Obama VS House...3...2...1... FIGHT!

I thought Obama was picking on a certain doctor with a walking stick.

Chumala said:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/15/war.powers.libya/index.html?hpt=po_t2



Really?

I'm still laughing because some stupid house members feel the need to argue law with someone who came from Harvard.

Click to expand...

I suspect that candidate Obama would have argued law with President Obama, tbh.

Chumala said:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/15/war.powers.libya/index.html?hpt=po_t2



Really?

I'm still laughing because some stupid house members feel the need to argue law with someone who came from Harvard.

Click to expand...

It's odd that the House the Speaker is worried about "Strategic Policy" in a case that has no strategic meaning at all. It seems the term was just inserted to make whatever it is they claim not to know seem significant.

Chumala said:

Personally I wish he would come out of the shadows. He was awesome!!!! Totally young like my generation, however he seems to have faded and been taken over by trying to please everyone. :/

Click to expand...

Maybe when he actually became president, he discovered that many of candidate Obama's ideas were unworkable. Things always look different when you're the one responsible for the decisions.

Actually, I'm sick and tired of how both parties piously invoke the War Powers Resolution only when the other party's man is president. Republicans, Democrats. Fie on them both.

you can't spell "obama" without "bomb"... sort of.

seriously i have no problem with liberals giving obama a pass on bombing libya and saying it's not war.

because we all know they would have shown the same deference to bush.

Chumala said:

I'm still laughing because some stupid house members feel the need to argue law with someone who came from Harvard.

Click to expand...

Well, if he went to Harvard, he must be right...


Seriously? You're gonna assume he can't be wrong because he went to Harvard? Guess that about wraps it up for all those opposed to the Patriot Act and/or Obamacare. Obama went to Harvard.

Regardless, he still doesn't understand economics...

William Haskins said:

because we all know they would have shown the same deference to bush.

Click to expand...

Bush is a Yale man, William. Yale men are always wrong.

robeiae said:

Regardless, he still doesn't understand economics...

Click to expand...

In fairness, I don't really think anyone does.

robeiae said:

Regardless, he still doesn't understand economics...

Click to expand...

oh, he understands them a little:

Italy, France and Britain last week agreed to send military advisers to assist the Benghazi-based rebel Transitional National Council (TNC) in its battle against pro-Gaddafi forces.

Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13188951

William, are you implying that France and Italy would go to war over oil? Nonsense! They'd never do such a thing because they pointedly criticized the US for doing it. No, no. They want to remove a despotic leader for purely humanitarian reasons. Shame on you for imagining otherwise.

Roger J Carlson said:

William, are you implying that France and Italy would go to war over oil? Nonsense! They'd never do such a thing because they pointedly criticized the US for doing it. No, no. They want to remove a despotic leader for purely humanitarian reasons. Shame on you for imagining otherwise.

Click to expand...

Excuse me, sir. Did you drop this?

Their intervention IS saving lives, and there's no guarantee that Libya will export more or cheaper oil without Gaddafi than they did with. It could export less.

Monkey said:

Their intervention IS saving lives, and there's no guarantee that Libya will export more or cheaper oil without Gaddafi than they did with. It could export less.

Click to expand...

that begs the question, then, why we're sitting back and watching kids get slaughtered in iran, in the congo, in somalia, in syria, etc etc etc...

yeah?

William Haskins said:

that begs the question, then, why we're sitting back and watching kids get slaughtered in iran, in the congo, in somalia, in syria, etc etc etc...

yeah?

Click to expand...

Libya is in a situation where the assessment is we can help topple Gaddafi with minimal involvement. There's a credible rebel force, and we're dropping bombs, and I imagine supplying logistic help. We're not invading, occupying, or even fighting. We tried going into Somalia, if you'll remember. It did not turn out well for us.

But how many US military have been killed or wounded in the Libya conflict?

Many (including myself) have faulted the US, under all administrations, for supporting despotic regimes because in large part they provide stability and a reliable flow of oil. (Saudi Arabia, anyone?)

It seems odd that some of those same people would now turn around and claim that finally helping getting rid of a oil rich despot is really all about the oil.

and your assessment of assad?

Oil is a factor, but the opposition to Assad isn't nearly as well organized and equipped as the opposition to Gadhafi was at the time NATO intervened. Remember, the Libyan opposition forces were having success until Gadhafi started using air power against them. I think that was the tipping point - the observation that Gadhafi would eventually lose if his air power was neutralized. And that was something NATO had the capability to do fairly easily.

Syrian opposition hasn't shown it can succeed yet with a comparable level of intervention.

William Haskins said:

and your assessment of assad?

Click to expand...

Assad is a monster. Not to mention his influence with Hezbollah in Lebanon, where for a while it seemed there was a chance for a western style democracy.

The US would love to see him go. Just like they wanted Saddam out, but it would also probably take an invasion to accomplish, and for some reason the invasion card hasn't many adherents any more.

thanks for sharing your opinion.

but i suspect you and clint are both overstating the rebels' capacity for toppling the government. we're in week 17, with a pretty good deal of relentless bombing and advising and reportedly hundreds of army desertions every day.

it's looking more and more like a protracted proxy war.

William Haskins said:

it's looking more and more like a protracted proxy war.

Click to expand...

You may be right. Not all policy decisions result in success.

I just don't think it was a decision based on cynical oil-centric considerations, that's all.