Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Libya Updates

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Oil is a fungible commodity for which there is a world wide market. It is in the economic interest of every country in the world that uses oil that Libya participate in the world oil market by export

Two sources I found: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/167814.html http://mondoweiss.net/2011/03/report-israel-company-recruiting-gadhafi-mercenaries.html The original source I was originally link

So, as I said, the rationale is entirely altruistic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

Pretty much spot on.

Weren't you all for this like 3 pages ago? What happened to our moral obligation to help people at our own expense?

Anyway, I agree with most of this article, but there is a glaring mistake. The author states "The proper response to this presidential power-grab is a Congressional vote - as soon as possible." and "A congressional vote is also important to rein in the imperial presidency that Obama has now taken to a greater height then even Bush."

Who can doubt that if Obama had gone to the Congress, they would have simply rubber-stamped this purposeless intervention with a blank check anyway? It wouldn't "rein in" a damn thing, only continue the no-declaration-of-war approvals that give the President open-ended authority to do whatever he wants, like the post-9/11 resolution given to Bush. Though one point is correct "I don't see why Obama should oppose this." Seeing as how the above is given, and Congress was in session when US forces were already in Libya, why didn't Obama just go get the rubber stamp? At least he can then pretend to say he cares about the Constitution and especially since he and his VP and others in his administration are on record calling for impeachment of a president who goes to war unconstitutionally? Maybe he thinks this is pushing the envelope to an even greater level of presidential power? Maybe he was afraid the spectacle of the great anti-Bush Nobel Peace Prize winner asking for a third war in a Muslim country would hurt him with the voters, or with his base, or with the Muslims themselves? Something going on there...

Edited by 2046
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one key philosophical reason that the French, English and Hillary/Obama want to go to war was that they saw the Libyan uprising as part of a movement that is sweeping the Muslim world, and not something isolated to Libya. If Egypt and the rest were humming along as usual, I think it is less likely that the west would have stepped in to aid the rebels. The Muslim world is clearly seeing popular, non-religious uprisings which reflect an "idea whose time has come". Since that idea is "democracy", it appeals to most people.

Still, I'm sure Obama and the rest know how the religious wing in Iran ousted their secular co-revolutionaries and took over power exclusively. These contemporary movements do not have as much religious steam as the Iranian revolution. Still, the lesson of the Wiemar republic is that a weak democracy can lead to calls for a strongman... and the new one could be Islamist.

I think the solution that Obama is trying to choose is to help the move toward democracy, so that he can claim to have been on the right side of history if things turn out right. And, if they do not, he can claim he was not helping change Libya's government so much as protecting civilian massacres. Even if Gaddafi stays in power while Libya is divided into two, Obama gets to claim victory.

The two scenarios that will throw a spanner in the works, from the viewpoint of a Western politician, would be:

  • a clear Gaddafi victory, where he wins back control of virtually all of Libya
  • a clear rebel victory where the rebel government comes under the sway of a new dictator (unlikely to happen before the next U.S. election, but one can never say never)

So, chances are that the West will continue it's Goldilocks support for this war... not too hot, not too cold. If Gaddafi appears to be gaining ground, the West will help more, otherwise they will back off. Whether or not they are drawn in step by step, Vietnam style depends on whether the rebels can hold their ground.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to post
Share on other sites

‎"The president is putting himself in a corner where his only option is ground troops. Both parties love to intervene in others business where there's no U.S. interests at stake, & where we spend enormous amts of money at a time where we're nearly bankrupt. Does not seem to me to be wise practice of American statesmanship" -Scheuer

Hypocrisy:

‎"Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrcities in other countries. The United States of America is DIFFERENT. And as president, Irefused to wait for images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action." -President Obama 3/28/2011

Syria opens fire on protesters

‎"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the U.S. won't enter into the internal conflict in Syria the way it has in Libya...Clinton said the elements that led to intervention in Libya -- international condemnation, an Arab League call for ...action, a United Nations Security Council resolution -- are 'not going to happen' with Syria in part because members of the US Congress from both parties say they believe Assad is 'a reformer'." -Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-27/u-s-won-t-intervene-in-syria-unrest-clinton-says-on-cbs.html)

"Syria's rate of oil production has been decreasing steadily, from a peak close to 600,000 barrels per day (95,000 m3/d) (bpd) in 1995 down to approximately 425,000 bbl/d (67,600 m3/d) in 2005. Experts generally agree that Syria will become a net importer of petroleum not later than 2012. Syria exported roughly 200,000 bbl/d (32,000 m3/d) in 2005, and oil still accounts for a majority of the country's export income. Syria also produces 22 million cubic meters of gas per day, with estimated reserves around 8.5 trillion cubic feet (240 km3)". -Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria )

Oh the irony.

Oh and by the way, regardless of what Hilary Clinton says, Assad is most certainly NOT A REFORMER>

Don’t forget that for years this “reformer” Assad allowed terrorists on his soil who had been moving, arming, and funding foreign jihadists tr...aveling through Syria into Iraq in cooperation with al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi. If you don’t agree with his regime you either will be bombed…or, if you are not the target of a bombing the regime “reformers” will just slaughter you in the street without hesitation.

Syria has been threatening Israel for years and has allowed the Iranian regime to move weapons freely to its Hezbollah affiliates in Lebanon.

The Assad regime has been implicated in bomb attacks that killed at least six prominent anti-Syrian political leaders in Lebanon, including the blast that killed former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005.

Its army occupied neighboring Lebanon, which it considers a lost province of Greater Syria, for decades and gave aid, comfort and weapons to the Iranian puppet Hezbollah as it destroyed that multicultural democracy.

Hillary, from your very own list of “State Sponsors of Terrorism”

Cuba, member since 1982

Iran, member since 1984

Sudan, member since 1993

Syria, member since 1979

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/c14151.htm

In depth description from the 2008 report on why each is on the list, including Syria:

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2008/122436.htm

Nope, no Libya. They were a founding member, but got off the list for playing ball with W in 2006.

Real good message we are sending here zero (Obama).

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to post
Share on other sites

That video clip is a perfect example of how hilarious CNN can be. What? You disagree with the bipartisan foreign policy of our wise overlords? You don't unquestioningly accept their clever euphemisms and bromides? How dare you! Interview over!

I believe the top youtube comment for that video highlights this exceptionally well:

"If you the video at 1.17 and 2.45 and watch the body language of both women, it is very interesting. The woman on the left at 1.17 begins to display body language she is not aware is very defensive on behalf of Obama. She ends the interview with her hand clasped in a pyramid position which is a power gesture and then says "exhaustive interview" as well. It was exhaustive to her to hear the truth I suspect? LOL!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a pretty funny interview. Too bad the topic is so serious. The main-stream media's love affair with all things Obama continues.....

Swine, thanks for posting the Mrs. Clinton statement about Assad being a "reformer". Clearly the people leading our nation's foreign policy couldn't be any more incompetent. After Obama leaves power, I'm confident that we'll be able to fix all or at least most of his domestic disasters (healthcare, deficit spending, over-regulation, etc...). However, when you're dealing with foreign policy, people get killed as a result of your mistakes. This administration is rapidly creating a series of foreign policy disasters that may take decades to fix.

Edited by gags
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” Senator Barack Obama, December 20, 2007

BIDEN: "I am not one, who if you've observed me for some time, I am not one who's engaged in excessive populist rhetoric. I'm not one that pits the rich against the poor. I'm not one who's gone out there and made false threats against presidents about, and god love him he's a great guy, I'm not Dennis Kucinich saying impeach everybody now. But let me tell you, I have written an extensive legal memorandum with the help of a group of legal scholars who are sort of a stable of people, the best-known constitutional scholars in America, because for 17 years I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

"I asked them to put together [for] me a draft, which I'm now literally riding between towns editing, that I want to make clear and submit to the Untied States Senate pointing out the president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran. And I want to make it clear, I want it on the record, and I want to make it clear, if he does, as chairman of the foreign relations committee and former chair of the judiciary committee, I will move to impeach him."

So I guess if Obama doesn't impeach himself we can count on Biden to do it for him?

Oh wait:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/white-house-on-war-powers-deadline-limited-us-role-in-libya-means-no-need-to-get-congressional-autho.html

In an effort to satisfy those arguing he needs to seek congressional authorization to continue US military activity in accordance with the War Powers Resolution, President Obama wrote a letter to congressional leaders this afternoon suggesting that the role is now so “limited” he does not need to seek congressional approval.

So that's it. He doesn't need it. That settles it.

Edited by 2046
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

After months not weeks of US and NATO involvement, Qaddaffi (what was the correct spelling?) is dead. Reuters story. Obama declares victory. Maybe he will run for re-election as a successful war president, nothing else has gone well during the 3 years of his term so far.

Gaddafi's death to hasten return of Libyan oil

Qaddafi dead after Sirte battle, PM confirms

Obama on death of Moammar Gadhafi: "momentous day" for Libya. Transcript

"Peace Prize Prez Strikes Again" is the Drudge Report headline, under a photo of Obama smiling and shaking Gaddafi's hand.

There never was a single accepted spelling of his name.

This cost the U.S. $1.1 billion dollars out of DoD, probably more across all agencies.

(this was the main Libya thread, might as well note how the story ended here)

Edited by Grames
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 9 months later...

Today, I came across a story on an English-language Libyan news-site. It is about a small incident: where a politician walk out of an event because the woman announcer did not cover her head. It's an interesting article for anyone trying to piece together a view of the Islamist vs. secularist tussle in Libya.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...