So now we're at war with Libia.

What is fundamentally different about the theoretical approach to this than that of Iraq?

Iraq was a preemptive strike against a scary dude who might have weapons of mass destruction and hurt folks (including us and our allies).

This looks to me like a preemptive strike against a scary dude for humanitarian reasons because he might hurt folks (mostly his own people).

I'm not excusing the significance of the actions, nor taking political sides. But is there a fundamental difference in the theory supporting it?

I'd be particularly interested in the viewpoint of some of the more liberal folks, or those that are more supportive of President Obama in this action than they were of President Bush in his actions in Iraq.

This was not a unilateral decision. More than the US is involved. Tossing a cruise missle is cheaper than losing a 21million dollar fighter, I just had a nice hot fudge sunday.

SVreX wrote: I'd be particularly interested in the viewpoint of some of the more liberal folks, or those that are more supportive of President Obama in this action than they were of President Bush in his actions in Iraq.

I support neither decision, but if we're to do something, It's nice to have actual allies now do the work.

I didn't know the Australians and Germans were in on this too? You seem to forget a lot.

In reply to SVreX:

I wouldn't dare to speak for the more liberal supporters of the President, but.......

The one obvious difference is the focus on European and UN promoted action - with the US taking a much lower profile than usual. Frankly, that's not a bad thing as it's about damn time the rest of the "free world" start to bear the costs and burdens of the task.

The no-fly zone is initially intended to protect innocent civilians from Libya's military. How well that is going to work against ground-based forces is debatable; there are serious doubts that air power alone is capable of achieving that result. And, if the no-fly zone fails, will the UN coalition decide to insert troops and instigate a ground campaign? Do the UN and other participants have the gonads and resolve to go that far if the US insists on maintaining a passive role?

It's interesting that UN involvement was encouraged by the Arab League which lobbied for international intervention. Now that the bombs have actually started dropping and killing people, that same Arab League is beotching that things have escalated far beyond what it had envisioned.

As if no one ever saw that one coming.

Why is he only a colonel?

He's a colonel just like Dr. Dre is a doctor.

I read somewhere on one of the crackpot science websites that a small-scale nuclear blast might reverse the effects of global warming.

So, for the good of the planet...

Dr. Hess wrote: Show me one country in Africa better off than Libya was. I hope the commie leftist death worshipers are happy.

At least he figured out how to spell "Libya."

"commie leftist death worshipers" Huh?

Just to get under Iggy's skin, I would feel much better about our current situation if Bush was still in charge instead of the full time golfer/basketball player part time prez we have now.

^^^ ^^^

nicksta43 wrote: Just to get under Iggy's skin, I would feel much better about our current situation if Bush was still in charge instead of the full time golfer/basketball player part time prez we have now.

Hey look he's saluting you! Woops wrong hand.

nicksta43 wrote: Just to get under Iggy's skin, I would feel much better about our current situation if Bush was still in charge instead of the full time golfer/basketball player part time prez we have now.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha no..

Just to get under your skin, I'll bet he's reelected.

oldsaw brought up a good point about no-fly zones. That was supposed to be the 'fix' for Bosnia (which happened under another Dem prez, but I digress) but the worst atrocities happened on the ground after the skies were cleared.

There is no 'clean' war. War is about taking the other side's land. Air and naval power can start the process but boots have to hit the ground to take and hold land. That means there are risks that people will get killed.

The libbies want all these nice clean perfectly packaged resolutions to what is typically a very nasty problem. They jump up and down demanding a fix to whatever the cause du jour is. So the military go in to try to straighten things out. Typical war nastiness ensues. When it doesn't work the way they want, the libbies scream, cry and hold their breath till they turn blue. And of course blame the Prez (if he's a Republican, that is).

He might be, wouldn't change how I live my life though. I've stopped letting politics get under my skin. My wifes ENTIRE family is hardcore liberal. You can't speak common sense to someone with a closed mind, and I'm sure you'd agree with that ;)

Yep, we are no longer allowed to hate an entire country including all of its civilians, or invade someone just because we want their stuff. Because of that, the entire idea of a simple war is becoming obsolete.

nicksta43 wrote: He might be, wouldn't change how I live my life though. I've stopped letting politics get under my skin. My wifes ENTIRE family is hardcore liberal. You can't speak common sense to someone with a closed mind, and I'm sure you'd agree with that ;)

Yeah I do!

MrJoshua wrote: Yep, we are no longer allowed to hate an entire country including all of its civilians, or invade someone just because we want their stuff. Because of that, the entire idea of a simple war is becoming obsolete.

Why? We hate entire constituencies of our OWN country just because they voted for a different guy than we did.

Curmudgeon wrote: When it doesn't work the way they want, the libbies scream, cry and hold their breath till they turn blue.

And when it dosen't go the way the conservatives want....

It goes both ways mang... both ways.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

We don't usually kill them.

MrJoshua wrote: In reply to fast_eddie_72: We don't usually kill them.

"Usually??" You scare me.

In reply to killerkane:

OK, so it sounds like the answers to my question basically align around the idea of other nations supporting the actions, or UN involvement.

While I would generally like to see UN agreement, I don't like the idea that we should essentially get the thumbs up from the rest of the world. National sovereignty, strong leadership, etc.

While I think it would be foolish for us to do something that everybody else DISAGREED with (and we would deserve what we get if we tried it), I am no fan of us asking permission of everybody else before moving forward.

I still think it is a "preemptive" action.

Although, good point on the issue of Arab League requesting intervention.

Just to get under some more skin... essentially, when it comes to foreign policy, other than the habits they each have around leaders of nations during meetings and such,:

Bush43 = Obama

What's scarier than that is that the runner up and the runner up to each in the primary elections (so that's McCain, Romney and Clinton) would have done near EXACTLY THE SAME THING. It's time we stopped voting for this exact same person over and over. Now, McCain probably would have won the war with Libya quickly, but that doesn't make it right, and it didn't get my vote either.

Tuna, you are correct. Obama who campaigned on change is and has been nothing other than the 3rd term of Bush. No difference in any significant policy or action. Better at reading a teleprompter and worse at speaking off the cuff. They are the same.

There is no meaningful difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. Both parties only serve the banksters and work against the people. I think the plan is to try to keep the country split about 50-50 between the two parties as a distraction so the banksters can continue having their way with us. We will not stop voting for the same person over and over again at least not unless there is some mass awakening among the electorate.