Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2011 at 1:19 pm
> You people who voted for this guy now have blood on your hands
Nothing like emotionally provocative overstatements to get people arguing. That is a very "lacking in information and good sense comment" and I am really surprised this post was allowed to stay.
The statement and the post does not make arguments pro or con on the issue of US foreign policy and military engagement, or differentiate between unilateral war and multilateral air patrol of a failing regime - no, what this post does is to claim that those who voted for Obama have blood on their hands ... which I find a poor way to conduct one's self in a public forum.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2011 at 6:33 pm
I applaud obama's actions. He had done the right thing. Terascale idiocy's post is way off the mark. Wasn't he posting a different thread complaining that obama was not doing enough in egypt/iran/libya? Check the style of writing, the names are different but the message is the same.
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2011 at 7:49 pm
We are part of a global community. There are a coalition of countries who have decided it is time to act. There are times when it is not appropriate to allow humanity to suffer under tyranny just because "it is not our business".
If we look out of a window in our home and see our neighbor beating his wife and kids do we sit back and do nothing because it is none of our business, or do we interfere through compassion for the victims?
Posted by PA res, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 21, 2011 at 12:31 am
Oil - that is the real reason for the international intervention in Lybia. Now compare it to Rwanda where millions died in civil war. Did US and Europe care for Rwanda's population being exterminated? No way, they coudl care less. But they do care about Lybia because it produces oil.
Follow the money! I am so tired of hypocricy everywhere!
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Mar 21, 2011 at 6:44 am
To Resident who wrote
"f we look out of a window in our home and see our neighbor beating his wife and kids do we sit back and do nothing because it is none of our business, or do we interfere through compassion for the victims?"
That, combined with the well known WMD ( no, I reaaallllly don't care that there is the myth that 'we didn't find any so it was never there', that is false and circular thinking) that were a threat to everyone including us, and the fact that 35 FREE nations supported the effort ( the Coalition of the Willing, I believe it was called), along with a clearly defined goal ( out when Iraq has the ability to defend its own freedom/constitution, ...time to get out, been waiting!!)..well, I supported our going into Iraq.
The no-fly-zone in Iraq was dithering and useless, the "sanctions" by the UN were useless because they were undercut non-stop by Russia and France ( surprise), and all either did was give the appearance of doing something while Saddam continued to torture, kill and try to advance his WMD program. There was no goal, no way of enforcing anything.
I find this, Libya, is just repeat of what the "UN" did in Iraq...I see no goal, no "end", no strategic purpose.
I am all for stopping atrocities, from Sarajevo to deep Africa, to China to Russia..but the problem is that we CAN'T stop it all, there must be a strategic USA interest, not just humanitarian, and there must be an "end goal" that is achievable.
Please find what either the strategic interest or the end-goal is in Libya for me. I can only conclude it is a Somalia...which scares me.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Mar 21, 2011 at 5:47 pm
There is an old saying that one needs to "cut the head off the snake", in order for the snake to be finally dead.
GWB understood this, in Iraq. Neither Saddam, nor his sons were ever going to become nice guys. In Libya, it is nowhere as brutal as Iraq, but is has become somehat brutal in spots. President Obama wants Gaddaffi out, thus he will need to decide how to do it. I support his goal...just wish I could feel that there was a there, there. When a U.S. president puts process over policy, it can produce major consequences, not all of which are positive.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Mar 21, 2011 at 6:31 pm
"So Saddam was not a nice guy, and that's the reason we went in, according to you"
I am rewinding some old stuff, here, in order to address your charge.
Who attacked the USA in 1941? Last I heard it was Japan, not Germany. However, FDR, having provoked both Japan and Germany, decided to go to war, primarily, against Germany, instead of Japan. To put it in simple terms, FDR pulled military assets out of the Pacific and sent them to the Atlantic. Hitler was very eager to cut a deal with America, but FDR rejected him. FDR was right IMO, because Hitler was a bad guy, like Saddam and Stalin. FDR even hooked up with Stalin (who was worse than Hitler, in terms of the number of his own people he killed), in order to defeat Hitler. The USA could have signed a deal with Hitler, and probably have done pretty well. The question is: Would this have been a deal that we could explain to our children and grandchildren?
Allowing Saddam to stay in power would be very hard to explain to any grandchild, given his record, and given the circumstances. Gaddafi is not quite in his class, but he does have some similar characteristics. However, to my knowledge, Gaddifi did not use WMD against, and he did not commit mass murder against his own people, as Saddam did. Correct me if I am wrong.
GWB will have history on his side, because he cut the head off the snake in Iraq. I would hope that BHO will fulfill his rhetoric against Gaddafi, and take him out. Perhaps his cautious and reluctant approach will work, and I hope it does, but I am not aware that such an approach works, historically. Chamberlain comes to mind....
Posted by US World Nice Guy sc, a resident of Atherton, on Mar 21, 2011 at 8:19 pm
So now that you admit it isn't "the evil", and admitting there never was a WMD case, it's all:
"..pick our spots, considering our own capabilities, and our own interests, as well as our own ideals"
So dubya picked:
- taking away the one counterweight in the neighborhood to Iran, also making Iran stronger by removing a secular enemy and creating a Shia friend for Iran.
- driving oil from the teens in the 1990's to +/-$100 a barrel
- killing 5,000 Americans, injuring tens of thousands, with the signature injury of the war being TRAUMATIC HEAD INJURY.
- allowing ethnic cleansing of Baghdad and other large Iraq cities, which, along with the war accounted for UNKNOWN deaths - probably hundreds of thousands, and a million refugees
- loot the American treasury of a couple trillion dollars, much to private contractors, some that went around building such crap they electrocuted our soldiers
- well, strike the last one, we actually BORROWED FROM CHINA and others (including oil states like Iran, oddly enough) for this war. Can you imagine the "patriotism" of borrowing from China for tax cuts for the rich IN A TIME OF WAR?!?!?
- this war was so unconscionable, that, other than Britain, no country sent more than a thousand troops. We had to bribe the "coalition of the willing" partners like Poland (with arms contracts) and Palau to send a couple dozen jeep drivers. The second largest group of guns was actually private - mercenaries (Blackwater, et al..)
The list goes on.
You, sir, should well consider that everyone ELSE is correct and reevaluate where you are in error.
Consider those that said at the time it was wrong because there was no WMD. That sanctions DID have Saddam boxed in (history proves it - he was a weakling.) They listened to the inspectors. They listened to the rest of the world. They evaluated the baloney from dubya and his club. They were right.
And it drives the right bonkers as history proves them correct. You know the list, you laughed at them at the time, and try to hide now by still laughing and belittling them.
Al Gore. Druggie Rush listened to Gore's speech at the time and said Al was off his meds (was that before or after rush's drug arrests?)
Howard Dean. History proves him correct, also.
Half a million protesters in Central Park.
They were correct, but you still cling to:
"..pick our spots, considering our own capabilities, and our own interests, as well as our own ideals"
Great. Thanks to that logic, we owe China another trillion, making us weaker against them. Five thousand dead, thirty thousand wounded. And we have yet to rebuild our military from this fiasco, which means we borrow more.
Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. Although I have to question whether I should replace that word with "treasonous".
History will never "catch up with" George W Bush.
If you stepped back and looked at a scenario with results like that, and applied Obama's name, my guess is you'd be looking to have a criminal court "catch up with" that perpetrator.
So now you want boots on the ground in another Middle East country?
Dude, try this one on for size: Those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it.
Posted by Outside Observer, a resident of another community, on Mar 21, 2011 at 8:26 pm
What is our possible interest in Libya? The oil?
If so, the only means to secure it long-term is to enslave and/or exterminate the indigents. We have the means to do that.
Iraq and Afghanistan should prove that is the only way it could possibly work.
Is it spreading democracy? Look at history and human nature, All democracies have failed long-term, and ours in in the midst of failure now.
If the reason is oil, then do what it takes to be successful. If it's democracy, then we are insane. We are repeating the same action we've taken numerous times elsewhere and expecting a different outcome.
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 27, 2011 at 11:33 am
Since the U.S. maintains a large standing army, they have to use it. Using it on Libya is a great way to keep all our military guys and their equipment busy. This is all part of Eisenhower's famous statement that the U.S. will be taken over by a military/industrial complex. Just think of all the Tomahawk missiles that will now have to be replaced at huge expense; but it keeps people employed!!
It was David Cameron who talked Obama into this war. David Cameron believes he is the second coming of Winston Churchill!! He constantly reminds the Brits of their wartime leader in the most flattering terms.
When the House of Commons voted on going to war in Libya only seven far left members voted against it; even Ed Milliband voted for it!! Meanwhile the U.S. has obligations to Britain for backing them up in both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Also, Sarkozy was pushing hard for the U.S. to be involved in Libya, and that is the price you pay for having allies.
Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Mar 28, 2011 at 3:33 pm
"So now that you admit it isn't "the evil", and admitting there never was a WMD case"
Where did I say that?
Saddam was evil, he had and used WMD, there was a WMD case (did he still have them, or did he have his program on hold, but ready to start, again?). He was corrupting Europe with his oil-for-food campaign (whle continuing to build his own palaces), he slaughtered over 300,000 of his own people (after his capitulation in the Gulf War), he was shooting at our planes, which were enforcing the no-fly zone, he tried to assasinate our former president, he was a coninuing threat to the region, his sons were as bad as he was.
GWB decided to pull the tigger on him. This will go down as an historical, world-changing decision. The liberation of Iraq is one of those things that will makes the leftists, in this country and Europe, choke on their own words of indignation.
GWB cut the head off the snake in Iraq, and the world will be much better off for his having done so. I hope BHO will cut to the chase and just admit that he wants to cut off Gadaffi's head. A stalemate in Libya is worse than not going in. I hope BHO has a magic formula to make it happen.