Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 16:34:29

thephan wrote:Lets be honest, is there a politician out there at the moment that anyone actually likes? That you would trust with anything you cared about? They are all self serving, egomaniacs. You?!? You are just one of 'those' people.

Jim Florio seemed like a pretty good guy. And I think while he has some faults, Bob Dole dedicated his life to public service, and deserves some props for that.

by **Monkeyboy** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 17:04:42

jerseyhoya wrote:
Monkeyboy wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:That was Wednesday though

I've been too busy to catch up with things every day. I also thought it was very strange that it wasn't mentioned since NJ politics and fiscal stuff often comes up and Christie is a possible future POTUS candidate.

I thought "poor New Jersey" was probably referring to the big toll hikes on the Hudson River crossings which were agreed to on Thursday, but I guess I was wrong and PiP is better at reading minds than I am.

Fitch was the third of the three ratings agencies to downgrade New Jersey's debt this year. I didn't think it was very strange that no one noted it in this thread when S&P and Moody's downgraded the debt in February and April. I didn't think it was very strange that no one noted it in the first 24 hours this time either. New Jersey has a lot of debt and unfunded liabilities, more than just about every other state in the country. Christie has done a good bit to rein in some of the future liabilities and the present growth of spending, but hasn't been able to contribute enough to the pension fund in the state budget. The state has done a lot to get its fiscal house in order in the past two years, but it still needs to do more.

I thought it was the big NJ news of the week and figured my comment would be understood. My bad, I guess.

still sucks to be downgraded. Probably wasn't christie's fault, but neither was it obama's and that hasn't stopped the GOP from acting like it was. What's good for the goose.....

by **5th Round Pick** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 17:17:55

thephan wrote:Lets be honest, is there a politician out there at the moment that anyone actually likes? That you would trust with anything you cared about? They are all self serving, egomaniacs. You?!? You are just one of 'those' people.

I'd pretty much vote for almost anyone on this message board. Not saything they are any more intelligent than the folks actually running, but I trust the folks on this board to have less of a personal agenda than the dopes we have to choose from in 2012.

by **allentown** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 19:39:29

Clinton's Yugoslavia action was also highly successful, with no US casualties, but panned from beginning to end by the Republicans. Obama not being severely panned on Iraq and Afghanistan only because these are wars started by a Republican President. Think of it -- Libya and Yugoslavia efforts bad, Iraq good. Our military doesn't do well trying to occupy and control what are basically third-world countries. I guess we start by picking lousy local leaders, but really, no matter how much many of the locals may be happy to have our initial intervention, our big presence on the ground eventually becomes very grating and a giant target for low tech attacks. President H.W. Bush had the right approach to Iraq. Go in, shock and awe, shake things up, leave it to the natives to put the china crockery back together. Had he shot down Saddams helicopters and aircraft after the ceasefire, he would have had it almost perfect.

by **Wizlah** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 21:30:09

pacino wrote:John McCain basically blamed the victory in Libya on President Obama

“We…commend our British, French, and other allies, as well as our Arab partners, especially Qatar and the UAE, for their leadership in this conflict,” they write, “but we regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower.”

our one successful war and it somehow wasn't a right approach

He's right. Clinton and Obama shot down early suggestions by cameron that they support the rebels with airpower because they were concerned how it might be perceived by the Arabs and Syria - they didn't want to spook allies into thinking they might be next on the list.
Then about what, two weeks later it looks like ghadaffi might be about to crush what remained of the rebels, and Syria is looking dodgier by the second and suddenly they're backing NATO going in. Ghadaffi started out on the back foot in the campaign and the rebels made early advances that they couldn't consolidate without aircover. They were also getting hit by the Libyan airforce. Not clinton's finest hour.

by **jeff2sf** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 00:22:32

This is the usual horseshit I'm subjected to reading by wizlah where he craps all over America. This reflects his usual anti-american gibberish and lack of understanding about the world. THIS was "not clinton's final hour"?! THIS? You picked THIS as an example of a not finest hour for Clinton. She and Obama realize that when the US is seen to be leading from the front, the Arab world tends not to like things. And when did they step in? When things looked bad? So you're saying they stepped in when they were most needed and helped save thousands of lives at considerable political peril? I mean for fuck sake wizlah. I'm not gonna sit here during my board hiatus and see you, a guy who can't seem to pass a driver's test, continually pass judgment on America and have all the rest of the board nod sagely and admire your profundity just because they can't figure out what the fuck you're saying. Fuck.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 04:55:07

Wizlah wrote:
pacino wrote:John McCain basically blamed the victory in Libya on President Obama

“We…commend our British, French, and other allies, as well as our Arab partners, especially Qatar and the UAE, for their leadership in this conflict,” they write, “but we regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower.”

our one successful war and it somehow wasn't a right approach

He's right. Clinton and Obama shot down early suggestions by cameron that they support the rebels with airpower because they were concerned how it might be perceived by the Arabs and Syria - they didn't want to spook allies into thinking they might be next on the list.
Then about what, two weeks later it looks like ghadaffi might be about to crush what remained of the rebels, and Syria is looking dodgier by the second and suddenly they're backing NATO going in. Ghadaffi started out on the back foot in the campaign and the rebels made early advances that they couldn't consolidate without aircover. They were also getting hit by the Libyan airforce. Not clinton's finest hour.

My impression was the Obama administration was somewhat reluctant because, well, some of the rebels factions weren't really the goodest of guys (some reports of genocidal acts against black libyans and African immigrants early in the conflict). That it was framed as a "humanitarian effort" kind of hints the Obama administration may have viewed it as a damned if you do damned if you don't scenerio, a potential cluster fuck. So I can understand why there may have been some reluctance or caution. While some sort of democracy is a likely outcome, it is also as likely to become a power vacuum with the four rebel factions fighting each other to grab as much of the power pie as each can. It's also possible it may get ugly and become an all out civil war resulting in a divided Libya (east/west). There's no guarantee this will have a feel good fairytale ending.

by **Wizlah** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 16:49:54

jeff2sf wrote:This reflects his usual anti-american gibberish and lack of understanding about the world. THIS was "not clinton's final hour"?! THIS? You picked THIS as an example of a not finest hour for Clinton. She and Obama realize that when the US is seen to be leading from the front, the Arab world tends not to like things. And when did they step in? When things looked bad? So you're saying they stepped in when they were most needed and helped save thousands of lives at considerable political peril?

A timeline:
15th Feb: Mass protests begin on a day of rage, escalating into conflict and eventually resulting in the capture of Benghazi on sunday 20th
21st Feb,Libyan diplomats to UN publicily defect and ask the UN to impose a no-fly zone to prevent Qadaffi flying in further mercenaries and stop the violence against the libyans.
27 Feb: Rebels take Zawiya, 30 miles from Tripoli.
28 Feb: Cameron calls for a no-fly zone, and the US military starts positioning navy and airforce craft around Libya. There are reports of Qadaffi using the airforce against libyan protestors, which he denies, saying they only hit military targets. .

By this point there were a range of options being considered by both the eu and the US, and Hilary Clinton even went so far as to say "will look at all the possible options to try to bring an end to the violence, to try to influence the government".

But she also said that "We are also very conscious of the desire by the Libyan opposition forces that they be seen doing this by themselves, on behalf of the Libyan people; that there not be outside intervention by an external force, because they want this to have been their accomplishment. We respect that," she said.]But she also said to congress "We are also very conscious of the desire by the Libyan opposition forces that they be seen doing this by themselves, on behalf of the Libyan people; that there not be outside intervention by an external force, because they want this to have been their accomplishment. We respect that," on wednesday 2nd. given the pleas from libyan diplomats and the rebels themselves for a no fly zone, this seemed kind of odd to say.

By the 3rd of March, the rebels were being pushed back. Although they captured Ras Lanuf, they were bombed out of it the next day. In between the 7th and 9th of march Qadaffi had grabbed Ras Lanuf, as well as bombing and taking Zawiya. Casualties at this point were reckoned to be anywhere between 1000 and 2000. Zawiya, a town of 250,000, was described by one itv correspondent as looking like it had been hit by a cross between an IRA bomb, a tank battle and a sustained artillery barrage.

Adjabiya had been taken by the 15th and Quadaffi's son was saying by the 16th that it would be over in 48 hours.

The UN security council approved the no fly zone on the 17th and operations commenced on the 19th, almost a month after initial pleas by LIbyans.

So to recap - the UK and France were leading the call for military action, not the US. It wasn't a case of the US trying to avoid being seen as leading the charge. Although the operation did prevent the fall of benghazi, it did not prevent casualties and heavy bombing elsewhere. They reckon they'll never know how many were killed in zawiya. It's possible that prompter action would have prevented some of the worst battles and bombings. And the delay wasn't an operational one as the UK, the US and the French either had forces in the area or were able to get aircraft there quickly by flying from bases in Italy. The US did not back the un resolution at considerable political peril, [ur=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12723554l]since broad approval was already there from the arab league[/url].

Given the contex of a glacial response of the US to concretely support the revolution in Egypt, a foreign policy in the region which followed the principle of better the dictator you know (as evidenced by US funding for military spending for the likes of Mubarrek in egypt, or an unwillingness to actively oppose the likes of assad in syria), it seems to me the most likely explanation for nearly a month of inaction was waiting and watching how the situation developed. They wanted to avoid any of their allies (arabs) or preferred enemies (syria) thinking that if they too brutally put down their own mass protests, that us-backed military action might follow.

So no, it was not Clinton's finest hour.

by **jeff2sf** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 18:32:48

I don't know what you just proved, but it wasn't what you think it was. You never say anything nice about America, you think you have it all figured out and yet, again, you can't pass a driver's test or nail a job interview. Pardon me if I don't take all my political cues from you. The situation was damn complicated. No one in America actually WANTED this war. So the Americans take a month, a month, to figure out their options, push through in the face of a lot of domestic apathy/antipathy to help people with no particular strategic goal in mind, and we get shat on by you for moving too slow?

by **drsmooth** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 18:46:29

jeff2sf wrote:Pardon me if I don't take all my political cues from you.

fixed

brevity is the soul of not being a total dipwad

by **jeff2sf** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 20:24:22

I figure I should probably just ignore Smoothie given this is the first time I've ever understood a complete post of his.

But here's the deal, when is it ever considered a bad thing to take A MONTH to decide whether or not to invade a sovereign country? That even leaves aside the time it takes to marshall support from other countries, western and Arabic. We're ALREADY involved with two other wars, and we're not allowed to take a month to figure things out? And hey, nothing said Britain and France couldn't get involved unilaterally, it's not like we'd have started a war with them or sanctioned them. I mean cripes on Tuesday, we helped save lots of lives. If we jumped into every conflict after a week of hostilities, we'd be broker AND more despised.

by **swishnicholson** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 20:56:00

Phan In Phlorida wrote:My impression was the Obama administration was somewhat reluctant because, well, some of the rebels factions weren't really the goodest of guys (some reports of genocidal acts against black libyans and African immigrants early in the conflict). That it was framed as a "humanitarian effort" kind of hints the Obama administration may have viewed it as a damned if you do damned if you don't scenerio, a potential cluster #$&! So I can understand why there may have been some reluctance or caution. While some sort of democracy is a likely outcome, it is also as likely to become a power vacuum with the four rebel factions fighting each other to grab as much of the power pie as each can. It's also possible it may get ugly and become an all out civil war resulting in a divided Libya (east/west). There's no guarantee this will have a feel good fairytale ending.

This sounds a like good, concise assessment. You can ascribe the US hesitancy to go all in early as due to a lack of moral fiber, financial capability, or political support or even a reluctance to commit American lives to yet another ambiguous overseas adventure. But in point of fact the efforts resulted in a relatively quick rebel victory that is not seen as a US supported effort. That has all the attendant benefits of minimizing loss of life (certainly American lives, and the eventual degree of support did allow protection of the rebels), allowing the revolt to viewed as an effort at self-determination, rather than being imposed upon, which should increase general support, and a lack of commitment to a physical US presence now or in the future. Granted, the US played this in a way that it was hoped would be best for US interests. I don't think that has to be apologized for. Nor is any apology necessary for not presuming to know what actions would be in the long-term best interests of the Libyan people. Our track record on this is not great, so I don't mind the US standing on the sidelines for this.

I had great fear the Libyan situation could go way wrong, and instead it turned into an ambiguous and limited success. I'm not sure in the current foreign policy climate that that doesn't make it Clinton's finest hour.

by **drsmooth** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 22:55:22

swishnicholson wrote:I had great fear the Libyan situation could go way wrong, and instead it turned into an ambiguous and limited success. I'm not sure in the current foreign policy climate that that doesn't make it Clinton's finest hour.

I see what you've done here, and will parse it for onlookers for a modest emolument.

Which in no way puts me athwart of your overarching point.

by **drsmooth** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 22:57:23

jeff2sf wrote:I figure I should probably just ignore Smoothie given this is the first time I've ever understood a complete post of his.

But here's the deal, when is it ever considered a bad thing to take A MONTH to decide whether or not to invade a sovereign country? That even leaves aside the time it takes to marshall support from other countries, western and Arabic. We're ALREADY involved with two other wars, and we're not allowed to take a month to figure things out? And hey, nothing said Britain and France couldn't get involved unilaterally, it's not like we'd have started a war with them or sanctioned them. I mean cripes on Tuesday, we helped save lots of lives. If we jumped into every conflict after a week of hostilities, we'd be broker AND more despised.

Hmmm.

I'm not convinced you did, really

by **jeff2sf** » Thu Aug 25, 2011 00:03:25

I haven't missed you smoothie. You talk alot yet say nothing.

by **pacino** » Thu Aug 25, 2011 00:26:09

anyway, the 'rebels' are winning.

by **pacino** » Thu Aug 25, 2011 00:30:34

I've decided there is NO WAY Marcus Bachmann is not gay. NO WAY. Sorry.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Thu Aug 25, 2011 03:34:43

pacino wrote:anyway, the 'rebels' are winning.

by **drsmooth** » Thu Aug 25, 2011 07:03:20

Jerz, whaddaya think about a Shays for Senate campaign here in the Constitution state? Some local papers are making cooing noises.....

by **Wizlah** » Thu Aug 25, 2011 07:12:04

jeff2sf wrote:I don't know what you just proved, but it wasn't what you think it was.

1)

jeff2sf wrote:She and Obama realize that when the US is seen to be leading from the front the Arab world tends not to like things

.

Wizlah wrote:So to recap - the UK and France were leading the call for military action, not the US. It wasn't a case of the US trying to avoid being seen as leading the charge.

2)

jeff2sf wrote:And when did they step in? When things looked bad? So you're saying they stepped in when they were most needed and helped save thousands of lives at considerable political peril?

Wizlah wrote:Although the operation did prevent the fall of benghazi, it did not prevent casualties and heavy bombing elsewhere. They reckon they'll never know how many were killed in zawiya. It's possible that prompter action would have prevented some of the worst battles and bombings.

Wizlah wrote:The US did not back the un resolution at considerable political peril, since broad approval was already there from the arab league.

You gave a justification for why america was slow to move, and then said that they stepped in at considerable political cost to help save thousands of lives. I gave examples and reasons based on those examples as to why I think you're wrong.

Then I returned to my main point, which is that the slow US response to developments in the Egypt and Libya was more in keeping with standard policy of keeping the region stable by backing dictators or autocrats, at the cost of the people of those countries who wish to express dissenting political opinion. For example, in February and March, the US was happy to back saudi arabia's use of tanks on protestors in Bahrain.

No one in America actually WANTED this war.

So then you move to a new reason - that the unwillingness to move was out of a wish to reflect the unwillingness of the american populace to go to war. Fine. Please justify this with votes in the senate/congress/opinion polls which show a consistent leaning against military action from the point at which it was the un resolution for a no-fly zone was drafted and up to recent weeks. Then put forward a convincing argument that US government is prepared to take its lead on foreign policy from opinion polls and the elected bodies rather than interagency preference and exisiting policy. better yet, show me that there has been a definitive shift in existing policy in the region with regard to leaders who kill and incarcerate their own populace for dissenting politically.

So the Americans take a month, a month, to figure out their options, push through in the face of a lot of domestic apathy/antipathy to help people with no particular strategic goal in mind, and we get shat on by you for moving too slow?

I'll give you the same answer I'm about to give swish. The rebels took key cities and towns in Libya very quickly within the space of two weeks. It was perfectly apparent that they had no air support, and so their chances of maintaining their hold on those cities was small, especially when a significant proportion of their forces (perhaps the vast majority - certainly, that was what was reported) were young and inexperienced. There was an opportunity to step in quickly, and the operational side of things was already prepped. All it took was the UK and France knowing that they would get US backing to the security resolution. That was not immediately forthcoming.

Archived

Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible

Re: Politics: The Arse of the Unpossible