• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Washington Post Catch and Kill, not noticeably better than the Enquirer’s.

Never give a known liar the benefit of the doubt.

Jesus, Mary, & Joseph how is that election even close?

They are lying in pursuit of an agenda.

Rupert, come get your orange boy, you petrified old dinosaur turd.

I might just take the rest of the day off and do even more nothing than usual.

Giving in to doom is how we fail to fight for ourselves & one another.

We are aware of all internet traditions.

Sitting here in limbo waiting for the dice to roll

The snowflake in chief appeared visibly frustrated when questioned by a reporter about egg prices.

Lick the third rail, it tastes like chocolate!

It is not hopeless, and we are not helpless.

Weird. Rome has an American Pope and America has a Russian President.

The fundamental promise of conservatism all over the world is a return to an idealized past that never existed.

Cancel the cowardly Times and Post and set up an equivalent monthly donation to ProPublica.

It’s easy to sit in safety and prescribe what other people should be doing.

It’s all just conspiracy shit beamed down from the mothership.

Let’s not be the monsters we hate.

The media handbook says “controversial” is the most negative description that can be used for a Republican.

“But what about the lurkers?”

Good lord, these people are nuts.

Celebrate the fucking wins.

I like political parties that aren’t owned by foreign adversaries.

Disagreements are healthy; personal attacks are not.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Foreign Affairs / War / Game On

Game On

by John Cole|  March 17, 20119:50 pm| 245 Comments

This post is in: War

FacebookTweetEmail

Here we go:

The United Nations Security Council voted Thursday to authorize military action, including airstrikes against Libyan tanks and heavy artillery and a no-fly zone, a risky foreign intervention aimed at averting a bloody rout of rebels by forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

The foot is in the door:

“It’s going to be tougher to stop Qaddafi today than it was a week ago,” said James M. Lindsay, the director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. “The issue is not going to be settled in the skies above Benghazi, but by taking out tanks, artillery positions and multiple-launch rocket systems on the ground.”

Mr. Lindsay said that would require helicopter gunships and other close-in support aircraft rather than advanced fighter planes. Other analysts said repelling Colonel Qaddafi’s forces might require ground troops, an option that has been flatly ruled out by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and other senior American officials.

I wonder where the gunships and support aircraft will come from:

A Pentagon official said Thursday that decisions were still being made about what kind of military action, if any, the United States might take with the allies against Libya. The official said that contingency planning continued across a full range of operations, including a no-fly zone, but that it was unclear how much the United States would become involved beyond providing support.

That support is likely to consist of much of what the United States already has in the region — Awacs radar planes to help with air traffic control should there be airstrikes, other surveillance aircraft and about 400 Marines aboard two amphibious assault ships in the region, the Kearsarge and the Ponce.

The Americans could also provide signal-jamming aircraft in international airspace to muddle Libyan government communications with its military units.

A European diplomat said that Britain and France were still waiting to hear what role the United States would take in any military action in Libya. “One decision that needs to be made,” he said, “is whether there will be a command and control operations in Britain or in France.”

Beyond that, the diplomat said that officials in Britain, France and the United States were all adamant that Arab League forces take part in the military actions and help pay for the operations, and that it not be led by NATO, to avoid the appearance that the West was attacking another Muslim country.

We’ll see.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Happy St. Patrick’s Day, BTW
Next Post: Open Thread: Thursday Night Menu »

Reader Interactions

245Comments

  1. 1.

    Irving Clawhammer

    March 17, 2011 at 9:54 pm

    Please, let every other goddamn UN affiliate fight and participate except the United States! Please! We’ve done enough.

  2. 2.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    March 17, 2011 at 9:55 pm

    Apparently we didn’t kill enough people last time to make it clear that killing will not be tolerated.

  3. 3.

    srv

    March 17, 2011 at 9:55 pm

    So since all of us DFH’s will be later be told we weren’t right, we were just lucky thinking this would be a fuckup, how about predictions?

    I say 100K dead within 24 months. Whether the Khadaffi we love is around or not.

  4. 4.

    The Dangerman

    March 17, 2011 at 9:56 pm

    If one can believe the tweets (and I’m not saying that I do), Libyans are actively switching sides to be on the right side of history. This could be an interesting few days/weeks.

  5. 5.

    Linda Featheringill

    March 17, 2011 at 9:57 pm

    It’s difficult to see a good end for this. In-and-out, wipe-out-the-jerk-in-a-week might be all right, but I don’t think that will happen.

    I did, however, think that Gaddafi’s days were probably numbered when I heard that his nurse scooted out of there and went home. I figure that she is a Survivor with a capital “S”.

  6. 6.

    Bob Loblaw

    March 17, 2011 at 9:57 pm

    Perhaps this thread can be about more than Iraq and ad hominems.

    Nah, that’s not how Balloon Juice rolls…

  7. 7.

    srv

    March 17, 2011 at 9:57 pm

    NATO has their own AWACS

    They might mean JSTARs, 707 that can track vehicles, although our AWACS have some of that capability (which perhaps NATO doesn’t have those upgrades)

  8. 8.

    virag

    March 17, 2011 at 10:01 pm

    they don’t have oil in libya, do they?

  9. 9.

    Arclite

    March 17, 2011 at 10:02 pm

    Hey, you’re supposed to be playing Dragon Age II. Back to the xbox, JC.

  10. 10.

    John PM

    March 17, 2011 at 10:04 pm

    Whatever happened to the Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary? We take care of the Western Hemisphere and the rest of the world takes care of itself.

  11. 11.

    The Dangerman

    March 17, 2011 at 10:05 pm

    @srv:

    Whether the Khadaffi we love is around or not.

    Seems to be as if the only question is if Kaddafi wants to take the money and run (my bet) or wants the Mussolini ending.

    After his departure/demise, who knows how the tribes will or won’t get along; it could partition like Czechoslovakia (i.e. relatively peacefully), go the Yugoslavia route, or somehow hold it together. It shall be interesting…

  12. 12.

    Redshirt

    March 17, 2011 at 10:06 pm

    So everyone voted for it? China and Russia too?

    Yes yes, let the Arab League take the lead. Provide support to them, nothing more.

    Wishful thinking, I’m sure.

  13. 13.

    Little Boots

    March 17, 2011 at 10:07 pm

    I don’t mean to be indifferent. I’m really not. but Libya is going to have to work out its own salvation. Right now we really need our president to focus on the home front. This country is rapidly turning into a shitty place and Obama is constitutionally required to notice.

  14. 14.

    me

    March 17, 2011 at 10:08 pm

    @Redshirt: Exactly. The Arab League wants to break it, they can buy it.

    Nope, China and Russia abstained.

  15. 15.

    Alex S.

    March 17, 2011 at 10:09 pm

    If Gadhafi wasn’t as crazy as he is, his regime would probably be starting to collapse right now. But since he is, everyone is probably afraid of his paranoia. I hope that one of his remaining generals reads the writings on the wall and shoots him.

  16. 16.

    jo6pac

    March 17, 2011 at 10:10 pm

    All Right Good News another War, this will help the economy like the the other wars Right. I forgot how many does Amerika have going?
    Oh us left coasters rain coming and it’s going to be Hot. Yep, everthing is better says the govt. Shock Doctrine coming to Japan as if the citizens haven’t been through the ringer and how long until this comes to the homeland?

    Everything is on schedule, please move along.

  17. 17.

    SST

    March 17, 2011 at 10:12 pm

    Yes, but what does this have to do with Glenn Greenwald?

  18. 18.

    cathyx

    March 17, 2011 at 10:12 pm

    I think we should skip these lower oil producing countries and go right for the mother lode. Saudi Arabia. Then hit Iran. We’d be set for life if we had their oil.

  19. 19.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    March 17, 2011 at 10:15 pm

    The US has roughly 3 million active and reserve military personnel. Libya has a population of about 3 million adults. I say we give their 3 million a chance before we commit our 3 million.

    Barring that, I volunteer our intrepid armchair warriors.

  20. 20.

    J.W. Hamner

    March 17, 2011 at 10:15 pm

    I agree with the hippy position here, and don’t want the US to be involved, but cam’t we all agree that the run up to this resembles Afghanistan/Iraq is nearly zero ways?

  21. 21.

    dslak

    March 17, 2011 at 10:19 pm

    @SST: In case you haven’t heard, he lives in Brazil. I refute you thus.

  22. 22.

    Villago Delenda Est

    March 17, 2011 at 10:19 pm

    @J.W. Hamner:

    Run up to Afghanistan: “You can have a carpet of gold, or a carpet of bombs!”

    Run up to Iraq: “There are WMDs all over the place, and we know, because we have the receipts!”

  23. 23.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    March 17, 2011 at 10:20 pm

    @cathyx:

    I think we should skip these lower oil producing countries and go right for the mother lode. Saudi Arabia. Then hit Iran. We’d be set for life if we had their oil.

    Shit, we could walk right across the border and take Canada now that they’ve sent their 6 planes to Libya. They have just as much oil as Iraq.

  24. 24.

    Bob Loblaw

    March 17, 2011 at 10:21 pm

    @J.W. Hamner:

    cam’t we all agree that the run up to this resembles Afghanistan/Iraq is nearly zero ways?

    Impossible. History started only ten years ago, don’t you know? 9/11 changed everything!

  25. 25.

    Villago Delenda Est

    March 17, 2011 at 10:21 pm

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    Barring that, I volunteer our intrepid armchair warriors.

    Those guys couldn’t kill Hogger with i359 gear.

    (This is a World of Warcraft reference which mocks their military prowess)

  26. 26.

    Canadian Observer

    March 17, 2011 at 10:21 pm

    This resembles Vietnam and perhaps Nicaragua more than Iraq.

    Down with the Empire!

  27. 27.

    New Yorker

    March 17, 2011 at 10:21 pm

    Does it seem to everyone else that the UK, France, and Italy are the ones just itching for a fight here, and not the US.

    SO LET THE GODDAMN EUROPEANS FIGHT THIS GODDAMN WAR!!!

    I swear to god, if the post-9/11 insanity among the political and chattering classes had been around 80 years ago, we never would have been able to fight World War II. Why? Because we would have had 250,000 troops bogged down in the Gran Chaco because the forefathers of Bill Kristol and Leon Wieseltier would have demanded intervention and a “no-fly zone” to protect Bolivia from Paraguay or Paraguay from Bolivia. It doesn’t matter which.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaco_War

  28. 28.

    Redshirt

    March 17, 2011 at 10:22 pm

    Real Politic: The pressure of this resolution forces internal Libyan forces to make their own move and end this quickly.

    Wishful thinking, I’m sure!

  29. 29.

    Joe Beese

    March 17, 2011 at 10:22 pm

    [[ Having already armed and trained Moamar Gadafy’s armies and security forces, the Western war-profiteers have now decided to do the same for his opponents.

    These opponents, it must be noted, are at present led by top players who only weeks ago were at the center of Gadafy’s murderous, repressive regime — which was itself, only weeks ago, considered a worthy partner by Western governments and business interests. …

    … it should be noted that the UN Resolution is not in any way restricted to establishing a “no-fly zone” to keep Gadafy from bombing Libyan cities. This has been the holy grail of our humanitarian interventionists who, despite the evidence of their own eyes over several decades, still seem to believe that military action — the application of massive, violent force — can be done without hurting anybody but the mean old bad guys whom we suddenly don’t like anymore for whatever reason.

    But this is no “light touch” intervention. The UN decree greenlights everything short of an outright land invasion of Libya. Indeed, within minutes of the resolution’s passing, American officials were already talking about a “no-drive zone”: direct attacks on Libyan tanks and artillery. What’s more, US officials were already considering sending in “military personnel to advise and train the rebels.” ]]

    http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/2105-a-people-betrayed-west-launches-new-war-for-oil-in-libya.html

  30. 30.

    Canadian Observer

    March 17, 2011 at 10:23 pm

    Down with the Empire!

    Down with the torture regime!

    Free Bradley Manning!

  31. 31.

    cathyx

    March 17, 2011 at 10:24 pm

    @Just Some Fuckhead: Yes, and that would be easier than going halfway across the globe. But we need an excuse to invade Canada. Hmmm…..

  32. 32.

    Villago Delenda Est

    March 17, 2011 at 10:25 pm

    @Canadian Observer:

    The Rape Rooms.

    Under new management!

  33. 33.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    March 17, 2011 at 10:25 pm

    @cathyx: Bacon!

  34. 34.

    General Stuck

    March 17, 2011 at 10:25 pm

    Hello

    just stopped by to see if John Cole’s Personal Nightmare and Road to Redemption is still playing .

    There will be no ground war in Libya with US troops, and all but a few thousand will be left in Afghan as training units and force protection. There is an election going to happen here, and Obama might be pure evil, but he’s not stupid.

    Now who’s yer daddy

    Goodbye, and carry on. I’ve seen this movie.

  35. 35.

    Joe Beese

    March 17, 2011 at 10:25 pm

    [[ Boy, I sure do hope that the threat of a no-fly zone forces Qaddafi to step down because if not it looks like we’ve got us another shooting war in the Middle East, once again based on the trope that we are good guys racing in to save the people from the bad guys. If only we could actually achieve such things, or were really interested in doing that.

    This is not a war to save people. If we cared about that we would be intervening in Cote D’Ivoire, where there has been horrible violence on the same level as that in Libya. There is human misery all over the planet that we can’t even be bothered to look at, much less intervene. So let’s not kid ourselves about what this is about:

    >> Oil reserves in Libya are the largest in Africa and the ninth largest in the world with 41.5 billion barrels (6.60×10^9 m3) as of 2007. <<

    … If people want to talk honestly about this and admit what it is we are really doing then perhaps, as a democracy, we can hash this out properly. But using the uprising as an excuse to "intervene" on behalf of Exxon and BP has nothing to do with humanitarianism and liberals need to disabuse themselves of this illusion once and for all.

    … We are in the midst of a fight for energy/resources and it's reaching crisis proportions. As we speak, we are watching one of our allegedly "clean" sources endanger millions of people with potentially lethal radiation. We are already fighting wars in the middle east over oil and it looks like we're not done yet. You would think that with this, plus climate change, we'd be sufficiently motivated to face the problem and put everything we have into dealing with it. Instead, we're playing games with people's lives and futures.

    … I'd say we're stretched pretty thin, but maybe we can end all public schooling and health care for our citizens in order to pay for it. ]]

    http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/that-whiff-o-freedom-smells-like.html

  36. 36.

    Canadian Observer

    March 17, 2011 at 10:27 pm

    Right on, Joe Beese.

    Down with the Shock Doctrine and Neocon Disaster Capitlism!

  37. 37.

    PaulW

    March 17, 2011 at 10:29 pm

    Part of me is kinda optimistic about this military action, but not blind optimism…

    for starters, this is an action a majority of surrounding nations want. Unlike Iraq, where our allies were reluctant to join in on the madness. For example, Turkey didn’t want us freeing the Kurds because it could cause that whole “Let’s Free Kurdistan” problem they have (33 percent of Turkey overlaps the map where Kurdistan would go). We also had Iran sitting next door, primed and ready to meddle in Iraqi affairs the second Saddam was out.

    Libya is different: Qaddafi has almost no allies I can think of, especially any that would come to his aid now he’s blowing up his own people. Egypt in particular has a few issues with him. Not to mention almost all of Europe. Getting military support with air strikes via our NATO allies would be easy this time.

    Another thing: people seem to be talking as though we’re stuck in two wars. We’re actually in a war and a half: Iraq is no longer a full military action: most of our troops are out. I know I’m nitpicking but it’s a point of contention.

    One other point: for now, our major contribution to the no-fly zone, for what I know, will be coming from our Navy forces and the carriers in the Mediterranean. Whereas Iraq and Afghanistan were mostly our ground forces (Army, Marines) with air support from Air Force and Navy. So in some respects, we’re relying on relatively fresh resources.

    This is obviously not going to be a cakewalk. Quacky and his army are going to want to make any no-fly intervention as bloody as possible. But if we play this right – with open, up-front intentions to remove a proven bloody dictator; with honest and pragmatic support of our allies in the region – we ought to be able to parlay a post-Qaddafi Libya with relatively clean hands and little of the mess we currently have with Iraq and Afghanistan.

    As long as Obama channels the right Bush: Bush the Elder, who succeeded in foreign policy WITH our allies. That’s important.

  38. 38.

    Villago Delenda Est

    March 17, 2011 at 10:30 pm

    You know that scene where Senator Amidala wonders if, just perhaps, the Galactic Republic under Palapatine is not the good guys? Possibly? You know?

    I’ve been having that feeling about the United States for a decade now.

  39. 39.

    SST

    March 17, 2011 at 10:30 pm

    I blame Pitino for this. He already fucked up the Celtics and my bracket. I think northern Africa is next on his list.

  40. 40.

    Warren Terra

    March 17, 2011 at 10:30 pm

    This had better mean letting the French do what they want, not getting involved ourselves. Because even a best case scenario would be that we spend money and risk American lives to kill a bunch of Libyans without killing Libyan civilians or losing American lives – and that’s a pretty unlikely scenario. Far more likely is that either we get dragged into doing really stupid things or we refuse to get dragged in and look ineffectual. I see no upside to this move.

  41. 41.

    beltane

    March 17, 2011 at 10:31 pm

    Maybe I’m naive in thinking this really should have been a European (I’m looking at you Silvio) matter. Qaddafi was extremely vulnerable a couple of weeks ago and it would have been no big deal for some of the other Mediterranean countries to get rid of the maniac, who does pose an actual threat to them. Instead, we got a lot of standing around, with Berlusconi supporting his friend until that support was making him look like an utter jackass. I don’t really see this as being like either Iraq or Afghanistan so much as I see it as a case of the Europeans dropping the ball. (disclaimer: I am usually NOT a basher of the Europeans)

  42. 42.

    Villago Delenda Est

    March 17, 2011 at 10:33 pm

    @beltane:

    Berlusconi supporting his friend until that support was making him look like an utter jackass.

    Um, Berlusconi was well past the simple jackass stage long before this. He may have moved into mega-super-ultima jackass with this move, though, I’ll grant you that.

  43. 43.

    Suffern ACE

    March 17, 2011 at 10:34 pm

    @beltane: And it would have been o,k, for them to act unilaterally? I don’t think that’s how it is done.

  44. 44.

    Pongo

    March 17, 2011 at 10:35 pm

    According to Sullivan–who is losing his shizzle over this– we are officially at war with Libya now, unilaterally declared by the Obama administration (even though it was a UN Security Council vote and not a unilateral move of the administration) without the consent of Congress.

    Suddenly hawks are all concerned about the formalities of war declarations and abuses of executive power. I can’t remember Bush taking the time to explain to the American people the purpose of escalating procedural votes on the Security Council when Iraq’s bad behavior was the question (of course, he pre-empted the votes anyway), but that is apparently a huge oversight on Obama’s part. It would be kind of funny to watch them stew over the executive nightmare they created if we weren’t so f’ed by it. I really hope the administration has some reasonable strategy in all of this that just isn’t clear to us regular folk.

  45. 45.

    cathyx

    March 17, 2011 at 10:36 pm

    @Just Some Fuckhead: @Just Some Fuckhead: Why bacon? I don’t get it.

  46. 46.

    Villago Delenda Est

    March 17, 2011 at 10:37 pm

    The United States has not been at war since 1945.

    Not legally, at least.

    But that notion is quaint. Like the Geneva Conventions.

  47. 47.

    Anne Laurie

    March 17, 2011 at 10:40 pm

    @Little Boots:

    Right now we really need our president to focus on the home front. This country is rapidly turning into a shitty place and Obama is constitutionally required to notice.

    Seconded.

    I vote (like anyone cared) we go back to the John Quincy Adams Doctrine: “[America] goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.”

  48. 48.

    sherifffruitfly

    March 17, 2011 at 10:41 pm

    What’s hilarious about this is how “true progressives” pivoted ON A DIME from whining about Obama NOT doing “anything” to whining about Obama war-mongering.

  49. 49.

    Anya

    March 17, 2011 at 10:46 pm

    I am no neocon follower but I am conflicted about this one. Qaddafi is such a dangerous lunatic, if he’s not stopped he’ll commit a genocide. I don’t think the world can standby and watch him massacre the defenseless Libyan people. I don’t believe in a just war, but sometimes there are necessary wars. I know Iraq traumatized us but this is not the same. Obama is not leading the coalition of the bribed and blackmailed to invade an Arab country using lies and misinformation, instead, it’s an Interntional effort led by Arab and Europeans states.

    In anther note, whenever I think about what’s happening in the Mideast, I am grateful that we do not have grandpa cranky and bible spice in the White house.

  50. 50.

    Suffern ACE

    March 17, 2011 at 10:46 pm

    @sherifffruitfly: I don’t know if anyone has actually changed sides.

  51. 51.

    Bob Loblaw

    March 17, 2011 at 10:47 pm

    @sherifffruitfly:

    Would it be possible to get a brief list of names or something to that effect?

    Or is “true progressive” another insider term like “professional left” and “firebagger” that we’re all supposed to immediately understand culturally? Because those are really starting to add up and get redundant.

  52. 52.

    Calouste

    March 17, 2011 at 10:48 pm

    @beltane:

    The Europeans were never going to do anything unless the Arab League agreed on something first.

  53. 53.

    beltane

    March 17, 2011 at 10:48 pm

    @Suffern ACE: They didn’t seek a specific remedy until fairly recently when the Arab League intervened. Berlusconi preferred, and may privately still prefer, a strong Qaddafi in power because Libya is a major economic player in Italy and because he keeps illegal immigrants from Africa out of the country. An influx of African immigrants into Italy will likely mean the end of this wretched man’s political career and so he has been reluctant to turn on his enabler. There was no will to do anything.

  54. 54.

    Suffern ACE

    March 17, 2011 at 10:51 pm

    @Calouste: And my guess is that the Arab League was not going to agree unless they were allowed to put down their own protests.

  55. 55.

    beltane

    March 17, 2011 at 10:54 pm

    @Calouste: Is there any sort of league of Mediterranean states? If not, it might be a good idea to start one.

  56. 56.

    Richard Fox

    March 17, 2011 at 11:04 pm

    Sadly we really do live in interesting times. I hate war, and maniac dictators, period. So much blood wasted for the sake of what? That fool in gaudy military costumes and his evil spawn. Lord oh lord oh lord..

  57. 57.

    sukabi

    March 17, 2011 at 11:07 pm

    @cathyx: gotta have the Canadian bacon… so much better than our belly fat bacon.

  58. 58.

    beltane

    March 17, 2011 at 11:08 pm

    @Richard Fox: If his spawn were not so evil the situation would have resolved itself by now. The pomegranates did not fall far from the tree in the Qaddafi family,

  59. 59.

    Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal

    March 17, 2011 at 11:15 pm

    @Anne Laurie:

    yeahbut, was john quincy adams even born in america?

    if there is gonna be a war in libya, let the rest of the world handle it, i think libya screams of the break it/bought it paradigm.

  60. 60.

    Ed Marshall

    March 17, 2011 at 11:15 pm

    Float AWAC’s, tell the French to knock out his airpower (they sold it to him), and tell the Egyptians to send over a bunch of Tow 2b’s attached to trucks as tacticals (or hell just tell them to invade, we give them $3 billion a year in military aid).

    This is how alliances are supposed to work.

  61. 61.

    Joe Beese

    March 17, 2011 at 11:18 pm

    @sherifffruitfly:

    What’s hilarious about this is how “true progressives” pivoted ON A DIME from whining about Obama NOT doing “anything” to whining about Obama war-mongering.

    ON A DIME, you say…

    When the uprising began, Clinton staunchly defended Mubarak, saying, “Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people.”

    http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/16/headlines/egyptian_youths_refuse_to_meet_clinton_over_mubarak_support

  62. 62.

    Maude

    March 17, 2011 at 11:24 pm

    @beltane:
    The British are on their way to Libya now. I don’t know if the French are with them or right behind. There has been no announcement of the US flying there.
    This isn’t Bush who is stupid and irresponsible.
    I’m not going to speculate on how this will play out.
    The Arab League is so important in this.
    I don’t know id Italy will become involved.
    I am so glad Gadaffi doesn’t have any nukes.

  63. 63.

    Ed Marshall

    March 17, 2011 at 11:25 pm

    @Joe Beese:

    I get the impression that you think you are saying something, what is it? Do you oppose the crypto-imperialism of the Western governments, or do you stand aghast at the spectre of a grotesque, Western puppet like Ghaddafi being defended by the neo-imperialist system.

  64. 64.

    jo6pac

    March 17, 2011 at 11:29 pm

    @Villago Delenda Est:
    Nailed it

  65. 65.

    Joe Beese

    March 17, 2011 at 11:42 pm

    @Ed Marshall:

    Do you oppose the crypto-imperialism of the Western governments, or do you stand aghast at the spectre of a grotesque, Western puppet like Ghaddafi being defended by the neo-imperialist system.

    I oppose the partisan idiocy of Democrats claiming that our military intervention in a country with the world’s 9th largest oil reserves, against a leader we supported a few weeks ago, is motivated by humanitarian concerns.

  66. 66.

    The Sheriff's A Ni-

    March 17, 2011 at 11:47 pm

    Again, I’m left wondering if there was all this handwringing when the UN went after Yugoslavia over Kosovo.

  67. 67.

    Ed Marshall

    March 17, 2011 at 11:51 pm

    @Joe Beese:

    Why? Do you think that you could get better oil deals from another government? If someone starts talking about dusting off Paul Bremer and establishing an American viceroy in Libya wake me up.

  68. 68.

    joe from Lowell

    March 17, 2011 at 11:52 pm

    @The Sheriff’s A Ni-: There sure was.

    It’s hard to remember now, after Bush, but the debates over military interventions in the 1990s divided both parties. The Republicans tended to be more hawkish, on average, and the Democrats less so, on average, but even that didn’t always hold. Sometimes the Republicans would unite to attack Clinton from the left, like after the firefight in Mogadishu.

    There was loud outrage from a segment of the left over the UN-endorsed actions in Bosnia and Kosovo.

  69. 69.

    Mnemosyne

    March 17, 2011 at 11:55 pm

    @Joe Beese:

    I oppose the partisan idiocy of Democrats claiming that our military intervention in a country with the world’s 9th largest oil reserves, against a leader we supported a few weeks ago, is motivated by humanitarian concerns.

    Yeah, I mean, why aren’t we supporting him as he massacres his own people using paid mercenaries? What kind of friend are we that we would change our minds and stop supporting him over something so minor?

    Seriously, dude, this is not the winning argument you seem to think.

  70. 70.

    Bob Loblaw

    March 17, 2011 at 11:55 pm

    @The Sheriff’s A Ni-:

    I suppose research is out of the question?

    You’re right, it’s easier to chalk it up to the Great White Conspiracy that went into action in January 2009…

  71. 71.

    Suffern ACE

    March 17, 2011 at 11:57 pm

    @joe from Lowell: There was quite a bit of “Milosovic is a monster, but why are we there” and questions about what authorized the action when Congress may or may not have….Gee I’m glad the handwringing and the intervening years cleared up those questions.

  72. 72.

    The Sheriff's A Ni-

    March 18, 2011 at 12:00 am

    @joe from Lowell: That sounds about right, I wasn’t as politically aware back then but I remember rumblings. I just didn’t think it was this strong, though. There’s a lot of pointing to Afghanistan and Iraq, not really a lot towards Kosovo even though it was run by a Democratic administration.

    @Bob Loblaw: For you and Joe, yeah I’ve already chalked it up to your raging case of ODS. Thanks for playing.

  73. 73.

    Mark S.

    March 18, 2011 at 12:01 am

    @Joe Beese:

    against a leader we supported a few weeks ago

    I can’t think of anything that’s happened in the past few weeks that could have changed that.

    And we’ve hardly supported Qaddafi throughout his entire reign. True, there have been better relations in the last five years or so, but he was never an ally or looked upon very favorably.

  74. 74.

    General Stuck

    March 18, 2011 at 12:01 am

    @joe from Lowell:

    Yea, but now we have a vibrant internet, and Joe Beese has a connection. Proof there is no god.

  75. 75.

    Ed Marshall

    March 18, 2011 at 12:01 am

    @joe from Lowell:

    You are misremembering. The U.N. authorized a number of different peacekeeping operations in the Balkans. The more aggressive actions were taken under a NATO banner, Russia held a veto and Serbia was a solid client.

  76. 76.

    The Sheriff's A Ni-

    March 18, 2011 at 12:03 am

    @Suffern ACE: Afghanistan and Iraq didn’t help matters, no.

  77. 77.

    Canadian Observer

    March 18, 2011 at 12:06 am

    Who has slaughtered more innocents in the past ten years:

    Mummar Ghadaffi, or the American Empire?

    Just say no to blood for oil, to war for Exxon Mobile and BP.

  78. 78.

    cat48

    March 18, 2011 at 12:06 am

    The BBC online & The Guardian indicate this is a Cameron/Sarkozy production & they, like everyone in the US, but me wish “Obama would lead!” That’s all I’ve heard on TV and it’s the current Wingnut talking point for the budget, entitlements, whatever they want that particular day.

    Sully needs a reality check if he’s angry at O abt this b/c the admin has been lobbied furiously…..also, too, “It’s a big moment for David Cameron!” the Guardian says.

    Some Tories feared that Cameron was risking a great deal of capital by pressing ahead with his campaign for a no-fly zone in the face of opposition in Washington. Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, appeared to have the prime minister in mind when he warned of the dangers of “loose talk” about a no-fly zone. Some Tories warned that the prime minister was guilty of “shooting from the hip”.
    The unease voiced by Gates was shared in other capitals. Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, was wary and made a strong intervention at an emergency EU summit on Libya last week to remove any reference to a no-fly zone. Germany abstained in the UN vote.

  79. 79.

    cbear

    March 18, 2011 at 12:06 am

    I really don’t understand why so many of you are so negative.

    I’m sure the Libyan people, unlike those ungrateful Iraqis and the ever pesky Afghanis, will be much more sanguine about the inevitable deaths of a large number of their innocent citizens from all those pretty U.S warplanes.

    And, surely they’ll understand that President Obama was forced to visit this death and destruction on their families, friends and neighbors because he’s playing eleventy-dimensional chess with the international community and our own homegrown neocons so that sometime in the not so distant future every good Libyan wil get a pony.

  80. 80.

    Suffern ACE

    March 18, 2011 at 12:08 am

    @Mark S.: Maybe it will come out that releasing that Lockerbie Bomber on “humanitarian grounds” to help secure an oil contract for BP hadn’t worked out as planned. (Not that those two things were related, nope. Couldn’t be.)

    British and French oligarchs aren’t better than ours, so this is probably the best opportunity to get rid of someone that has been a problem for a long time. I’m actually a little surprised he survived the 1980s.

  81. 81.

    El Cid

    March 18, 2011 at 12:09 am

    @joe from Lowell: Without comment on various particular issues, the Republican super-patriot hawks screamed at Clinton for ordering cruise missile attacks at targets identified by the administration as facilities of Osama bin Laden and Al Qa’ida.

    They never remember this.

  82. 82.

    RareSanity

    March 18, 2011 at 12:11 am

    Ok, I have a quick question…

    Qaddafi Gadaffi Ghaddafi Khaddafi The dood in Libya is the current leader of the country and an egomanic, right?

    Why the hell hasn’t he been promoted from Colonel? Who is in charge of giving him his star? Maybe we should negotiate with that guy and have…the dood in Libya…busted down to Private. Then he can’t “command” any of the troops.

  83. 83.

    Canadian Observer

    March 18, 2011 at 12:12 am

    @El Cid

    Are you referring to the antibiotics plant (the only one in the Sudan) that Clinton blew up to distract from his own domestic troubles?

    Shameful, and a war crime under international law.

    Why isn’t he tried at the Hague? Oh, that’s right! Because America is Chosen By Destiny and Blessed By God ™, and your leaders are unaccountable. That’s why the Big O himself leaned on Spain to stop prosecuting Bush/Cheney for torture. Torture that Obama continues with Bradley Manning, Gitmo, and the secret Afghan Prisons.

  84. 84.

    Nick

    March 18, 2011 at 12:12 am

    @srv:

    So since all of us DFH’s will be later be told we weren’t right, we were just lucky thinking this would be a fuckup, how about predictions?

    Does it matter? No matter what happens, you’ll say whatever you predicted has come true even if it didn’t.

    much like teabaggers.

  85. 85.

    cbear

    March 18, 2011 at 12:13 am

    @RareSanity: Very, very funny.

  86. 86.

    Ed Marshall

    March 18, 2011 at 12:13 am

    @cbear:

    If U.S. warplanes are anywhere but in the background, we are the stupidest empire in the history of the planet. The whole diplomatic foot dragging was about making sure this wasn’t our war. It’s on, and it’s all on a bunch of minor Euro powers, and some Gulf Arab states to win it now.

  87. 87.

    cat48

    March 18, 2011 at 12:16 am

    @cbear:

    I don’t think there was any chess playing involved. Sounds like it was a game of tag and he finally got caught this week. I thought he handled Japan ok, but they’ve complained about him being “detached” all day on msnbc. He immediately sent help. Was he supposed to do more??

  88. 88.

    Mark S.

    March 18, 2011 at 12:17 am

    @Suffern ACE:

    That was a really sketchy deal, no doubt. But there’s a different cast of characters in charge of Britain now. I don’t know enough about the politics over there to make an extremely intelligent judgment.

    But why are the French so gung-ho?

  89. 89.

    Mnemosyne

    March 18, 2011 at 12:18 am

    @cbear:

    And, surely they’ll understand that President Obama was forced to visit this death and destruction on their families, friends and neighbors because he’s playing eleventy-dimensional chess with the international community and our own homegrown neocons so that sometime in the not so distant future every good Libyan wil get a pony.

    I’m guessing you missed the part where it’s actually the British and the French leading the charge. But you’re probably right, people will blame Obama for Cameron’s and Sarkozy’s decision because, of course, France and England only do the US’s bidding and have no foreign policy of their own and Obama must have forced them to do it.

  90. 90.

    Jay in Oregon

    March 18, 2011 at 12:18 am

    @RareSanity:

    Why the hell hasn’t he been promoted from Colonel?

    He could call himself “General” or “Emperor”, but that would be pretentious.

  91. 91.

    RareSanity

    March 18, 2011 at 12:21 am

    @cbear:

    It hit me earlier tonight watching the news. Talking head keep saying, “herp, derp, derp Colonel derp…”

    Then all of the sudden, I was like WTF? Colonel? Dude, we don’t enforce no-fly zones against Colonels, where’s his commanding officer?

  92. 92.

    joe from Lowell

    March 18, 2011 at 12:21 am

    @Ed Marshall: You’re right, it was the Bosnia bombings and security zones that had UN approval. The Kosovo War was NATO’s, since the Russians were never going to allow anything to pass against Serbia.

  93. 93.

    cat48

    March 18, 2011 at 12:22 am

    @Mnemosyne:

    I wonder if O is their “poodle” now??

  94. 94.

    Canadian Observer

    March 18, 2011 at 12:22 am

    Who has killed more people in the last 10 years:

    The leader of Libya, or the American Empire? Hmm?

  95. 95.

    El Cid

    March 18, 2011 at 12:22 am

    @RareSanity: Some of the various 3rd world nationalist leaders who led coup governments openly shunned the tacky self-promotions that other national leaders promoted their own rank to.

    One of the very positive examples of a coup leader who prepared the nation for development and a stable democracy was Ghana’s “Flight Lieutenant Jerry Rawlings.” That’s not a high rank. And it’s how he was known as President.

    I’ve seen various reports, but other than promoting himself to “Commander In Chief” (the same as the US title, somewhat different functions), I’m not sure whether or not Hugo Chavez promoted his actually awarded military rank above Lt. Colonel.

  96. 96.

    Joe Beese

    March 18, 2011 at 12:23 am

    @Canadian Observer:

    Shameful, and a war crime under international law.

    Look, if you’re going to get on our case every time an American president commits a war crime…

  97. 97.

    RareSanity

    March 18, 2011 at 12:23 am

    @Jay in Oregon:

    I’d rather be a pretentious General than a crazy Colonel…

    But that’s just me.

  98. 98.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    March 18, 2011 at 12:26 am

    @RareSanity:

    Why the hell hasn’t he been promoted from Colonel?

    That was answered here some time back.

    He took power as a captain, promoted himself to colonel, prolly in no small part to the luster of the title held by other notable colonels, Mustard, Klink and Sanders.

  99. 99.

    RareSanity

    March 18, 2011 at 12:26 am

    @El Cid:

    Excuse me, sir.

    I’ll thank you to keep your “facts” away from my mockery.

    Good day, sir!

    …

    I said, “Good day!”

  100. 100.

    El Cid

    March 18, 2011 at 12:27 am

    @Canadian Observer: I am not unaware of this. I was alive during that time. If you feel like once again re-emphasizing the crime of what was done, or on the other hand, explaining that it was the best information possessed, as others would argue, go ahead.

    Sometimes I find it useful to ask why various quantities of US (and other nations’) officials haven’t been tried and imprisoned by the extraterrestrial authorities which would be needed in order to impose any law upon the Earth’s heaviest armed powers.

    I mean, there really isn’t much you can say ironically about such things given, say, the very active and direct leadership and support our foreign policy establishment and Ronald Reagan personally gave to an actual genocidal military in Guatemala. And I mean that in the old fashioned, wiping an entire ethnic group out meaning of “genocide”.

    If you feel like it, you’re welcome to throw out any anti-imperialist and leftist and so forth questions and points, and I can go you one further each time.

    Most of the time I don’t see the point doing so on this blog. It’s not MRZine or whatever.

  101. 101.

    joe from Lowell

    March 18, 2011 at 12:28 am

    @The Sheriff’s A Ni-:

    I just didn’t think it was this strong, though.

    Well, this is the internet. Support for Mike Gravel was strong, on the internet.

  102. 102.

    Ed Marshall

    March 18, 2011 at 12:29 am

    @joe from Lowell:

    I don’t think that is true about Bosnia either. It’s been awhile, but I don’t think Operation Deliberate Force had U.N. approval either. I was actually in Croatia during the interlude between the Bosnian and Kosovar conflict. I had conversations with French blue helmets (really stupid ones in retrospect, I was in my mid-twenties and had an American passport and wanted to go to Prague and my TV had told me the war was over and that I could drive my rented car through Serbia), and this isn’t how I remember it.

  103. 103.

    Nick

    March 18, 2011 at 12:30 am

    @cbear:

    I’m sure the Libyan people, unlike those ungrateful Iraqis and the ever pesky Afghanis, will be much more sanguine about the inevitable deaths of a large number of their innocent citizens from all those pretty U.S warplanes.

    Yeah, because it’s not like the Libyan people are about to be slaughtered anyway. No sir’ee. It’s like living on Capri there now until we get there. All those poor people just having tea and discussing Plato on the sidewalk cafes in Benghazi. And now we, and by we I mean those fascist French monster, have to fuck it up with our bombs. If we just left them alone, they’d be sitting pretty.

    the balls on some of you. You don’t want us to help rebel forces fight a murderous dictator because, we might kill them? You prance around and act like you care about their lives, and your answer is to leave them prey for someone whose promised to slaughter them. Don’t even pretend to care about these people, cause you don’t.

  104. 104.

    FlipYrWhig

    March 18, 2011 at 12:31 am

    @The Sheriff’s A Ni-:

    I just didn’t think it was this strong, though.

    Yes, it was. Old-line hard lefties were very opposed to intervening in the Yugoslavian conflicts. Alexander Cockburn springs to mind, but there are surely others I’m forgetting. _The Nation_ was all over the place. These are cases where letting people get slaughtered by a dictator is awful, _and_ getting too deep into a shooting war is also all too easy to imagine. There aren’t good answers, or easy answers, and just about every option has truly nasty downsides.

    But I’m sure that the best way to proceed is another round of leftier-than-thou oneupmanship. That’s always a treat.

  105. 105.

    Mike in NC

    March 18, 2011 at 12:31 am

    @RareSanity:

    The dood in Libya is the current leader of the country and an egomanic, right? Why the hell hasn’t he been promoted from Colonel?

    It’s that secret recipe thing. Applies to fried camel as well as fried chicken. After all, some stuff is just too important to give away.

  106. 106.

    FlipYrWhig

    March 18, 2011 at 12:32 am

    @Ed Marshall: That’s the way I remember it too. The UN wouldn’t sign off on anything, so NATO went it alone, much to the consternation of the international community.

  107. 107.

    joe from Lowell

    March 18, 2011 at 12:33 am

    @Ed Marshall: There was a UN resolution for Operation Deny Flight, but not for Deliberate Force, even though it was launched in response to attacks on UN troops.

  108. 108.

    Canadian Observer

    March 18, 2011 at 12:34 am

    And since NATO (really, the American Empire) didn’t get UN approval, that gave a nice precedent for none other than George Walker Bush to go into Iraq without UN approval.

  109. 109.

    RareSanity

    March 18, 2011 at 12:34 am

    @Mike in NC:

    Awesome…

  110. 110.

    FlipYrWhig

    March 18, 2011 at 12:36 am

    I think Canadian Observer may _be_ Alexander Cockburn.

  111. 111.

    wengler

    March 18, 2011 at 12:36 am

    Libya is a large country with a small population. It should not be a hard fight. Having said that, US intervention changes the entire dynamic.

    From a military standpoint this will get very messy if Gaddafi pushes into Benghazi. You can’t do push button urban warfare. And though I think Gaddafi’s heavy tanks and artillery can be easily destroyed by air, then what? Will the 3rd ID be the vanguard in attacking Tripoli? Will “military trainers” endlessly assemble a western-oriented army like in Iraq and Afghanistan?

  112. 112.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    March 18, 2011 at 12:37 am

    @Nick:

    the balls on some of you. You don’t want us to help rebel forces fight a murderous dictator because, we might kill them? Don’t even pretend to care about these people, cause you don’t.

    When they get tired of getting shot at, they can stop shooting. Otherwise, it’s on them to water their own tree of liberty.

  113. 113.

    joe from Lowell

    March 18, 2011 at 12:37 am

    And since NATO (really, the American Empire) didn’t get UN approval,…

    except when they did

    …that gave a nice precedent for none other than George Walker Bush to go into Iraq without UN approval.

    Ah, yes, because of the complete absence of any precedent for American military actions without UN approval prior to the mid-1990s.

    Anyway, I trust we’ll be seeing you express your relief that NATO got UN approval for this mission, since that’s clearly such a top-tier concern of yours.

  114. 114.

    Canadian Observer

    March 18, 2011 at 12:40 am

    @”joe from lowell”

    Simple question:

    Who has killed more people in the last ten years?

    The American Empire, or Mummar Ghadaffi?

    If it is indeed the former, shouldn’t you direct your moral outrage somewhere else?

  115. 115.

    Martin

    March 18, 2011 at 12:42 am

    Well, Egypt has already shipping small arms to rebels in the east. Canada is sending fighter jets. Fucking warmongering Canadians…

  116. 116.

    El Cid

    March 18, 2011 at 12:42 am

    @me: The vote, including both the permanent and rotating members, was 10-5.

    The 5 abstaining were Brazil, China, Germany, India, and Russia.

    The statements by the various members on the resolution and their support or abstention — none voted against, as usual in such matters when the US & UK are in favor of such actions — are actually quite interesting, if brief.

    VITALY CHURKIN (Russian Federation) said he had abstained, although his country’s position opposing violence against civilians in Libya was clear. Work on the resolution was not in keeping with Security Council practice, with many questions having remained unanswered, including how it would be enforced and by whom, and what the limits of engagement would be. His country had not prevented the adoption of the resolution, but he was convinced that an immediate ceasefire was the best way to stop the loss of life. His country, in fact, had pressed earlier for a resolution calling for such a ceasefire, which could have saved many additional lives. Cautioning against unpredicted consequences, he stressed that there was a need to avoid further destabilization in the region…
    __
    …NAWAF SALAM (Lebanon) said that Libya was suffering heavily, with hundreds of victims dying and thousands displaced. Faced with those risks and the great danger of those crimes, the United Nations had acted earlier, but Colonel Qadhafi had not heeded those actions. Lebanon, agreeing with the League of Arab States, had then called on the Security Council to establish measures to protect civilians. The Libyan authorities had lost all their legitimacy and the resolution was aimed at protecting Libyan civilians.
    __
    He stressed that the resolution would not have as a consequence occupation of “even an inch” of Libyan territory. He hoped that the resolution would have a deterrent role and end the Libyan authorities’ use of force. He reaffirmed full support for the county’s sovereignty, the need for full cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States, pursuant to Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter, and the necessity of a peaceful solution to the situation. The resolution was fraught with hope for Libya and its people, he concluded.

  117. 117.

    joe from Lowell

    March 18, 2011 at 12:42 am

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    Don’t even pretend to care about these people, cause you don’t.

    When they get tired of getting shot at, they can stop shooting. Otherwise, it’s on them to water their own tree of liberty.

    Good job not even pretending to care about them.

    I mean that. I can respect this honest “Fuck ’em, not my problem” argument a lot more than the faux humanitarianism of the people who don’t think anyone ever dies unless an American shoots them.

  118. 118.

    Nick

    March 18, 2011 at 12:43 am

    @Canadian Observer:

    Who has killed more people in the last ten years?

    I don’t like to throw around the phrase much because I hate, but you really do hate America. We get it, we’re horrible evil murderous people. Why don’t you just move along now, thanks.

  119. 119.

    Nick

    March 18, 2011 at 12:44 am

    @joe from Lowell:

    the faux humanitarianism of the people who don’t think anyone ever dies unless an American shoots them.

    “Stand with the Libyan People” seems like a lifetime ago, doesn’t it?

  120. 120.

    Canadian Observer

    March 18, 2011 at 12:45 am

    I didn’t say anything about the American PEOPLE, just their murderous Imperial GOVERNMENT.

  121. 121.

    Joe Beese

    March 18, 2011 at 12:45 am

    This does differ from Iraq in one important respect.

    Then we slaughtered civilians to insure our America’s oil supply.

    Now we’ll be slaughtering civilians to insure Europe’s oil supply.

    FEEL THE FREEDOM, BITCHES!

  122. 122.

    joe from Lowell

    March 18, 2011 at 12:45 am

    @Canadian Observer:

    Who has killed more people in the last ten years?

    Don’t look at me to defend American foreign policy from Jan 2001 – Jan 2009. America killed way too many people during that period.

    I really don’t see what that has to do with anything. Unlike all of your paradises, we don’t have presidents for life.

  123. 123.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    March 18, 2011 at 12:45 am

    @joe from Lowell: If it was you and Nick invading, I’d be right behind ya shooting.

  124. 124.

    El Cid

    March 18, 2011 at 12:46 am

    @Martin:

    Egypt has already shipping small arms to rebels in the east.

    Given the chaotic border and the value of the trade, I’m not sure Egypt would have an easy time stopping that anyway.

  125. 125.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    March 18, 2011 at 12:47 am

    @Nick:

    but you really do hate America.

    lolz

    You can take the boy out of the Republican party but you can’t take the Republican party out of the boy.

  126. 126.

    joe from Lowell

    March 18, 2011 at 12:49 am

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    If it was you and Nick invading, I’d be right behind ya shooting.

    I believe you. That certainly does seem to fit with what I’ve gleaned about you.

    Congratulations.

  127. 127.

    Martin

    March 18, 2011 at 12:49 am

    @Canadian Observer: So, unlike US fighter jets, Canadian fighter jets are going to be dropping poutine and hockey gear for the rebels?

  128. 128.

    Linnaeus

    March 18, 2011 at 12:50 am

    I’m torn on this one. I don’t want to see people get slaughtered by their own oppressive government, and this action has support that the U.S. great misadventure in Iraq didn’t have. I’m willing to wait and see what happens.

    That said, it is not unreasonable to have questions or doubts about this, given the history of U.S. intervention in places like the Middle East, Latin America, etc. I think it’s entirely appropriate to ask who will do what, who will pay, and what comes next after this no-fly zone action?

  129. 129.

    Canadian Observer

    March 18, 2011 at 12:50 am

    @”joe from Lowell”

    No straight anser, I see.

    No, you don’t have “Presidents for life” but you have the same Ruling Class now as you did under Bush/Cheney, and did under Clinton, and Bush Sr., and Reagan….stretching back quite awhile am I right?

    The Democrats are merely more competent Imperialists than the Republicans, and less obvious about it, which makes them even more dangerous to world peace and civilisation. They still believe in aggressive war, in the trampling on the rights of the working class, in neolib ‘free’ trade, in the Imperial Alliances, and so on. They just do it using some lube and a condom instead of bareback like the Repukes.

  130. 130.

    Martin

    March 18, 2011 at 12:51 am

    @El Cid: Well, they’re doing it officially and with the knowledge of other nations. So, let’s put that under the category of ‘UN sanctioned’.

  131. 131.

    Nick

    March 18, 2011 at 12:51 am

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    If it was you and Nick invading, I’d be right behind ya shooting.

    Oh please, you’d jump off the plane before it even left Italian airspace.

    and before you throw the “why don’t you go there then” crap at me, I tried to join the Navy but was rejected. I mentioned it here before, pretty sure I did yesterday, so shove it, ok?

  132. 132.

    Mnemosyne

    March 18, 2011 at 12:51 am

    @Canadian Observer:

    If it is indeed the former, shouldn’t you direct your moral outrage somewhere else?

    It’s true — because Josef Stalin killed 10 million of his own people, no one had any right to be outraged at Pol Pot’s killing fields in Cambodia since he only killed 2 million.

  133. 133.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    March 18, 2011 at 12:51 am

    @joe from Lowell: You ever find a war you can’t rationalize? If so, what’s the difference now?

  134. 134.

    Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal

    March 18, 2011 at 12:52 am

    @Canadian Observer:

    and who imposed celine dion on us?

    and don’t you think nickelback and james cameron should go on trial for something? or at least be waterboarded?

  135. 135.

    joe from Lowell

    March 18, 2011 at 12:53 am

    No straight anser, I see.

    Shorter Loonie: Oh, crap, there’s nothing on my note card for that!

    Nobody cares, Loonie. There isn’t a single person reading this thread who can’t write your tedious banalities for you.

  136. 136.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    March 18, 2011 at 12:53 am

    @Nick:

    and before you throw the “why don’t you go there then” crap at me, I tried to join the Navy but was rejected.

    Anal cysts?

  137. 137.

    Nick

    March 18, 2011 at 12:53 am

    @Linnaeus:

    I think it’s entirely appropriate to ask who will do what, who will pay, and what comes next after this no-fly zone action?

    That’s precisely why we didn’t get on board with the UN resolution for a couple of weeks.

  138. 138.

    El Cid

    March 18, 2011 at 12:53 am

    @Martin: The category of ‘tacitly permitted / encouraged’ — plausible deniability, in other words — occupies a huuuuuuuge role in foreign policy.

  139. 139.

    Nick

    March 18, 2011 at 12:54 am

    @Just Some Fuckhead:Funny, but no. Suicide attempt when I was 17 actually.

  140. 140.

    Canadian Observer

    March 18, 2011 at 12:55 am

    or at least be waterboarded?

    Ah, another sign of a Fascist state–the trivilaisation of brutal torture.

    Now, do a Bradley Manning joke!

    Tools and water-carriers for Empire, all of you, with only a few exceptions.

    When the book “Decline and Fall of the American Empire” is written, you won’t even be mentioned, but Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher will be lauded as prophets and heroes.

  141. 141.

    joe from Lowell

    March 18, 2011 at 12:55 am

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    You ever find a war you can’t rationalize?

    Yep. Most of them.

    If so, what’s the difference now?

    Before I waste my time, back atacha. Have you ever found a war that you didn’t denounce?

  142. 142.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    March 18, 2011 at 12:55 am

    @Nick: I’m sorry it didn’t work out for you.

  143. 143.

    Linnaeus

    March 18, 2011 at 12:56 am

    @Nick:

    That’s precisely why we didn’t get on board with the UN resolution for a couple of weeks.

    That might resolve the first two questions, but it doesn’t resolve the third. Now, to be fair, that’s in part because you can’t fully predict the consequences. But are we prepared for worst-case scenarios?

  144. 144.

    Suffern ACE

    March 18, 2011 at 12:57 am

    @FlipYrWhig: Actually, much to the consternation of quite a few people, on both the left and right, who didn’t think NATO could do that. NATO not being a humanitarian aid organization for non-members.

    Kind of like what goes on at G8 meetings as of late. Why were the finance ministers discussing Libya again and offering opinions about it?

  145. 145.

    Merkin

    March 18, 2011 at 12:57 am

    @cbear:

    surely they’ll understand that President Obama was forced to visit this death and destruction on their families, friends and neighbors

    Yeah, because no one is visiting death and destruction on their families, friend and neighbors now.

    Wow, I didn’t think you guys were this stupid

  146. 146.

    Martin

    March 18, 2011 at 12:58 am

    @El Cid: True. Considering that there’s a cohort here that are convinced that this is all another US imperialistic clusterfuck, I think it’s worth noting the non-US actions.

    It’s just icing on the cake that Canada formally committed force before the US did.

  147. 147.

    FlipYrWhig

    March 18, 2011 at 1:00 am

    @Linnaeus:

    I’m torn on this one. I don’t want to see people get slaughtered by their own oppressive government […] That said, it is not unreasonable to have questions or doubts about this.

    Precisely. Conversely, you can not want to see the US get bogged down in a conflict with no clearly-articulated end, and yet not want to see people get slaughtered.

    Acting and not acting both have risks. They also both have benefits. It sucks.

  148. 148.

    Ed Marshall

    March 18, 2011 at 1:00 am

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    The war exists. It broke out all on it’s own. I’m actually really glad that the U.N. resolution is as broad as it is. Apparently the world community has decided to back one side of a civil war. I was afraid of some sort of half ass measure where everyone imposes a no-fly zone and the bloody part just happens via tanks and rockets.

    That would have been bullshit. In for a penny, in for a pound. Instituting a no-fly zone is just declaring a preference for the winner and establishing a limit on material commitment for a war.

  149. 149.

    Merkin

    March 18, 2011 at 1:00 am

    @Martin:

    It’s just icing on the cake that Canada formally committed force before the US did.

    TERRORISTS!!!

  150. 150.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    March 18, 2011 at 1:01 am

    @joe from Lowell:

    Have you ever found a war that you didn’t denounce?

    Of course not. What kind of psychopath would champion war between others?

  151. 151.

    Amanda in the South Bay

    March 18, 2011 at 1:02 am

    @Anne Laurie:
    Ironically, I’m pretty sure America, back in Libertarian Foreign Policy Fantasyland (i.e. the early 19th century) fought the Barbary Pirates well before JQA made his famous remark.

  152. 152.

    Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal

    March 18, 2011 at 1:03 am

    @Canadian Observer:

    thanks man, i wasn’t sure if you were serious, but thanks for helping me calibrate your one-off canadian concern trolling.

    btw have y’all finally put on the grown-up pants, and taken the vestigial and ceremonial leader of another country off of your currency?

  153. 153.

    Canadian Observer

    March 18, 2011 at 1:05 am

    Better to have a “vestigial and ceremonial leader of another country” on our currency than a bunch of dead slave owners.

  154. 154.

    joe from Lowell

    March 18, 2011 at 1:05 am

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    Have you ever found a war that you didn’t denounce?

    Of course not.

    So, when you asked me “What’s the difference” between supporting one war and not another, you don’t actually care.

    You’re just asserting that there can’t possibly be legitimate criteria that could lead one to conclude that using military force is appropriate in one circumstance but not in another.

    You’ll have to excuse me, then, if I don’t play the “You Can’t Make Me Say It” game with you.

  155. 155.

    El Cid

    March 18, 2011 at 1:05 am

    @Martin: Okay, but the US has carried out thoroughly “imperialist” actions with indirect and tacit support as well.

    I’m ill-suited to discuss US motivations as floating human rights concerns without focusing on the long-term goals and policies and interests that are always involved.

    At the very least, no matter his recent compromises, the US has found Qaddafi anywhere from a threat to a regional rival, so an opportunity to help take him out and look fairly good while doing it is no accident.

    Personally, unless it involves jabs to particular people, I find the Canadian role no more relevant or persuasive about various matters than I would the roles of other nations.

    National foreign policy establishments are composed of people in various roles, but they aren’t people and moral actors in themselves.

  156. 156.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    March 18, 2011 at 1:07 am

    @joe from Lowell:

    So, when you asked me “What’s the difference” between supporting one war and not another, you don’t actually care.

    When you think of something, I’ll be here.

  157. 157.

    joe from Lowell

    March 18, 2011 at 1:07 am

    @Canadian Observer: When are you going to get around to electing someone who isn’t white to high office, anyway?

  158. 158.

    Linnaeus

    March 18, 2011 at 1:07 am

    @FlipYrWhig:

    Precisely. Conversely, you can not want to see the US get bogged down in a conflict with no clearly-articulated end, and yet not want to see people get slaughtered.
    Acting and not acting both have risks. They also both have benefits. It sucks.

    Very true. I’m reluctant to say much about this because, to be honest, I have to update myself on the situation, having been in a writing-my-dissertation-plus-local-political-activism bubble for the past couple of weeks. I do think it’s a good thing that this action has at least some semblance of legitimate international support. It’s hard for me not to look past the legacy of U.S. intervention, but this could be different.

  159. 159.

    Martin

    March 18, 2011 at 1:08 am

    @Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal: They’re still part of the Commonwealth. She’s still their Queen.

  160. 160.

    Canadian Observer

    March 18, 2011 at 1:10 am

    @”joe from lowell”

    We had a person of colour as a head of state (and a woman) before you did:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micha%C3%ABlle_Jean

    When will you get around to having universal healthcare?

  161. 161.

    Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal

    March 18, 2011 at 1:10 am

    @Canadian Observer:

    far less than you might think, if you really want to think about it.

  162. 162.

    Merkin

    March 18, 2011 at 1:11 am

    @Canadian Observer:

    than a bunch of dead slave owners.

    Yes, why do we put the slave owning bastard Abraham Lincoln on our $5 bill, or that terrible slave king Ulysses Grant on the $50.

  163. 163.

    joe from Lowell

    March 18, 2011 at 1:11 am

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    When you think of something, I’ll be here.

    Like I said, you have no capacity nor interest to consider the question.

    You’ve defined your question as unanswerable, and any answer wrong, without the need to understand or consider it. I might as well discuss with a vegetarian the best way to prepare a burger.

    Anyway, I’ll comfort myself knowing that your moral certainty is ultimately a net gain for the world, as the pleasure you clearly take from it is obviously a great deal greater than the concern of anyone you decide to hector.

  164. 164.

    Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal

    March 18, 2011 at 1:11 am

    @Martin: so no grown up pants then.

  165. 165.

    El Cid

    March 18, 2011 at 1:12 am

    @Canadian Observer: When will you get around to invent the KFC Doubledown? Or the McRib?

  166. 166.

    Merkin

    March 18, 2011 at 1:13 am

    @Canadian Observer:

    We had a person of colour as a head of state (and a woman) before you did:

    Well, when the Queen of another country appoints your head of state…

  167. 167.

    Mnemosyne

    March 18, 2011 at 1:13 am

    @Canadian Observer:

    Better to have a “vestigial and ceremonial leader of another country” on our currency than a bunch of dead slave owners.

    Yes, Abraham Lincoln was a noted slave owner.

    ETA: D’oh — Merkin beat me to it.

  168. 168.

    cbear

    March 18, 2011 at 1:14 am

    @Nick:

    You don’t want us to help rebel forces fight a murderous dictator

    Which unit will you be deploying with, asswipe?

    BTW, when you and fellow warrior Joe from Lowell get over there try to remember that you don’t fuck the camel–you use it to ride into town where the girls are.

  169. 169.

    Merkin

    March 18, 2011 at 1:16 am

    @cbear:

    Which unit will you be deploying with, asswipe?

    I would have LOVED to have been on the USS The Sullivans, but unfortunately as you no doubt missed upthread, the Navy didn’t want me…asswipe.

  170. 170.

    El Cid

    March 18, 2011 at 1:16 am

    At least we had the courtesy of including the portraits of the dead slave owners on our currency as they looked when alive; portraits of those dead slave owners as they looked when dead, particularly when dead for a good while, would have made it a bit more difficult to convince people of the worth of a national currency.

  171. 171.

    Redshirt

    March 18, 2011 at 1:16 am

    Now now, no need to turn this into Canada v. USA. We’re all friends here!

  172. 172.

    joe from Lowell

    March 18, 2011 at 1:16 am

    @Canadian Observer:

    We had a person of colour as a head of state (and a woman) before you did:

    Oh, look, you found a minority to hold a ceremonial position of with no actual power. “The Vice-regal representative of Queen Elizabeth II.”

    I asked when are you going to elect someone who isn’t white to high office? Not who gets appointed to open shopping centers.

  173. 173.

    Mnemosyne

    March 18, 2011 at 1:17 am

    @Canadian Observer:

    We had a person of colour as a head of state (and a woman) before you did

    And you had a person of color as your head of government — as Barack Obama is — when, exactly?

  174. 174.

    Canadian Observer

    March 18, 2011 at 1:19 am

    Fuck you all. You’re blind to the Fascism destroying your middle class (and I still see “joe from lowell” didn’t answer my question about universal health care).

    I’m out of here. Have fun in yet another aggressive war for Oil and Empire.

    Here, do some educational reading if you all are literate enough:

    http://www.amazon.com/Perpetual-War-Peace-How-Hated/dp/156025405X

    http://www.amazon.com/Sorrows-Empire-Militarism-Republic-American/dp/0805077979/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300425531&sr=1-1

  175. 175.

    El Cid

    March 18, 2011 at 1:20 am

    Being born in a particular nation doesn’t actually qualify as a moral act.

    The wisdom to be born to wealthy parents, now, that takes some planning.

    Even the poorest, least developed nations will at least have some wealthy people, and that’s what counts.

  176. 176.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    March 18, 2011 at 1:20 am

    @joe from Lowell: You have no fucking answer, Joe. Gaddafi has been killing his people since 1973 – almost 40 years now and no one cared. In fact, most cheered when we bombed ’em in ’86. And we only did that because we thought he was behind a terrorist act that killed Americans, not because he’d been PUBLICLY EXECUTING DISSIDENTS FOR 15 YEARS.

    But now you neocons got yerself a morality play, the good guys (led by a former Gaddafi henchman) vs. the bad guys and you wanna see the bad guys lose. Neither one of us gives a shit about piles of dead Libyan bodies. Only one of us is using it as an excuse to get his war on.

  177. 177.

    joe from Lowell

    March 18, 2011 at 1:21 am

    @cbear:

    Which unit will you be deploying with, asswipe?

    So, do you scrub bed pans in your free time, or do you not endorse universal health care?

    What a stupid argument. You can’t endorse a government action unless you hold a job in that profession?

    Unless you’re one of those ultra-rare police officers/sewer engineers/kindergarten teachers, that is fucking retarded.

  178. 178.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    March 18, 2011 at 1:22 am

    Good to see ya out and about, cbear.

  179. 179.

    El Cid

    March 18, 2011 at 1:22 am

    @Canadian Observer: For what it’s worth, saying that we ought to be more like Canada doesn’t actually make us be more like Canada.

    It’s like telling people who live in, say, much poorer Southern states like Mississippi, that things are better in Vermont, and pointing out the various ways in which things are better there, and why aren’t they like that.

    If it were that easy, then the world would be a very different place.

  180. 180.

    Mnemosyne

    March 18, 2011 at 1:24 am

    @Canadian Observer:

    Buh-bye. Don’t let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.

    Oh, sorry, I forgot you were Canadian. Don’t let it hit you in the arse on your way out.

  181. 181.

    joe from Lowell

    March 18, 2011 at 1:25 am

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    You have no fucking answer, Joe.

    Sure I do.

    You’ve just decided that I can’t possibly, because there can’t possibly be an answer.

    B

    ut now you neocons…

    Good night, Gracie.

    …got yerself a morality play, the good guys (led by a former Gaddafi henchman) vs. the bad guys and you wanna see the bad guys lose. Neither one of us gives a shit about piles of dead Libyan bodies

    And that’s where you’re wrong. Some of us actually do care about piles of Libyan bodies.

    But, once again, you’ve just decided to pretend that the beliefs of other people are impossible.

  182. 182.

    Ed Marshall

    March 18, 2011 at 1:25 am

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    I kind of give a shit. I had Libyan foreign nationals that I taught English to at SIU who will die if Gadaffi returns to power. They were good friends and allowed me to make them take me to the bar and buy drinks even though they were religious and didn’t drink as part of my salary as an ESL teacher/conversationalist.

  183. 183.

    Merkin

    March 18, 2011 at 1:26 am

    @Canadian Observer:

    You’re blind to the Fascism destroying your middle class

    says the one whose country is governed by Stephen fucking Harper.

  184. 184.

    El Cid

    March 18, 2011 at 1:28 am

    @Just Some Fuckhead: It’s entirely possible that what would come out of the situation after the potential fall of Qaddafi is that different forces such as leaders of the army, different rebel group blocs, and different regional / tribal interests either fail to agree to any coherent state, or begin hostilities over various material or geographic goals, or mixes of both.

    Those outcomes in themselves can be the results of what military intervention occurs, how, and where.

  185. 185.

    Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal

    March 18, 2011 at 1:28 am

    @Redshirt: see that is the thing, canada’s involvement in global affairs and wars has always been, parenthetical at best. like, oh, and canada was there too.

    which is why canadian observer, if said person is really looking for this fight, i am sure they can find a far more challenging array of rah-rah-americans than balloon juice has to offer. its a big internets, better places to have a real pissing match.

    seems a little bit odd to troll this sort of thing here, either they want to get a kick out of libs defending america, or they want to beat on america to real, live, americans for whatever sublime pleasure that yields, without actually fighting someone with their heart in thrashing anyone who challenges american hegemony.

  186. 186.

    cbear

    March 18, 2011 at 1:30 am

    @Just Some Fuckhead: Thanks JSF—you too.

    Every once in awhile I see a small fire and I just feel like pissing on it.

    P.S. I don’t think Nick and Joe got the camel joke.

  187. 187.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    March 18, 2011 at 1:32 am

    @cbear:

    P.S. I don’t think Nick and Joe got the camel joke.

    I bet Joe got it. He’s got a good sense of humor. Nick, OTOH, is a fucking rock.

  188. 188.

    joe from Lowell

    March 18, 2011 at 1:33 am

    People like JSF are funny.

    He absolutely refused to recognize moral distinctions between different wars.

    He absolutely refuses to recognize moral distinctions between a dictatorial government and the people resisting it.

    He absolutely refuses to recognize a moral distinction between a mass slaughter happening in Libya and the quick ouster of the regime.

    And yet, his belief in the moral superiority of people who hold his political beliefs, to other functioning, responsible, law-abiding members of his society who hold moderately different political beliefs, is so immediate, absolute, certain, instinctive, and unalterable.

  189. 189.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    March 18, 2011 at 1:38 am

    @joe from Lowell:

    People like JSF are funny.

    Thanks Joe. I’m glad we can appreciate each other’s sense of humor despite one of us being morally superior and the other a raging psychopath.

  190. 190.

    cbear

    March 18, 2011 at 1:40 am

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    I bet Joe got it. He’s got a good sense of humor.

    Actually, judging from his comment directly below yours, I’d have to say he’s somewhat humorless and way too fucking sincere.

  191. 191.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    March 18, 2011 at 1:42 am

    @cbear: Nah, he’s a good guy. War just gets his blood pumping.

  192. 192.

    cbear

    March 18, 2011 at 1:47 am

    @joe from Lowell:

    the quick ouster of the regime.

    Yep, with you and Nick on the job I’m sure it’ll be a cakewalk.

    “Hey, you wogs, get over here and drag the Colonel’s dead ass outta here and clean up this mess. Me and Sargeant Nick gotta get back Stateside and do a little keyboarding. Seems there’s a bit up a dustup over in the Congo we need to work on.”

  193. 193.

    Mark S.

    March 18, 2011 at 1:54 am

    Does Sully make any fucking sense? I realize he’s learned a few things since his fifth column days, but geez. I remember him getting hysterical and turning his blog green when it was Iran, but now it’s fuck the Libyans. There’s actually a rebel force to support in Libya where there wasn’t any in Iraq or Iran.

  194. 194.

    cbear

    March 18, 2011 at 1:57 am

    @Just Some Fuckhead:
    What happened to that Nick guy? One minute he was here and now he’s just kind of “disappeared”.

    I really hope your rude and insensitive comments didn’t drive him to do something horrible. I wouldn’t want you to have to carry that burden, my friend.

  195. 195.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    March 18, 2011 at 2:01 am

    @cbear:

    I really hope your rude and insensitive comments didn’t drive him to do something horrible. I wouldn’t want you to have to carry that burden, my friend.

    I was referring to his Navy enlistment.

  196. 196.

    Mark S.

    March 18, 2011 at 2:02 am

    Sully also heh indeeds some guy:

    But perhaps what’s more troubling about this whole episode, as Sullivan notes, is that it has proceeded almost entirely without debate. When the Bush administration wanted to wage a war of choice against Iraq, it at least spent several months building a public case. The Bush administration had to resort to some wild rhetoric about the possibility of the United States getting nuked, but at least it was making a case built (however absurdly) on American security interests.

    Whatever you think about Libya, this is a stupid argument. The reason Bush was able to fuck around for a year was because there was never any threat. I’m not saying Libya is a threat, but if no action is taken soon, the rebels will get routed.

  197. 197.

    cbear

    March 18, 2011 at 2:06 am

    @Just Some Fuckhead: My bad. It was sort of ambiguous and the snark is very strong in you sometimes, fuckheadhopper. That’s why I’m a fan.

  198. 198.

    FlipYrWhig

    March 18, 2011 at 2:08 am

    So, let’s say Israel starts pounding the living hell out of the Palestinians (again), or Lebanon (again). We all know that the US we know and/or love would never take up arms to defend someone against an Israeli onslaught. But in a fantasy world where it was a thinkable thought, would it be appropriate to do so? I think that’s damn hard to answer. I can see it either way.

  199. 199.

    Mnemosyne

    March 18, 2011 at 2:18 am

    @Mark S.:

    That’s why I’m so astounded at the people who are whining about why the West is going to do something now when they didn’t before. Um, possibly because we now have a group in Libya that’s a credible threat to Gaddafi’s power whereas we didn’t have one before?

    I swear they’re more Bush-like than they’ll admit — they believe the same thing on Wednesday that they did on Monday, no matter what happened on Tuesday. Circumstances never change, apparently.

  200. 200.

    cbear

    March 18, 2011 at 2:22 am

    @Just Some Fuckhead: I’m going to rig for silent running, bro—I think the goopers are tracking me again.
    Have a good night.
    You too, Joe/Nick.

  201. 201.

    Suffern ACE

    March 18, 2011 at 2:31 am

    @Mark S.: Actually, I thought he was making some sense today, but I don’t read him often. At least he has up the text of the resolution (although it is very difficult to read and I am still not certain if it says). I am very wary of this no-fly zone. I’m in the “could be convinced” column.

    This is not Iran-but what we would have faced in Iran if the protesters last year were not suppressed and somehow armed themselves. But it was nice to change the color of the blog when protesters are simply protesting and it isn’t likely that the fleet is going to be sent in or it will fail. Once this became an armed conflict, it is much more difficult to start changing colors. He is correct – there is no pretense here that the Powers are entering a civil war on the side of one group. This is an intervention, not a peace-keeping mission.

    We might be debating this issue on this blog at greater length and in more detail than the Senate or House, who had a secret briefing meeting and are now apparently good to go. I think Andrew Sullivan is right to have a problem with that situation. I’m wondering if the counterpart blogs in France and the UK are experiencing the same lack of public debate. Their leaders just committed their armed forces (when they too have been told that they need domestic austerity) without much debate. Even if this ends well, tomorrow Qadaffi flees, the armed forces surrender, all the tribal groups let bygones be bygones, I’d be happy, but still a bit worried about being dragged into these things by allies who turn around and “demand leadership.”

    I don’t think Sarkozy, Cameron and Italian crook are particularly known for their humanitarian spirit. I hope they prove me wrong.

  202. 202.

    Suffern ACE

    March 18, 2011 at 2:44 am

    @Mark S.: I understand that we don’t “have a year to make a case.” Not that it matters. If only Dick Luger is going to squeal in the Senate, it must be a slam dunk case,

  203. 203.

    Anne Laurie

    March 18, 2011 at 2:54 am

    @Mark S.:

    But why are the French so gung-ho?

    Last couple times “everybody” was gung-ho to (have somebody else) oust that horrible terrible very bad no good Kadafi guy, it was mentioned quite often that France got a good part of its oil supply from Libya. What electricity France does not make from Libyan oil, IIRC, it makes from nuke plants. The workings of which, for some reason or other, have come under increased public scrutiny in the last week or so. Not saying there’s a Glenn-Beck-whiteboard line between those two factoids, but coincidences like these are what made me a cynic.

  204. 204.

    Mark S.

    March 18, 2011 at 3:00 am

    @Suffern ACE:

    I might be an idiot, but I’m actually optimistic that this will turn out all right. France and Britain should be able to handle the bulk of this. I think most of the Libyan people are sick of Qadafi and his armed forces might start defecting if they encounter some real resistance. Libya isn’t an ethnic stew like Iraq and (especially) Afghanistan, so I think the chances of a stable post war country are pretty good.

    Granted, this is just one dude’s opinion, but I’m not usually optimistic about these things. I think Afghanistan is unwinnable and I’m not convinced Iraq isn’t going to blow apart again in the near future.

  205. 205.

    Anne Laurie

    March 18, 2011 at 3:01 am

    @Amanda in the South Bay:

    Ironically, I’m pretty sure America, back in Libertarian Foreign Policy Fantasyland (i.e. the early 19th century) fought the Barbary Pirates well before JQA made his famous remark.

    Yeah, Tom ‘Remember, I’m A Genius‘ Jefferson was the Founding Father with the germinal case of “America, Fvck Yeah!” fever. The Adamses, on the other hand, were & have been excoriated ever since as naggy old ladies-bits who just failed to understand that “we” are the best & most perfect Nation, under God, 4EVAH. You’d think the whole ‘French Revolution’ fiasco might’ve made Big Tom think twice, but then, if Tom hadn’t been so fond of letting his little head lead his big head…

  206. 206.

    Yutsano

    March 18, 2011 at 3:10 am

    @Anne Laurie: It was even worse than that AL. The wars against the Barbary pirates were fought because the pirates were disrupting American shipping and the Galtian overlords of the day were squaking at Jefferson to do something NAOW!! So it was the first of many battles we took up in the name of corporations. Just to depress you further and give you an idea how long this has existed in our national fabric.

  207. 207.

    Martin

    March 18, 2011 at 3:19 am

    Oh dear. Now this is really getting out of hand. The imperial forces of Norway will contribute to the military actions in Libya:

    Norway will join the international military action against Muammar Gaddafi’s forces in Libya, a Norwegian daily quoted the defence minister as saying on its website on Friday.
    __
    “We will contribute to the operation,” Grete Faremo told the daily Verdens Gang. “But it is too early to say exactly in what way. Sending air capabilities would be natural.”

    Who will be left to stop US aggression, once we, you know, actually commit to military force?

  208. 208.

    Yutsano

    March 18, 2011 at 3:22 am

    @Martin: Remind me to check popcorn futures in the morning. This could get epic.

    (Note: I am totally against any US involvement unless it is background logistical support. Our fighter jocks should not be in the skies of Libya period. Let the Europeans clean up the mess for once.)

  209. 209.

    Suffern ACE

    March 18, 2011 at 3:23 am

    @Mark S.: Not an idiot. An optimist. You’ll live longer.

  210. 210.

    Martin

    March 18, 2011 at 3:25 am

    I don’t understand why negotiations with Gaddafi aren’t working. Inside of one day he launches an attack on Misrata, says he’s ready for a cease fire, threatens to attack commercial aircraft and shipping, assures the UN that he simply acting to protect citizens, and threatens to join up with Al Qaeda.

  211. 211.

    Suffern ACE

    March 18, 2011 at 3:27 am

    @Martin: Maybe the Belgians will form a government so they can send support, too.

  212. 212.

    Yutsano

    March 18, 2011 at 3:29 am

    @Suffern ACE: I, for one, welcome our new waffle overlords.

  213. 213.

    Suffern ACE

    March 18, 2011 at 3:31 am

    @Martin: Yeah, yesterday he (or his son) said that the gangsters in charge of Bengazi were Al Quaeda, But he’ll support Al Quaeda if attacked. Maybe if attacked he’ll join the rebellion.

  214. 214.

    Some

    March 18, 2011 at 3:35 am

    Who names an amphibious assault ship loaded with marines, the “Ponce”?

  215. 215.

    Martin

    March 18, 2011 at 3:37 am

    @Yutsano: Yeah, that would be my preference as well. Truth is, we’ve sold enough of our fighters to allies in the region that they should be quite capable of handling this. We still rule the world on logistics and intel and providing that will help keep our allies safe, and minimize collateral damage, and we should provide all that we can. Obama said he didn’t want the US to be seen invading yet another country. I think that’s a good call. I hope he sticks to that.

  216. 216.

    Martin

    March 18, 2011 at 3:45 am

    @Suffern ACE: Yeah, it’s not just that Gaddafi is crazy – we’ve always known that – but that he lets his craziness out in public so clearly and officially. The North Koreans are fucking nuts too, but they’re quite a bit more reserved about broadcasting that – they seem to be somewhat self-aware. Gaddafi doesn’t seem to realize that he’s constantly making his situation worse.

  217. 217.

    Yutsano

    March 18, 2011 at 3:58 am

    @Some: Marines do have senses of humor. The image of efficient killing machine 24/7 is some of the most clever marketing I’ve seen.

    @Martin: They haz shiny brand new toys we all taught them how to use. It’s about time they justify having military forces or just drop the pretense and disband them all and pay up for us to do their dirty work for them.

  218. 218.

    Martin

    March 18, 2011 at 3:58 am

    Denmark seeking approval to send F-16s. UAE and Qatar have suggested they’ll send military as well, but no commitment yet.

    Pentagon says they’ll deploy Tomahawk cruise missiles, drones and ground-attack aircraft, but no troops. Sounds like they’re aiming to take out airfields and tanks, and possibly strikes against leadership.

    Airstrikes reported in Misrata. Sounds like any minute now…

  219. 219.

    Yutsano

    March 18, 2011 at 4:01 am

    @Martin: Watch if Malta opens up their airfields to foreign planes. Then shit is really on.

  220. 220.

    Parallel 5ths (Irish Steel)

    March 18, 2011 at 4:07 am

    @Martin:

    North Korean reserve

    And looking @ things

  221. 221.

    Martin

    March 18, 2011 at 4:14 am

    @Parallel 5ths (Irish Steel): Yeah, but that’s a whole different level of crazy compared to ‘Dude, don’t attack me or I’ll join Al Qaeda and start blowing up airliners again’.

  222. 222.

    Parallel 5ths (Irish Steel)

    March 18, 2011 at 4:24 am

    @Martin:

    Oh, agreed.

    It’s an operatic-level-of-paranoia mixed with a we-have-no-idea-how-absurd-we-appear kind of crazy.

    Funny and tragic all at once.

    ETA: Or have I just described the colonel again?

  223. 223.

    Yutsano

    March 18, 2011 at 4:30 am

    @Parallel 5ths (Irish Steel): Yes and yes.

  224. 224.

    jak

    March 18, 2011 at 5:38 am

    what digby says

    “That Whiff o’ Freedom Smells like gas”

  225. 225.

    fuckwit

    March 18, 2011 at 5:50 am

    I was just thinking that it is rather normal for presidents when faced with an opposition in charge of congress, to concentrate their time and effort in the only area which they have a relatively free Constitutional hand for leadership: foreign policy. Seen it with Democratic Presidents faced with Repug obstruction and insanity (Clinton in particular), and with Repug presidents trying to bypass or bend over the Democratic Congress (Nixon, Reagan, Bushes, etc.).

    So Obama’s domestic agenda is stopped cold for the next 2 years, possibly more. It’s time to work on foreign policy stuff. And looky here. Plenty going on.

    I’ll bet it all works out fine. Definitely tired of being the world’s policeman. Let the Arabs and North Africans deal with this one; it’s theirs, and let the Europeans help out, it’s their backyard, not ours.

  226. 226.

    Jeroen Janssen

    March 18, 2011 at 6:47 am

    I don’t think oil is the main reason the UK, France and Italy are pushing so hard for military action. It’s because of the refugees and african immigrants that will surely flood Europe if Libya descents into chaos.

    Libya is the african gateway to Europe and we had a deal with Gaddafi to not make a fuss about him being a brutal dictator as long as he kept the africans away. Gaddafi has gotten of the leash so now we have to put him down fast.

  227. 227.

    kdaug

    March 18, 2011 at 8:31 am

    @joe from Lowell:

    I mean that. I can respect this honest “Fuck ‘em, not my problem” argument a lot more than the faux humanitarianism of the people who don’t think anyone ever dies unless an American shoots them.

    Roger that.

  228. 228.

    Cheap Jim

    March 18, 2011 at 8:41 am

    @Just Some Fuckhead: Nasser

  229. 229.

    rikryah

    March 18, 2011 at 9:08 am

    Libya should not be our problem. Libya is Europe’s problem and the Arab League’s problem. How it wound up our problem when we barely have diplomatic relations with them just disgusts me.

  230. 230.

    Bulworth

    March 18, 2011 at 9:27 am

    I wonder where the gunships and support aircraft will come from:

    Certainly not from our shores. We’re broke. Everyone says so. Broke countries can’t go to war.

  231. 231.

    Pococurante

    March 18, 2011 at 9:41 am

    The Libyan foreign minister is clever. They are now willing to “negotiate” a cease fire, and he asks that no one arm the rebels because then “they will be inviting Libyans to kill each other”.

    Nice stalling tactic. It did shake them up to see the Arab League actually agree to something besides condemning human rights violations in Israel.

  232. 232.

    mds

    March 18, 2011 at 10:01 am

    Just to remind the local elliptical firing squad of the center-right and leftwards who the real fucknozzles are:

    Sen. John McCain, visiting Libya this past week, praised Muammar Gaddafi for his peacemaking efforts in Africa. In addition, McCain called for the U.S. Congress to expand ties with Gaddafi’s government, according to Libya’s state news agency. McCain had a face-to-face meeting with Gaddafi, which he detailed on his Twitter page with the following message: Late evening with Col. Qadhafi at his “ranch” in Libya — interesting meeting with an interesting man.

    Politics Daily, 8/17/2009

    But now it turns out that the fellow behind the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing is a bad guy. Who knew?

  233. 233.

    Corner Stone

    March 18, 2011 at 10:13 am

    @Merkin:

    I would have LOVED to have been on the USS The Sullivans, but unfortunately as you no doubt missed upthread, the Navy didn’t want me…asswipe.

    Did nobody else catch this?
    Where Nick completely outed his sockpuppet “Merkin” ?
    Look at Merkin’s comment at 169 and then search the thread for where “Merkin ever mentioned his Navy dreams. He didn’t. It was Nick at 131:

    and before you throw the “why don’t you go there then” crap at me, I tried to join the Navy but was rejected. I mentioned it here before, pretty sure I did yesterday, so shove it, ok?

    That’s pretty positive proof Nick is sockpuppeting all over the place.

    Nick, baby, you gotta try harder son.

  234. 234.

    chopper

    March 18, 2011 at 10:38 am

    @rikryah:

    indeed. libya provides probably 1% of our oil imports. europe is far more dependent on them (italy especially), let them do the heavy lifting for a change.

  235. 235.

    PaulW

    March 18, 2011 at 10:50 am

    About 80 percent of the comments have been insults flung at each other instead of focusing on the current events in Libya.

    If I could just note:
    1) The speed in which Obama pursued this foreign policy matter without open debate here at home is unsettling, but not surprising. Events on the ground were moving fast, and Presidents do get leeway on foreign affairs matters. But what Obama needs to do now is speak to the American people at least about what we as a nation are going to do in Libya, and how much of this will be on our allies in NATO and the Arab League to enforce the no-fly and aid the rebels in ousting Qaddafi. It’s easy, Obama, just find ten minutes of time during halftime break of a NCAA game tonight and give a quick speech on the Whats, the Whos, and the Whys.
    2) The current situation is confusing: reports of firing on the last rebel city of Yavin’s Moon (so I can’t spell Bengalzi or whatever), mixed with reports of a “cease fire” which itself sounds ridiculous (“please don’t arm the rebels as it will encourage them to kill fellow Libyans, such as the Libyans on Qaddafi’s payroll who are eagerly killing the rebels, yadda.”).

  236. 236.

    Bob Loblaw

    March 18, 2011 at 11:13 am

    @The Sheriff’s A Ni-:

    For you and Joe, yeah I’ve already chalked it up to your raging case of ODS.

    Obama? What the fuck does he have to do with anything? You may have noticed that he was the most reticent of everybody in this arrangement. Properly I would say.

    You do understand that the American domestic political scene is not the full extent of the universe, right? That other stuff matters?

    Oh noez, what does this mean for/about Obama?! Please. But once again, I can’t help but notice nobody has anything to say about Libya, surprise surprise. What happens if Qaddafi doesn’t throw himself in the maw of the international blockade? Will international forces bombard Tripoli? Will the country have to be partitioned into an East and West? What if population protection doesn’t actually produce regime change? These are questions that the President seemed to think important to find the answer to, but apparently are beneath the mighty blogging horde.

    Instead we have to hear two hundred brainless posts about imperialism and oil and penis measuring contests over “who loves saving lives more.”

    @Corner Stone:

    Hilarious.

  237. 237.

    Bob Loblaw

    March 18, 2011 at 11:15 am

    @The Sheriff’s A Ni-:

    For you and Joe, yeah I’ve already chalked it up to your raging case of ODS.

    Obama? What the fuck does he have to do with anything? You may have noticed that he was the most reticent of everybody in this arrangement. Properly I would say.

    You do understand that the American domestic political scene is not the full extent of the universe, right? That other stuff matters?

    Oh noez, what does this mean for/about Obama?! Please. But once again, I can’t help but notice nobody has anything to say about Libya, surprise surprise. What happens if Qaddafi doesn’t throw himself in the maw of the international blockade? Will international forces bombard Tripoli? Will the country have to be partitioned into an East and West? What if population protection doesn’t actually produce regime change? These are questions that the President seemed to think important to find the answer to, but apparently are beneath the mighty blogging horde.

    Instead we have to hear two hundred brainless posts about imperialism and oil and penis measuring contests over “who loves saving lives more.”

    @Corner Stone:

    Hilarious.

  238. 238.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    March 18, 2011 at 11:29 am

    @Corner Stone:

    That’s pretty positive proof Nick is sockpuppeting all over the place.

    lmfao

    I bow to yer comment-fu.

    I’m going to say something to John about this. It’s one thing to have a little spoof fun with another handle but John shouldn’t be providing a platform for propagandists.

  239. 239.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    March 18, 2011 at 11:31 am

    Anyway, cbear, now you know why he disappeared. Sorry I dropped out on ya. I had to poop.

  240. 240.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    March 18, 2011 at 11:37 am

    @PaulW:

    About 80 percent of the comments have been insults flung at each other

    I question your math but even if it was, so?

  241. 241.

    Corner Stone

    March 18, 2011 at 11:42 am

    @Just Some Fuckhead: From the “Here we are, again” thread:

    Which was the point Nick was making, but I’ll shutup now, lest CornerTroll mistake my defense of Nick as “sockpuppeting”

    After I called Nick/Merkin on it

    And yeah, nothing wrong with spoofing up a handle once in a while. But Nick only does it to defend his comments as “Nick”, and lend “support” from an otherwise unbiased other commenter.
    He keeps doing it for some reason. Almost as if the things he says don’t stand very well all by themselves.

  242. 242.

    Corner Stone

    March 18, 2011 at 11:50 am

    @cbear:

    I’d have to say he’s (joe from LoL) somewhat humorless and way too fucking sincere.

    He’s pretty much a humorless wannabe know-it-all prick, as he’s gone full bore to prove the last few threads.
    Oh, and he matters waaaaayyyyyy too much to people. Also too.

  243. 243.

    El Cid

    March 18, 2011 at 12:01 pm

    @Anne Laurie: @Yutsano:

    It should be remembered that at the founding of the new independent government, the major source of revenue for the US government was tariffs from sea trade. Blah blah blah blah history, after seizing a number of US vessels they demanded ransoms big enough to break the US budget.

    Hamilton had gotten Revenue Cutters up & going to crack down on domestic smuggling, but by the end of the century the US Navy was formed and so on and so forth.

  244. 244.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    March 18, 2011 at 12:16 pm

    After I called Nick/Merkin on it

    Geez, the balls on these rightwingers. If I got caught doing that shit, I’d slink away in shame.

    He keeps doing it for some reason. Almost as if the things he says don’t stand very well all by themselves.

    His near-constant chant is we live in a center right country. I guess he’s trying to prove it.

  245. 245.

    mike in dc

    March 18, 2011 at 3:19 pm

    There seem to be rather a lot of countries not named “The United States of America” committing military aircraft and resources to this emerging operation(including several European countries, Canada, and reportedly some members of the Arab League). It would be nice if those folks who are firmly opposed to any intervention would address that more directly. It’s far from clear at this point that the US will be doing the heavy lifting. It may not even be doing half the work.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Image by GB in the HC (5/23)

Recent Comments

  • Manyakitty on Final Reminder: If You Want That Novavax Booster… (May 23, 2025 @ 10:39am)
  • Miss Bianca on Final Reminder: If You Want That Novavax Booster… (May 23, 2025 @ 10:38am)
  • eclare on Final Reminder: If You Want That Novavax Booster… (May 23, 2025 @ 10:38am)
  • MattF on Final Reminder: If You Want That Novavax Booster… (May 23, 2025 @ 10:37am)
  • lowtechcyclist on Friday Morning Open Thread: Money Money Money MONEY (May 23, 2025 @ 10:37am)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!