swishnicholson wrote: 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.

I have to disagree. The argument that the US was standing by the sidelines because of a fear of how military action would be perceived isn't born out by the a)US's slow response to the revolution in Egypt and b)backing of Saudi Arabia and Yemen. You could argue that caution, rather than the previous rather dubious foreign policy, was at the base of these actions. If the US was happy to sit by the sidelines, issue stern disapprovals and freeze up related assets, instruct american companies selling military and policing equipment to those states to stop, then I would agree with you that there had been a change of policy. But that isn't happening.

I'm not a big fan of foreign military intervention. And I fully recognise, given colonial history and problems at the polls at home, that Cameron and Sarkozy's backing of intervention wasn't driven out of a need to help libya. Nonetheless, the rebels push for tripoli was quick enough that the opportunity presented itself to act in a manner which could well have helped end things quicker, instead of letting in drag on for 6 months.

I'm not kidding myself. Sure, the Libyan airforce may have been more indiscriminate than nato, but bombing always ends up killing civilians somewhere along the way. There's no guarantee that at the time tripoli would have been any less hammered by nato bombers than it has been now. But the other principle cities would not have come under attack. Within four days of the operation being launched, the UK said that the Libyan Airforce was no longer a fighting force. If it had been done sooner, it seems reasonable to assume more bombing and shelling could have been prevented.

Big change continues to happen in the middle-east at the moment. You can argue, as you and PiP do, that it's better not to be involved in outcomes that may result in protracted civil war. But all the accounts I read of these protests and revolutions are not of competing factions harnessing popular discontent to put them in power (e.g. in the manner that Hamas managed in Gaza at the expense of years of Fatah corruption and perceived inaction), but rather a broader coalition opposing the continued suppression of dissenting political opinion and in many case, a complete inability on behalf of the goverment to comprehend the economic plight of their citizens. I would expect the US to give strong diplomatic backing to such movements. They have instead chosen their allies and enemies at the cost of the demonstrators, and it angers me.

You're still jabbering and saying nothing wizlah. Why don't you get back to cursing indiscriminately and talking about cycling. Noted warmonger swishnicholson, aided by defense industrialist PiP just schooled you on why our movement in Libya made total sense and was HELPFUL, not hurtful.

Exactly who's foreign policy would you like us to mimic? China's? The hilarious thing is that you're arguing with three people who are left of center in politics. It scares me about how much further away you are from the center.

jeff2sf wrote:You're still jabbering and saying nothing wizlah. Why don't you get back to cursing indiscriminately and talking about cycling. Noted warmonger swishnicholson, aided by defense industrialist PiP just schooled you on why our movement in Libya made total sense and was HELPFUL, not hurtful.

Exactly who's foreign policy would you like us to mimic? China's? The hilarious thing is that you're arguing with three people who are left of center in politics. It scares me about how much further away you are from the center.

Jeff, from the views that you have previously expressed here and elsewhere, I would deem you right of centre, like near everyone in America. If you want to actually respond to the arguments laid out, fine. I'm not holding out hope though. I'll look forward to a more interesting discussion with Swish and or PiP.

Wizlah wrote:Jeff, from the views that you have previously expressed here and elsewhere, I would deem you right of centre, like near everyone in America.

Well there we have it. If anything, I do hope this shuts up Pacino now about his conservative president. The guy's only doing what 95% of country wants evidently.

You haven't made a good argument. You're saying America is not allowed to take 30 days - THIRTY DAYS! - to decide if we want to be part of a war. That's your argument.

jeff2sf wrote:
You haven't made a good argument. You're saying America is not allowed to take 30 days - THIRTY DAYS! - to decide if we want to be part of a war. That's your argument.

That is not the argument I'm making. That is the argument you would like me to make.

Unfortunately, its also not a position in accordance with the facts.The senate in fact passed a non-binding resolution backing a no-fly zone over libya on the 1st of march.

I'm arguing that the slow response of america is down to a preference for backing existing dictatorships and autocracies, and that in this particular case, because of the US policy preference and how their actions would be perceived by allies and preferred enemies, your executive was slow to approve a un resolution for a no fly zone over libya, a decision which prolonged the civil war in libya.

Wiz, you seem to ve in line with only noted american leftist john mccain. People here either didnt see the point or wanted to take it slowly. Seems to me those are far more 'leftist' than rushing in to a third (and let's be real, fourth) war. When we rush into war, we inevitably screw up and pick the wrong ones.

Our 'preference' is for democracy and stability. So yeah, sometimes we back stability. I fail to see how this is different than many european nations who pick and choose when to ignore democracy for trade and security concerns.

As a general point, a preference for foreign intervention really doesn't define where on the political spectrum you reside. Noted warmonger and proud leftie Christopher Hitchens is a case in point. Russia was incredibly left leaning for a very long while, but didn't stop them invading the likes of Hungary, Czechslovakia and Afghanistan. Some people think war always solves problems, some people don't.

More particularly, I've just said I don't really care for foreign intervention. Whenever the possibility arises, I tend to try and think out the pros and cons for each one on a case by case basis. Libya, at this point in time, given the military circumstances at the time, seemed a a reasonable time to step in and provide assistence.

But you still doesn't address my basic point. the US did not stop in for entirely different reasons, as evidenced by their backing of Saudi Arabia's response to its protests and the backing of Yemen's treatment of its protests.

pacino wrote: So yeah, sometimes we back stability. I fail to see how this is different than many european nations who pick and choose when to ignore democracy for trade and security concerns.

Only in so far as in this particular case, a lot of people decided that they were not going to back stability. I haven't held up france or Britain as shining examples of foreign policy here, just said it would have been better if your executive had got behind it earlier.

More generally, as a strategic point of view, it costs a lot more to back a stable dictatorship, since to back a stable dictatorship costs a shit load of expenditure in terms of arms and policing. And, lets be blunt, people's lives. During the cold war, anyone who opposed russia got your backing. But the US has consistently fallen on the side of stability in the form of dictatorship at the cost of the people. You did it in Chile. You did it in Panama. You've done it in Pakistan under Musharref. You did it in Iraq before you decided you didn't want to back Hussein anymore. You've done it in Saudi Arabia and Yemen. In fact, its fair to say, the countries where you have backed democracy are far outweighed by the countries where you have backed a dictatorship or ruling autocracy. That's your perogative as the world's largest military power and economy to maintain your dominance. But do not paint it as anything other than it is.

Wizlah wrote:right of centre, like near everyone in America.

I think that generalization is incorrect. I believe most Americans are much more moderate and center then portrayed in our own press, and certainly the press around the world. It would be like looking at all British Citizens and molding them in the form of the Iron Lady in the 80's. I would further say that most Americans are actually libertarian leaning, without the insanity of the formal Libertarian party nor would most of us hitch our wagon to that group given how they bend the defined concept to their liking.

thephan wrote:I think that generalization is incorrect. I believe most Americans are much more moderate and center then portrayed in our own press, and certainly the press around the world.

I think that's a fair point, insofar as the foreign press reguarly talk up the right-wing extremes of america more than they consider the country as a whole. It is tedious to hear the number of times that people fixate on the likes of Palin over here.

thephan wrote: I would further say that most Americans are actually libertarian leaning, without the insanity of the formal Libertarian party nor would most of us hitch our wagon to that group given how they bend the defined concept to their liking.

I think this is why I tend to think of most americans as being right of centre. Libertarianism generally assumes that government should have a minimal involvement in all spheres, and that if you just let everyone get on with their own business, the market takes care of most problems and everyone should be fine, which seems to me a more right of centre point of view.

I really need to hit preview more often. terrifying number of typos.

The us is libertarian in theory, socialistic in practice (without funding it)

pacino wrote:socialistic in practice (without funding it)

I'd suggest that this phrase is oxymoronic.

pacino wrote:The us is libertarian in theory, socialistic in practice (without funding it)

To expand, I view it as Socially Conscious, but Fiscally Responsible. The joke is that, aside from that being had to balance at best, it is a political powder keg. Unfortunately this gets corrupted, like every other political theory, into a self serving train wreck. It is far to hard to actually implement in the political environment, especially today. Imagine a Tea Party versus Libertarian land war... beyond ugly.

I personally look at it is left leaning, fiscally responsible. I guess you could view it as a right leaning Democrat stance. Bottom line is it is pretty much center with preferences to serve our fellow countrymen, provide safety and security while not (too late) spending ourselves into an oblivion.

Left/Right oversimplifies most people's political views, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Looking at US foreign policy preferences, one way to simplify (actually, oversimplify) is interventionist v. non-interventionist. The current mood in the US is decidedly non-interventionist--it's part of why Obama was elected, and it's certain a big part of the reason he won the Democratic nomination.

I think the US people generally supported the Libyan rebels, but for a long time, people in the US have believed that Europeans need to do more heavy lifting in their own backyard. However, the relation between public opinion and foreign policy is a tenuous one at best. Foreign policy is largely carried out based on what happens in discussions among elite policy experts. I know some influential people nominally on the left have taken buckets of money from Kaddafi and have argued (along with some people on the right) that the Libyan rebels are really Islamists and not democrats.

This assholeis perhaps among the most shameless. But there are many of these people who have a huge influence in our foreign policy. They're wrong more often than they're right, they have vested interests that often align with those of their paymasters, and so it's no wonder why our foreign policy isn't totally fucked.

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

He'd be a decent general election candidate (though an underdog). If Linda McMahon runs again, I wouldn't be surprised if Shays gets tossed aside by the party like Simmons did because parties love people that waste their own money. Although hopefully the disaster that was her last campaign was a good learning experience for the smart folks that thought she had a better chance than a respected ex-congressman.

When you are at the top of the food chain, it makes sense to support the status quo, even if the status quo is a bunch of dictators. There's money to be made!!! I'm not defending the practice, mind you.

jeff2sf wrote:Noted warmonger swishnicholson, aided by defense industrialist PiP just schooled you on why our movement in Libya made total sense and was HELPFUL, not hurtful.

I'm here to tell you that swish hardly issued the ringing endorsement of US (in)action that you suggest. And to confuse you further, I agree with his assessment.

jerseyhoya wrote:

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

He'd be a decent general election candidate (though an underdog). If Linda McMahon runs again, I wouldn't be surprised if Shays gets tossed aside by the party like Simmons did because parties love people that waste their own money. Although hopefully the disaster that was her last campaign was a good learning experience for the smart folks that thought she had a better chance than a respected ex-congressman.

Sadly, she would be an execrable, embarrassing, awful senator, however much better she might campaign a 2nd time around.

I would probably vote for Shays. I wouldn't piss on a burning effigy of McMahon.

TenuredVulture wrote:This asshole is perhaps among the most shameless.

wow

imagine the size of the stash of dicktweets from this guy to Saif Qaddafi