much?

If I understand the Jackass position, the week before the bombs started to fly, Obama was being responsible and measured, acknowledging the nuances of the fluid situation on the ground, and only after the bombs started to flyElephants started to complain, did he become justified in using US military force to help overthrow a ruthless middle-Eastern dictator.

The most depressing thing about Post-9/11-America is that for people living under the dictators of Iraq and Libya, the thing that matters whether their liberation is worthy of US military involvement has nothing to do with the oppressiveness of their respective dictators - insofar as the American voters are concerned, it matters only whether an Elephant or a Jackass is giving the order to drop the bombs.

But I get the sense from you that it matters whether the Commander-in-Chief puts an (R) or a (D) behind his name.  Why does that matter?  If you live in the US, you're either for the expansion of US influence or you're not.  Insofar as the only world leaders who've opposed US/NATO involvement in the Libyan civil war have been Putin, Chavez, and Castro, I'll take my chances with Obama/McCain.

If I understand the Elephant position, the week before the bombs started to fly, Obama was ignoring the freedom fighters trying to overthrow the Jackass who flipped Reagan the bird in '86 but after the bombs start to fly, Obama was doing too much?

If I understand the Jackass position, the week before the bombs started to fly, Obama was being responsible and measured, acknowledging the nuances of the fluid situation on the ground, and only after the bombs started to flyElephants started to complain, did he become justified in using US military force to help overthrow a ruthless middle-Eastern dictator.

Actually the mainstream Republican politicians were criticizing O'bama for TAKING TOO LONG to decide to invade Libya.  And even now, leading Repub politicians are advocating MORE intensive US involvement.  I disagree with both the Dems and Repubs on Libya... we should not get involved, other than perhaps evacuating civilians and offering humanitarian aid.  I also was not supportive of the (2003) Iraq invasion because of its flawed premise.  Fact of the matter was, Saddaam Hussein was an enemy of Al-Qaeda almost by definition.  During the runup to Iraq II, I was in Brazil and the locals were asking me "why do you Americans want to invade Iraq"?  I told them that not ALL of us agreed with this, and that an invasion would most likely ignite an intractable Iraqi civil war.

A huge problem in the moden world is that countries are rarely allowed to simply have their own little war to settle matters.  Instead, the UN or other interventionists get involved, and the result is a prolonged, never-ending guerilla-type war that could have been avoided if the original players had simply been allowed to duke it out and get it over with.  This sort of intervention is why Israel is still a political infested sore...because nobody will just let the Israelis and Arabs fight it out, may the best army win.

Actually the mainstream Republican politicians were criticizing O'bama for TAKING TOO LONG to decide to invade Libya.  And even now, leading Repub politicians are advocating MORE intensive US involvement.


Karma for articulating your position.  There's nothing wrong with isolationism; I may not favor it myself, but "avoiding foreign entanglements" has a long and storied tradition in American foreign policy, pretty much from the Revolutionary War until 3/4 of the way through WW1 (and 1/4 of the way through WW2), and it's a hell of a lot more rational than either the present-day Elephant or Jackass positions. 

And for the record, it looks you were right (hey, even if it ends next month, you were still a hell of a lot closer to right than I was!) about how long it's going to take.  I seriously underestimated the loyalty of Q-dawg's forces, and seriously overestimated the ability of the rebels to, if required, turn themselves into an effective fighting force.

Karma for articulating your position.  There's nothing wrong with isolationism; I may not favor it myself, but "avoiding foreign entanglements" has a long and storied tradition in American foreign policy, pretty much from the Revolutionary War until 3/4 of the way through WW1 (and 1/4 of the way through WW2), and it's a hell of a lot more rational than either the present-day Elephant or Jackass positions. 

And for the record, it looks you were right (hey, even if it ends next month, you were still a hell of a lot closer to right than I was!) about how long it's going to take.  I seriously underestimated the loyalty of Q-dawg's forces, and seriously overestimated the ability of the rebels to, if required, turn themselves into an effective fighting force.


I think the Dems' position is to go with UN-sanctioned missions, which I don't think it's a bad thing.