Btw, I love what Shepard Smith calls Libya: "Our 'not war' with Libya."

GMTom wrote:If this were about humanitarianism, we would have intervened in Syria. Many weeks ago I was told Syria did not compare (though it most certainly did) and now Syria is far WORSE than Libya in terms civilian security.

Frankly, Libya is still worse. But I agreed some time ago that Syria had crossed the line.

1. Oil, Europe needs Libyan oil

Oil is fungible, and US companies are/were in Libya too. What Europe doesn't want is a large wave of refugees from a civil war on it's own doorstep.

(and it's quite interesting to observe, pace Iraq, accusations from the right that a foreign war is all about oil)

2. Liberals simply can not criticize Obama

Some conservatives can't help but criticize him. But, you call me a liberal, right? And I opposed the intervention, right? Which implies a criticism of those who supported it, including (reluctantly and vacillating) Obama.

Why do you have to make this partisan?

danivon wrote:What Europe doesn't want is a large wave of refugees from a civil war on it's own doorstep.

(and it's quite interesting to observe, pace Iraq, accusations from the right that a foreign war is all about oil)

Turkey is showing extreme displeasure over Syria which may also be substantially about refugees. They are a NATO ally and presumably will take the lead on this one. I'm sure there are a lot of backdoor conversations going on right now about this.

danivon wrote:Some conservatives can't help but criticize him. But, you call me a liberal, right? And I opposed the intervention, right? Which implies a criticism of those who supported it, including (reluctantly and vacillating) Obama.

Why do you have to make this partisan?

Yeah, Tom is being particularly annoying about this. How many times has he made the same point?

Interesting parsing by the administration on Libya. Apparently the US is not actively bombing in Libya WITH manned bombers and hasn't been for weeks. The involvement has been drones, cruise missiles, inteligence and support. Apparently manned bombing has only been done by the NATO partners for a while.

One of the reasons to resist the congress on this, might be that if CIA drones and cruise missiles need to be approved by congress ... that would severely limit the ability of a President to use them as anti-terrorism tools in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen Somalia etc... Theoretically you use one in Pakistan and you have only a 60 day window to where Congress then has to approve any future use in that region. That starts to be a prohibitive constriction of the independent executive... And perhaps a constriction of the ability of the CIA and the executive to conduct foreign adventures.
Obama seems to be defending the independence and powers of of the executive office. And hoping that Gahddafi folds soon.
Reagan fought these kinds of restrictions tooth and nail. to the point of flouting the law. I wodner at what point Obama wil start to remind the right of reagans positions? (Maybe not a great idea since it would arouse more of the left in opposition, but still. Invoking the sainted one would make it difficult for some no?)

The funny thing is Liberals were the ones who cried how Iraq was all about oil and no suddenly Libya is about humanitarian aid. Of course Iraq was about oil, you never saw me say it wasn't, you will not find where Steve said it was about something else either. No kidding it was about oil, but Libya is somehow different?

and yes it IS annoying, it seems to me that you want to say this is partisan only from the Conservative end, the liberals are somehow immune to this?

It's not the Conservatives per se who are being needlessly partisan. It's some of them. Such as you.

RJ has recently 'come out' as a former liberal who is now more inclined to the conservatives. I wonder if he and other centrist conservatives feel that they are being welcomed at the moment?

rickyp wrote:Interesting parsing by the administration on Libya. Apparently the US is not actively bombing in Libya WITH manned bombers and hasn't been for weeks. The involvement has been drones, cruise missiles, inteligence and support. Apparently manned bombing has only been done by the NATO partners for a while.

Source?

Even if true, it's a dubious distinction. Secretary Gates berated NATO, saying they ran out of ammo, etc. What's the implication? We had to supply them with the bombs.

To say the US is "not in conflict" with Libya because someone else is flying the planes that deliver our bombs would be, even if true, a rather implausible deniability.

Again, I'd love to see him present this to voters. It's laughable.

Reagan fought these kinds of restrictions tooth and nail. to the point of flouting the law. I wodner at what point Obama wil start to remind the right of reagans positions? (Maybe not a great idea since it would arouse more of the left in opposition, but still. Invoking the sainted one would make it difficult for some no?)

While true some Republicans are looking to invoke WPA, so are many Democrats. Obama is trying to have it both ways--support the WPA AND claim it doesn't apply. It's disingenuous.

danivon wrote:It's not the Conservatives per se who are being needlessly partisan. It's some of them. Such as you.

RJ has recently 'come out' as a former liberal who is now more inclined to the conservatives. I wonder if he and other centrist conservatives feel that they are being welcomed at the moment?

I'm a conservative on economic matters, but not particularly one way or the other on international relations. I'm a social liberal and will always be so. These days I prefer the Republicans because I think our debt crisis is so extreme that it overwhelms my liberal social desires. I'd like to allow gay marriage, and legalize pot and prostitution. But frankly none of that stuff matters if the US suffers economic catastrophe.

During the great depression (our last really bad economic time), both the fascists and the communists got stronger at the expense of the middle. In Europe is was almost fatal; somehow the Anglo world escaped those worst instincts, but there was definitely growth for both the far left and the far rights. In fact, that's where our politics is going, which is also worrying. We can't last with this kind of debt, both economically and politically.

On IR, I'm still trying to figure it out. The world is very dynamic right now, and I think that we are all learning about the limits of American power, and also the real nature of political and social institutions in the Arab and Muslim world. I don't know the right answer. I do know that people arguing in a partisan way create so much noise that it is hard for the rest of us to think and discuss above the noise.

Re conservatives and liberals, I find partisans on both sides to be very annoying. For example, Tom's posts don't really try to advance the debate; it's only about partisanship. It doesn't matter what you or or Ricky or I post. He'll just come back in a week or two and make the same point.

I'll give an example of where I'd rather spend a billion dollars. I read a letter from a friend yesterday. He's a missionary in South Africa. Some time ago, a boy of 12 showed up at their doorstep. Over the months that followed, his story came out. He was from Zimbabwe. His parents are dead. His other relatives used him for a while (received a monthly stipend from the government) and gave him no food. My friends took him in their home, fed and clothed him. They had difficulty getting him into school (legally) so they homeschooled him and verified his story. They're keeping him and will, I'm sure, put him through college one day.

Meanwhile, we're spending $1B to maybe save some civilians while killing others (9 today). I don't know. I think maybe that $1B could change some lives of orphans in Africa instead of creating more of them.

Dr Fate - do you think that it is a popular position in the USA to reduce defence spending and increase international aid?

The reality is that there is already a war in Libya, with or without NATO. Gadaffi is certainly intending to create orphans, and the evidence going to the ICC now suggests far more.

Excuse me, instead of simply saying I am "needlessly partisan" please oh please point out how I am more so than say ...yourself?
I am against being in Iraq, against being in Afghanistan and against being involved in Libya. Yes I did support Iraq at the start, but my position as being exactly the opposite as you state indicates it is not me that is "needlessly partisan" but rather YOUR position that was against Iraq but all for Libya shows how partisan YOU really are. Please explain how I am so much worse than you are because I'm pretty sure you could not be further from the truth.

I am indeed partisan on many subjects, this is not one of them. But at least I know I am on occassion so, you however are blind to your own "needlessly partisan" positions.

I guess you are talking to me.

Tom, it is the way that you frame the debate. You say liberals this and liberals that. Liberals are hypocrites and liberals only want to align with Obama, the chosen one, etc., etc.

Because at this time, in this situation, it is the liberals who are being hypocritical. They were dead set against Iraq , they claimed the war was illegal, it was only about oil, it was....
Now we have Libya and the situation is so similar yet they suddenly support the President now. That is hypocritical, sorry if it sounds like I'm picking on them ...ahh who am I kidding, I just love picking on them right now! And it certainly fits.

Have I ever been partisan? no doubt about it!
I know when I am and can admit it, the liberals here simply can never ever admit being partial. The facts speak for themselves in this thread. and no it was not YOU who I was replying to it was the personal attack that Danivon made that I replied to (he just loves to make personal attacks on me, it's a theme of his the past few months)
immediately after my post he said:
It's not the Conservatives per se who are being needlessly partisan. It's some of them. Such as you.

Yet he had no basis to make this claim on, he likes to hurl such accusations (see other threads) without any substance behind them. Quite tiring really. (and yes, now I am getting personal right back at him)

Right, but Danivon is not a liberal, and he doesn't support the UN action against Libya. I'm not a liberal and I do support the action against Libya (and Darfur). Meanwhile 110 House Democrats (out of 193) voted to cut off funding for the Libyan intervention or war or whatever it is we are supposed to call it. That's a majority of the Democrats in the house. Kucinich, who is extremely liberal, is suing the President. That's a lot of liberals that do not support the President.

It seems like most liberals don't fit into your characterization.

Doctor Fate wrote:Meanwhile, we're spending $1B to maybe save some civilians while killing others (9 today). I don't know. I think maybe that $1B could change some lives of orphans in Africa instead of creating more of them.

Amen brother.