UN issues Libya no-fly zone (War Powers vote FAILS)

[UtwigMU]

Some of my speculation: USA is broke and countries no longer buy treasuries (China, Japan...). Instead they are limiting export of raw materials and buying commodities (food, resources, energy). There is also currency war going on as USA is printing massive amount of Dollars and China is also inflating (10%) Yuan. This is why food and commodity prices are going up and this is one of major reasons while people in middle east and elsewhere are not satisfied.

Some of my speculations - possibilities:
1) It is possible that USA has decided to just occupy oil and natural gas resources, UK always goes along and Sarkozy is pro-american (which Chirac wasn't)

2) This was instigated by right-wing elements in USA so as to turn people against Obama by next election.

3) Someone has decided that entire middle east region needs to be thrown into chaos though I don't see what is the next step.

[cjolley]

if you mean with 'rest of the ME' only the countries where the western world thinks democracy will better serve their interests, then I might agree.

Well duh. You can't expect the US, or any other country, to go against it's self interest.

Some of my speculation: USA is broke and countries no longer buy treasuries (China, Japan...). Instead they are limiting export of raw materials and buying commodities (food, resources, energy). There is also currency war going on as USA is printing massive amount of Dollars and China is also inflating (10%) Yuan. This is why food and commodity prices are going up and this is one of major reasons while people in middle east and elsewhere are not satisfied.

Some of my speculations - possibilities:
1) It is possible that USA has decided to just occupy oil and natural gas resources, UK always goes along and Sarkozy is pro-american (which Chirac wasn't)

2) This was instigated by right-wing elements in USA so as to turn people against Obama by next election.

3) Someone has decided that entire middle east region needs to be thrown into chaos though I don't see what is the next step.

To quote the Emperor from Amadeus: "Too many notes."

[Dr Mordrid]

I've so far pretty much limited my comments to 2 things -

1) that Qaddafi deserves whatever he gets. We've had justification to bore him a new one since his plans to assassinate American diplomats in Rome and Paris were uncovered in 1981. Add Lockerbie etc. and he needs to get dead or a one-way ticket to The Hague. Yesterday. Period.

2) military events & speculation of whose special forces are on the ground.

Now for the politics, which are starting to raise hell over here.

While US presidents often use military forces in short-notice situations like this there are procedures that are followed, and chief among these is consultation with the House & Senate leaderships and Chaiirmen of the military affairs & foreign policy committees.

Bush, Reagan, Ike, whoever all did this. Obama did not. He also has not engaged the War Powers Act, the modern version of a war declaration, by which Bush got authorization and funding for ops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ops there are still governed by it.

This is not the first time he's stiffed Congress, and not just regarding military actions, and members of both parties are getting pretty fed up with it. His use of unsworn so-called "policy czars" to bypass Congressional oversight committees getting testimony from sworn appointees has also left a lot of Congress pretty ticked off.

Then there is the issue of turning command of US assets & forces over to another nation while the zone is still "hot." For UN peacekeeping, NATO ops etc. this isn't a problem, there are treaties approved by Congress to cover those, but in a cobbled together situation like this there are huge questions. They aren't being answered.

Then there is the cost, and big questions of if both parties in Congress will pass military supplemental appropriations without steel cables, in place of strings, attached.

Where could this lead? IMO the most likely end fallout will come in the form of a serious challenge from the left wing of the Democrat Party for the 2012 nomination. They've been ticked at Obama for numerous reasons, and this might just be what splits the Democrat Party. Historically a serious challenge like this to a sitting president results in an electoral loss.

[Umfriend]

Well duh. You can't expect the US, or any other country, to go against it's self interest."

If so, then it is not about any Mo for democracy though, is it?

[cjolley]

If so, then it is not about any Mo for democracy though, is it?

You think that a change to democracy somewhere could never be in the US's interest?

[Dr Mordrid]

Be careful what you wish for. Ones expectations must be tempered by the fact that democratic processes can have dreadful results; Hitler in 1932, etc. Sometimes you're better off with the devil you know.

[cjolley]

A closer in time and space example might be Iran.

[Dr Mordrid]

True, but Hitler is the most glaring example.

[dZeus]

You think that a change to democracy somewhere could never be in the US's interest?

oh but it is not so much the opportunism that I find revolting. It's the hypocrisy with which it is sold to the people (sheeple?), labelling it as a war for democracy.

Further more, I am deeply concerned that most of the opportunistic moves by the western world have been very myopic, resulting in even worse long term effects than if they hadn't meddled in foreign affairs of sovereign nations. Your example of Iran is a very good one to illustrate this, looking at what happened after the British and Americans starting meddling there after the Anglo-Persian Oil Company lobbied them to do so.

Look, I perfectly understand the need for opportunistic foreign politics and military aggression. However, I firmly believe it'd be better to have an open debate on it without all the surrounding hypocrisy and with very long term goals in mind. And strikingly, ultra-long term goals often serve in the interest of both the people you're trying to influence as your own (e.g. stability, prosperity).

[Kruzin]

However, I firmly believe it'd be better to have an open debate on it....

OK...Let's just go ask Momar for that debate, and see how far it gets...

[dZeus]

sorry I guess I wasn't clear in my post. The open debate is about the aim and methods of a war on a sovereign nation, by the nations that currently are participating in this war.

i.e. an open debate in the western world about why would we want this war, instead of selling it to the sheeple as needing it to further democracy in the middle east which clearly is not the motive

[KRSESQ]

Be careful what you wish for. Ones expectations must be tempered by the fact that democratic processes can have dreadful results; Hitler in 1932, etc. Sometimes you're better off with the devil you know.

It's true that democracy can be a messy business. I don't think I need to quote Churchill here. The greatest threat both to and from democracy is the chance that irresponsible, self-interested parties will manipulate public opinion to engineer their own rise to power, something that I believe the US is in grave danger of right now.

But that shouldn't be used as a rational to prop up tin-horn dictators for our own short-term interests at the expense of the subjects of those dictators. Such actions tend to eventually blow up in our faces (see Operation Ajax).

[Dr Mordrid]

Just came over the news that the Libyan Foreign Minister has been in talks with the US State Dept. Secretary for Near East Affairs. Contact started Sunday night. Confirmed by the State Dept.

Now....who exactly is in charge of the opposition council? Seems to be a former Economic Minister who fell out of favor. Then again, a lot of the AQ fighters we faced in Iraq came from eastern Libya, the home base of this rebellion.

....devil you don't know.....

[Dr Mordrid]

So....this is getting nebulous

According to the administration it's not a war but a "kinetic military action." Never hearing that one before I called my cousin, a retired USMC officer, and asked. His reply - "they're shooting at you and you're shooting back...you know, a war"'

Now SecState Clinton comes out and says NATO has agreed to maintain the no-fly zone, but now Libya has no remaining air force. Better yet, half of those contributing planes say they wont let them shoot so we'll continue to fly those missions - but we aren't running the show even though our AWACS are controlling it all.

Also, an Asst. SecState also says the goal is "not regieme change", but Obama says Kdaffy Duck "must go." Difference?

Am I missing something?

[UtwigMU]

And Gaddafi was so happy when USA got Muslim Kenyan president.