One recalls a mantra from earlier in this century that communicated: "Dissent is a form of patriotism." At the time, there were devotees of this mantra that worked quite hard in pursuit of a delusional dream: seeing to it that the sitting president of their country is sent off to the E.U. to stand trial at any number of international courts on charges ranging from human rights violations to genocide. These people were practically rabid when proclaiming that the President, in their world-view, had started an illegal war.
It would be interesting to hear what justification Obama has to involve American troops in a war. By firing US missiles from US warships upon the leader and the defense forces of an independent nation, Obama as chief executive and commander in chief of the US Armed forces has effectively committed an Act of War. It is odd that the President would consult with a shadow-y bevy of international oil interests instead of the Congress of the United States before taking action.
One might look to history, to see if there are any parallels that might justify this President's actions. Ronald Wilson Reagan ordered an attack on Libya in 1986, called Operation El Dorado Canyon. President Reagan stated that this was done in order to protect the citizens of the United States from attack. Libya was actively engaged in terrorist activity, and Reagan cited the Berlin Disco bombings that specifically targeted Americans as a predicating factor.
Can Obama put up Reagan as an example? Nope. Reagan had constitutional authority on his side, as Libya was a recognized state-sponsor of terrorism. It had been added to the list in 1979, but it was removed from the list in 2006. Obama missed that boat. This time around, Libya is not even harming the citizens of any other nation, and there is no evidence that Qadaffy is even thinking about harming any Americans.
Contrast Obama's war with "Bush's war." In Bush's case, Congress gave him the authority to act as per the letter of the law spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. Thus, according to American law, Bush had legal authority. Obama did not receive any permission from Congress. In a nutshell, Obama's war is nowhere near as justifiable as Reagan's strike in 1986, and is a lot less legal than Bush's war.
But Obama is all about the change. In 1986, when Reagan wanted to hit refineries and military bases, France, Spain, and Italy all had moral qualms, and refused to let the US fly over their countries in order to attack Libya. Germany had deep moral objections to the Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom. This time around, though, both France and Italy have sent carriers and are willing participants in striking Libya. One has to wonder if it has anything at all to do with the fact that Libya is one of Europe's greatest suppliers of oil, as Libya can can crank out 1.8 million barrels a day. Who, pray tell are Europe's biggest consumers of Libyan oil? 32 percent goes to Italy, Germany takes 14 percent, Spain 10 percent and France gulps down nine percent. These countries did not want Reagan to hit the refineries back then, despite assurances that the US would try and minimize collateral damage. One wonders if the President of Hope is asking the men and women targeting US warheads if they will be careful not to cause undue damage to the oil refineries as they guide their bombs onto human targets?
Obama might just be a great agent of change. He has apparently made "Blood for Oil" popular again.
How would you compare Obama's action with the actions on Manuel Noriega in Panama?
Honestly, I don't know enough about the Libyan revolutionaries to say whether or not they deserve our support. It may hold true that the enemy of our enemy is our friend but honestly Qadaffi has been outspoken but generally too timid to take on the U.S.
The difference lies in the fact that Bush had Cheney and Tenet lie to Powell who unwittingly lied to Congress, the UN and the world about yellow cake, aluminum tubes, an Iraqi/Al Qaeda link to 911 and the invisible weapons of mass destruction. Shrub started an illegal war for oil. You cons can spin it to the proverbial cows reach their destination but Shrub had opportunistic ulterior motives and was an invader of a sovereign nation.
Obama didn't do a thing until the UN and Arab League voted to use force to stop Qaddafi from murdering the people who rose up in unity against his tyranny. I am surprised Obama didn't wait for Congressional approval.
Shrub was motivated by dollar signs. Obama is motivated by human rights violations. Shrub lied, Obam didn't.
Lets see if the US builds a 104 acre “embassy” designed to hold the personnel responsible for looting oil in Libya like the one we built in Iraq. Then I'll buy into your theory of blood for oil. Until then Shrub is the sole recipient of that honor.
On one side of your mouths Cons blast Obama for sitting on his hands and allowing innocent Libians to be killed. When Obama does something, and in fact went thru the correct channels by getting allies to be with us, Cons blast him for going to war. This isn't a War. We are taking out strategic sites in Libya so as to protect the air from Libian attacks. No ground troops. This should be how Afghanistan is run.
Heat, I see you got your liberal handbook in the mail too... since I decided to join the left I'm parroting all the things we are supposed to say when a president bombs another country... although with my above post some of my new lefty friends think I'm not getting this, apparantly I need to check if there is a 'D' or an 'R' next to the presidents name before I beging bashing him over illegal wars... give me time, I'll get it right eventually...
I thought the left didn't care about soldiers - for 7 years all we heard about from you guys was "Iraqi citizens are dying!!! waaaa! waaaa!" - so I guess Libyian citizens are the kind of Muslims you guys like to kill?
The left hates the military - you guys privately celebrate when soldiers die.