Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Anyway, the way I understand it (as stated earlier), all main operations will be handed over to the French and British within the week.

Leave this one to us, chaps

Tyyr wrote:So am I the only conservative who's pleased that we got involved?

No, certainly not. Obama seems pleased that we've gotten involved.

In fact, now that we are involved, everyone who is conservative is pleased. If they weren't, they'd be advocating change, which is a liberal position.

Grakmar wrote:

Tyyr wrote:So am I the only conservative who's pleased that we got involved?

No, certainly not. Obama seems pleased that we've gotten involved.

In fact, now that we are involved, everyone who is conservative is pleased. If they weren't, they'd be advocating change, which is a liberal position.

Are there two Obamas?! From our perspective he couldn't seem less pleased about the whole affair.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Seems you are the only conservative who's glad, because to be anything else might indicate that some thin veil of common ground with that terrible undercover muslim in the Whitehouse might have been achieved and that would immediately mark you as a filthy nazicommunistsocialistislamicblackpresidentlover.

Far better to do nothing whilst civilians are being bombed back into the stone age than actually agree with the Great Satan masquerading as President...

And lets forget that all those crowing over Obama sending in aircraft and missiles against Colonel 'remember Lockerbie' Gaddafi were spanking themselves into a frenzy of joy when GeeDubYa rolled into Iraq for those WMDs...

So lets gloss over the opportunity presented to oust one of the major bad guys of the world because he's using his military to liquidate his own civilian population and instead concentrate on making sure that whatever Obama does, whenever he does it, that you take an opposing stance, because you didn't vote for him and Rush Limbaugh told you he was a bad man trying to steal money from those nice pharmaceutical corporations...

Also, minor footnote but the plane ditched due to mechanical failure.

historically conservatives have not been for starting wars, just ending them. That changed with Hussein in the Gulf War, but could be viewed as a direct threat to world supplies at the time (reserves were more concentrated in that region then). You'll find all your wars prior to that in the 20th century were started by tree hugging democrats.
WWI - Wilson (that bunny hugger!)
WWII - Roosevelt (hippy!)
Korea - Truman ( surrender monkey!)
Vietnam - Kennedy/Johnson (communal nature boys!)

Gulf War I - Bush (repub)
Kosova - Clinton (peacenik!)
Afghistan/Iraq - Bush II (repub)
Libya - Obama (flower power my ass!)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Flashman wrote:Anyway, the way I understand it (as stated earlier), all main operations will be handed over to the French and British within the week.

Leave this one to us, chaps

Yea...the French...sure.

(so Khadaffy will be marching in Paris within 6 weeks?)

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Seems you are the only conservative who's glad, because to be anything else might indicate that some thin veil of common ground with that terrible undercover muslim in the Whitehouse might have been achieved and that would immediately mark you as a filthy nazicommunistsocialistislamicblackpresidentlover.

Far better to do nothing whilst civilians are being bombed back into the stone age than actually agree with the Great Satan masquerading as President...

And lets forget that all those crowing over Obama sending in aircraft and missiles against Colonel 'remember Lockerbie' Gaddafi were spanking themselves into a frenzy of joy when GeeDubYa rolled into Iraq for those WMDs...

So lets gloss over the opportunity presented to oust one of the major bad guys of the world because he's using his military to liquidate his own civilian population and instead concentrate on making sure that whatever Obama does, whenever he does it, that you take an opposing stance, because you didn't vote for him and Rush Limbaugh told you he was a bad man trying to steal money from those nice pharmaceutical corporations...

Also, minor footnote but the plane ditched due to mechanical failure.

Well done sir. That's just fantastic work.

While hyperbolic, I think that you've really laid out a big part of the problem.

Most Americans understand two things:
1) War is bad and our boys shouldn't fight and die over affairs that aren't our problem, and
2) the US has a responsibility to serve as the world's policeman

there are some people that are consistent, and some people that truly judge each case on it's won merits, but a lot of us (and I'm no exception) tend to trust the decisions of leaders we trust, and vice versa.

Yea...the French...sure.

(so Khadaffy will be marching in Paris within 6 weeks?)

I see what you did there sir!

I thought Obama's strategy was right on. Sit back and let other people handle this one. I guess it was too much to ask for that to do on forever.

The US shouldn't be in the position to hand anything off as the French and English were the ones rattling sabers on this one. Somehow the US role as support has taken over much of the operation. At least when the US goes into these things with little to no thought or strategy we are kind enough to lead the way and do the heavy lifting.

This reminds me more of when James Joyce used to get Hemingway into fights. (Yes this did happen, frequently)

Andrew1975 wrote:

Yea...the French...sure.

(so Khadaffy will be marching in Paris within 6 weeks?)

I see what you did there sir!

warboss wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:You can't please all of the people all of the time.

I believe the Obama message was around withdrawal from the Iraq and Afghani campaigns, which at the time were clearly in difficulty and people wanted shot of them.

Obviously as history rolls on, new opportunities and dangers present themselves, and must be dealt with.

It would be a foolish president who failed to adapt his foreign and if necessary military policy to changing world conditions.

there's a difference between adapting foreign policy and doing a complete about-face regarding the issue that was arguably tied for his biggest campaign platform idea (the other being the economy). i support the deployment (with the obvious risking of US lives) of US troops when combating something that is an immiment threat to the US (which was the case in afghanistan but not iraq); there is ZERO threat from libya in that regard. i'm all for supporting the rebels financially and politically in a grand, worldwide effort to promote democracy but not in risking US lives there. he did support a surge in afghanistan but its a hard politcal sell to NOT support the fight against the same organization that actually attacked us.

either way, its pretty amazing that someone with his experience is "tweaking" his position once he encounters actual new world conflict; you'd think all that experience as a community organizer and 2 years as a freshman senator would have prepared him better for the role as the single most powerful person on the planet. [/sarcasm] either he supports deployment of US military forces in theatres that are no direct threat to the US or he doesn't.

There are US forces deployed in many theatres that are no direct threat to the US, for example Japan, Saudi Arabia, and the UK. There are strategic reasons for these deployments.

As for intervention, I think it is sensible to take each case on its merits.

Being doctrinaire is the flaw that got a number of US presidents into regrettable entanglements. Obama's not my president, but I would not like to think he lacked the capability to change his mind when the facts changed

Polonius wrote:

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:I've never understood why the simple act of changing ones mind is seen as a chracter flaw. Obviously when it's for political gain it should be noted (mitt romney on abortion, for example), but it's hard to argue that he's benefitting from this.

It's not a character flaw to change your mind (e.g. Mitt Romney on abortion), but it is a character flaw when it is done for political reaspons (e.g. Obama on Libya).

I'm interested in how you feel that Romney's switch (right before the primaries) wasn't for gain, while Obama's was. I'm genuinely interested.

I was merely pointing out the inherent bias in your post.

Whether Romney's change was for political gain or not is a matter of political persuasion.

As with all political debate in the USA, as far as I can tell.

biccat wrote:I was merely pointing out the inherent bias in your post.

The irony bomb that just went off is going to shake the windows as far away as Jueno, AK.

I was with MCcain on this one, SOmething should have been done about Gaffy LONG ago. But hey when you care catching heat and praise from both sides something is going right. He didn't lump countries up by religion and neither should you Mr. OP. Heck I could promise never to hurt a living soul but if a see a rapist attacking a woman all bets are off. You don't get free reign to bomb your civilians.

I was with MCcain on this one, SOmething should have been done about Gaffy LONG ago. But hey when you care catching heat and praise from both sides something is going right. He didn't lump countries up by religion and neither should you Mr. OP. Heck I could promise never to hurt a living soul but if a see a rapist attacking a woman all bets are off. You don't get free reign to bomb your civilians.

Thankfully there was not a giant intervention force during the American Civil war or we might be looking at a very different world then.

The problem with doing something with Gaffy is, what do you do. Even the current action has no explicit goal to oust Gaffy. Then you have to consider what you do after Gaffy is gone. It's a cluster feth.

Andrew1975 wrote:

I was with MCcain on this one, SOmething should have been done about Gaffy LONG ago. But hey when you care catching heat and praise from both sides something is going right. He didn't lump countries up by religion and neither should you Mr. OP. Heck I could promise never to hurt a living soul but if a see a rapist attacking a woman all bets are off. You don't get free reign to bomb your civilians.

Thankfully there was not a giant intervention force during the American Civil war or we might be looking at a very different world then.

Yes, one where the US owns it.

I know right Who'da helped us, the French? That's as crazy as saying George Washington lost a battle against the French.

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:I've never understood why the simple act of changing ones mind is seen as a chracter flaw. Obviously when it's for political gain it should be noted (mitt romney on abortion, for example), but it's hard to argue that he's benefitting from this.

It's not a character flaw to change your mind (e.g. Mitt Romney on abortion), but it is a character flaw when it is done for political reaspons (e.g. Obama on Libya).

I'm interested in how you feel that Romney's switch (right before the primaries) wasn't for gain, while Obama's was. I'm genuinely interested.

I was merely pointing out the inherent bias in your post.

Whether Romney's change was for political gain or not is a matter of political persuasion.

I feel bad for using opposite parties in my example, but I'm sorry man: Romney's switch is one of the more notorious ones, given the circumstances. If nothing else, it certainly looked very suspicious. Compare that to GHW Bush's switch on taxes, which was made at huge political cost (at the hands of the dems), but based on need.

I don't think you need to be a Democrat to think it strange that a full grown adult, raised in the LDS church, would suddendly decide that abortion laws were actually bad, especially after being elected to one job that more or less required being pro-choice, and before trying to get a different job that required being pro-life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney#Abortion

I don't' know why he changed his mind, but it seemed to be to his benefit.

Compare that to the current example, in which it's hard to argue any real benefit for Obama.

Bush Sr. should have beaten Regan. Too bad his son wan't half the man he is.

Andrew1975 wrote:

I was with MCcain on this one, SOmething should have been done about Gaffy LONG ago. But hey when you care catching heat and praise from both sides something is going right. He didn't lump countries up by religion and neither should you Mr. OP. Heck I could promise never to hurt a living soul but if a see a rapist attacking a woman all bets are off. You don't get free reign to bomb your civilians.

Thankfully there was not a giant intervention force during the American Civil war or we might be looking at a very different world then.

The problem with doing something with Gaffy is, what do you do. Even the current action has no explicit goal to oust Gaffy. Then you have to consider what you do after Gaffy is gone. It's a cluster feth.

No world power could have intervened the way we are. International relations are different between great powers. The US wasn't really a great power in 1861, but were were a strong regional power and any actions by any foreign power to intervene would have had cascading effects.

I know right Who'da helped us, the French? That's as crazy as saying George Washington lost a battle against the French.

Since i can't tell what part of the US you are from, not sure if by us you mean north or south. I know there is a reason why people still keep those flags!

Frazzled-don't you mean a world where Texas owns it.

sexiest_hero wrote:Bush Sr. should have beaten Regan. Too bad his son wan't half the man he is.

It's hard to tell if we judged Bush Sr. too harshly when he was in office, or if we're now romanticizing him overly. Either way, I think he'll go down as a more effective president than his son.

No world power could have intervened the way we are. International relations are different between great powers. The US wasn't really a great power in 1861, but were were a strong regional power and any actions by any foreign power to intervene would have had cascading effects.

You don't really thing that if England had the power at the time it they would not have supported the south. The south was planning on massive intervention from both England and France. Had they the power at the time, it could be a really different world.

France now wants a committee to run the war. I see my earlier estimate of six weeks before Libya takes Paris was optimistic. It may only be five.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20110322/twl-france-says-new-non-nato-body-to-lea-3fd0ae9.html

Frazzled wrote:France now wants a committee to run the war. I see my earlier estimate of six weeks before Libya takes Paris was optimistic. It may only be five.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20110322/twl-france-says-new-non-nato-body-to-lea-3fd0ae9.html

As disturbing and unreliable as that committee is. I welcome it. Let France lead it and the rest of the Arabs provide ground forces (that's how I read it). I wish them all the luck in the world. I'd like to see the Arab league become a real regional power and patrol themselves.

The reality of the situation is pretty bleak! France and the arab league. I can't even fathom who pulls out first.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:France now wants a committee to run the war. I see my earlier estimate of six weeks before Libya takes Paris was optimistic. It may only be five.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20110322/twl-france-says-new-non-nato-body-to-lea-3fd0ae9.html

As disturbing and unreliable as that committee is. I welcome it. Let France lead it and the rest of the Arabs provide ground forces (that's how I read it). I wish them all the luck in the world. I'd like to see the Arab league become a real regional power and patrol themselves.

The reality of the situation is pretty bleak! France and the arab league. I can't even fathom who pulls out first.

Just because they are on the committee doesn't mean they are going to do the work. So far the Arab League's commitment has been two mirage jets which just now are flying to bases in Italy/Sicily. Big ing deal.

I hope the French completely kick the snot into Libya just so we can put to bed all the durr hurr frenches are suck at wahr jokes on Dakka.

The French posters here take it with great humour, would love to see certain US posters take this much stick about America in the same light.

Just because they are on the committee doesn't mean they are going to do the work. So far the Arab League's commitment has been two mirage jets which just now are flying to bases in Italy/Sicily. Big ing deal.

These military alliances always go swimmingly don't they. Ask the last arab pilot that was flying for a free Lybia.



yes i know he was Libyan....still and Arab right?

Andrew1975 wrote:

No world power could have intervened the way we are. International relations are different between great powers. The US wasn't really a great power in 1861, but were were a strong regional power and any actions by any foreign power to intervene would have had cascading effects.

You don't really thing that if England had the power at the time it they would not have supported the south. The south was planning on massive intervention from both England and France. Had they the power at the time, it could be a really different world.

The UK certainly had the power to shut down shipping into and out of the USA but it was not exercised. The Royal Navy was unchallenged for size and expertise throughout the world.

It is unlikely that the UK would have supported a slave nation when it was the major power against slavery in the mid 19th century. There may have been "reasons of state" for wanting the US to be divided, however the concept did not have popular backing.

The South were hopeless romantics in this case. Their hopes of intervention from the UK were unrealistic. Look how quickly the Trent Affair was resolved.

I don't know what France might have wanted to do.

Andrew1975 wrote:

No world power could have intervened the way we are. International relations are different between great powers. The US wasn't really a great power in 1861, but were were a strong regional power and any actions by any foreign power to intervene would have had cascading effects.

You don't really thing that if England had the power at the time it they would not have supported the south. The south was planning on massive intervention from both England and France. Had they the power at the time, it could be a really different world.

This is one of my favorite areas of history, alas I haven't done a ton of research. But here's what I do know:

England hated slavery. They essentially banned the slave trade, and public support in England was more anti-slavery than not.

England had a powerful navy, and could potentially blockade the US... for a while. Northern shipbuilding capacity was high, and with shorter supply lines we'd be able to get back into it in a few years.

Canada is right on our border, and if England went to war we would invade, not just to take the land, but also to seize the shipyards at halifax.

Oh, and the Russians (who hated England at the time), were supporting us.

So, England puts fleets on our coast, supplies the south with supplies (they'd have a hard time putting too many boots on the ground. Look at Crimea, where they only landed 250,000 men.) For what gain? England made a killing off of egyptian cotton after a year or two of war. Also, the US was a main supplier of grain to England.

Oh, and it's documented that Lincoln had the state department hint that intervention in the south could someday lead to the US intervening in Ireland.

Back in 2000 George W Bush campaigned for a smaller, non interventionist, humble foreign policy, and campaigned against the very concept of nation building.

One of Bush's exact quotes was.

If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that.

The sad part is the only thing I liked about Bush over Gore was Bush's pre 9/11 foreign policy which I really agreed with, the problem is Bush didn't listen to his own advice. The same thing can be said about 1994 Dick Cheney.

I don't want to jack the tread but the British did build confederate ships and operate the blockade runners.

The specifics of what was available at the time and what could have happened are very interesting, but meaningless to the debate. I was just saying I'm glad the world didn't send and intervention force. Sure what evil G is doing is vastly different from what transpired in the US Civil war.

In most Civil wars people get killed. The peasants kill the ruling body of or the other way around.

Gaffy for the most part has been quite for some time and has kept the oil flowing. A guarantee we are surely not to get if the wrong people come into power. Is G still a grade A douche with blood on his hand. You bet. I don't see this operation really doing anything to address the real issues though. So I think Obama's first instincts were correct, if only he had followed them.

What would really impress me is if he stood up came out with a plan and addressed the issues now, even if he said he was unhappy and pulled out it would be something. But to sit in this course where we have no goals (publicly stated anyway, maybe they are hushed for a reason, i'm fine with that) is pretty weak.