Obama's first War of Aggression is complete. What nation will be next to receive American/NATO "intervention"??

I don't think Obama as an individual is to blame. I agree this "war" was all political. The 1% likes war and makes billions from it. Human life is the cheapest commodity on this planet. Wanna bet Libya spends the next ten years in an ideological civil war. Next, the question..who is paying for this war? Why don't we spend the money on our infracscruture?

The US is a member of NATO and joined them to help the rebels overthrow Ghadafy.

The US attacked Iraq with weak support from NATO.

Libya is not and was not Obama's aggression. The Libyan people did most of the blood, sweat and tears to get rid of Ghadafy. Uganda isn't even worth mentioning as an aggression.1oo advisors only and no US air strikes or boots on ground attacks. Why is Uganda politicized?

I didn't like Qaddafi but his government was the legitimate authority and it was only the sole responsibility of the People of Libya to overthrow him if his rule was intolerable.

Our own freedom as a nation was procured only with the aid of a greater power.

We fought our imperial enemies alone.

You're not aware of all the assistance France gave us?

From the perspective of the American Revolution, however, the high point of French support is the landing of five battalions of French infantry and artillery in Rhode Island in 1780. In 1781, these French troops under the command of Count Rochambeau marched south to Virginia where they joined Continental forces under Washington and Lafayette. Cornwallis, encamped on the Yorktown peninsula, hoped to be rescued by the British navy. A French fleet under the command of Admiral DeGrasse intercepted and, after a fierce battle lasting several days, defeated the British fleet and forced it to withdraw. This left the French navy to land heavy siege cannon and other supplies and trapped Cornwallis on the Yorktown peninsula.

Actually, it is only 2 billion dollars. It was not a "war of aggression" as you would call it. The UN, Arab League and NATO were enforcing UN Resolutions. Before you goto "oil", it had nothing to do with that either. The ICC had issued International arrest warrants for the Gadhafis' for committing Crimes against Humanity, and War Crimes. Obama intervened to prevent a slaughter from happening in Benghazi at the hands of Gadhafi thugs, and mercenaries. Last but not least, Gadhafi was guilty in orchestrating the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie. France initiated the bombing, the US followed.

It's nice to visit your column.

We fought our imperial enemies alone.

The French saved us from being crushed.

And NATO has saved the Libyan people from being crushed by its dictator.

Look, I get what you're saying.

But each military action needs to be looked at individually. I, for example, am against war in general but I think we should have ended WWII sooner - maybe we could have saved more lives if we had.

I don't know enough about Libya to be able to express an opinion one way or another.

But it seems that in general, wars are bad but sometimes they're necessary.

I prefer people be free and not forced to live under repressive dictatorship. In the case of Libya especially, we were part of an international force and didn't put boots on the ground. I don't like wars, but I don't like terrorist countries either. Sometimes things do work out for the best, and this is one of those cases imho.

Excuse me!

I meant to say we should have "entered" WWII sooner.

Doh!

I am very upset about this. I didn't like Qaddafi but his government was the legitimate authority and it was only the sole responsibility of the People of Libya to overthrow him if his rule was intolerable.

Polka,

How does being a dictator/president for life make someone "legitimate authority"? I think by definition a dictator is not a "legitimate authority" but holding a country hostage by gun point. And the people of Libya were working to overthrow him, but Qaddafi had all of the guns, artillery, and aircover. We were asked by the people of Libya, the nations of Africa, and NATO to help so it was not an act of aggression.

If you are in favor of peace and non-aggression then maybe you should support and vote for Ron Paul.

Unfortunately, sometimes doing nothing only makes things worse and makes peace harder to obtain. Doing nothing in WW2 would not have brought us more peace, but it would have actually brought us more war and destruction. Now in Vietnam, I would agree doing nothing would have been better. In the end, it is not black and white.

If history repeats itself then it will occur in Uganda where US forces are already sent as "advisors". Does this remind anyone of a certain past conflict that cost the US 50,000 casualties???

No, it does not remind me of Vietnam and again, not everything is cut and dry. Again, we were asked to help by Uganda and the world.

Have a great day.

He was the government until he was overthrown but revolutions shouldn't be backed by foreigners.

So you think the French shouldn't have given us all that support during our Revolutionary War? You do realize that the United States wouldn't exist if governments actually followed your maxim.

The conflict in Libya didn't involve the US. A position of peace was the best position to have.

We live in a world where conflict anywhere involves everyone. Isolationism died with the telegraph and steamship, my friend.

"We must open our eyes and see that modern civilization has become so complex and the lives of civilized men so interwoven with the lives of other men in other countries as to make it impossible to be in this world and out of it."
-FDR

We would exist. Our independence was inevitable.

We would have lost of the Revolutionary War without French naval support. When Americans joined French forces in the trenches of World War I, it was with the words "Lafeyette, we have come."

...don't laugh, but for some reason that always makes me a bit misty eyed. I'm not even a particularly sentimental person, I have no idea why I love that so much.

I disagree. I believe that we need to cease involving ourselves with the business of foreigners

That only works if 'foreigners' all agree to stop involving themselves with us, plus we're willing to give up 3.2 trillion in trade a year.

No, no, no, you made the arguments that

revolutions shouldn't be backed by foreigners.

and

I believe that we need to cease involving ourselves with the business of foreigners.

You need to either own them, or change your mind, but you can't start by arguing that we shouldn't involve ourselves with foreigners in general and then suddenly constrain the debate to Libya when you're challenged.

Libya didn't involve itself with us. They didn't provoke war.

Polka,

Uhm, I don't think that is actually true. Qaddafi was the Bin Laden before there was a Bin Laden. He involved himself with US affairs in the 80's, which resulted in the loss of American lives.

My arguments focuses on the concept that the conflict made possible by Obama was a war of aggression and wars of aggression are wrong.

And I have an issue with your arguments because I don't agree it was a war of aggression since we came to the aid of the people of Libya at their requestion. Now if we didn't have that and attacked, then that would be a war of aggression. I believe you are mischaracterizing aiding humanity.

It wasn't about protecting civilians. It was about overthrowing another foreign government.

Do you have evidence of it?

We would have lost of the Revolutionary War without French naval support. When Americans joined French forces in the trenches of World War I, it was with the words "Lafeyette, we have come."

It is not important as it has no relevance to modern wars of aggression

Again, I disagree because it is a clear example of "intervention" that you quote "is wrong". It perfectly counters your argument against the Libya action by President Obama. The date does not matter, especially since it is in our own country's history of war.

Have a good day.

We aided armed rebel militants. We can't and shouldn't aid every rebel organization that asks for help. We need to stay out of their affairs.

Polka,

Americans were nothing but "armed rebel militants" during the American Revolution. You can not say you only care about our involvement in foreign affairs and don't care about foreign involvement in our affairs. It can't have it both ways.

Thousands of civilians have been killed by NATO and it is so Europe and control Libyan oil.

Can you please cite a source that says NATO killed 1000s of civilians? Are you using Qaddafi's numbers because he is the only one saying 1000s. Now Qaddafi has killed 1000's. Please also cite a source that this war was for oil. And even if it was true, how would that have anything to do with why the US helped? We get no oil from Libya so it is not our concern.

We can't and shouldn't aid every rebel organization that asks for help.

I do agree with that statement, but that does not mean all. This one was actually very important for the US and its fight against terrorism. Terrorism is about who wins the PR war. Terrorists have been telling the Middle East for years that the US hates them and we never do anything good for them. This aid to their call for help is great positive PR to fight against that notion and actually makes the US safer. Without their negative PR, it is harder to recruit.

Have a good day.

I don't mean to be assertive, but Polka you have to be phucking kidding with your assertions. All your points seem to reek sarcasm, please tell me this is a joke!! None of our business as a allied nation to come to the aid of allies. If that's your stance as a friend, I hate to see you as an enemy!! By your assertions, if the French felt that way, all of the states would be called New England.

Really Polka, if this was a war of aggression, where are all the U.S. troops who died? The Libyan rebels asked for and got International aid to level the playing field. Aside from some missile attack, the U.S. involvement was support only. No boots on the ground, no U.S. causalties. Would you have been okay with the rebels being ruthlessly crushed, their non-combatant families, lined up against a wall and shoot or worse?

I guess the thirteen colonies should have been on their own too. Von Stuebens Assistance in shaping up the colonial Army should have been declined. The support of France likewise refused.

Had nothing been done You would have slammed Obama for letting all the rebels be butchered without offering assistance wouldn't you.

You will write anything no matter how illogical to support an inhumane position won't you Polka? I'm convinced you would have supported a War waged like it was in Iraq. I do not accept you reasoning here. What the U.S. did in Libya in NO way constitutes a war of aggression. To suggest it is twisting facts.

I didn't like Qaddafi but his government was the legitimate authority

Well if that's the case, Polka14, you should have no trouble providing a link showing how he was elected to office.

If history repeats itself then it will occur in Uganda where US forces are already sent as "advisors".

Well, if you were familiar with the barbarism that is going on there, you would know that that certainly is a just, humanitarian, cause.

(For those who are unfamilar with the issues there, here is an excellent article on NV): US Deploys troops to Uganda

I have personally had enough of pro-war Obama overthrowing foreign governments

Which governments, specifically, do you imagine the President to have overthrown?

Polka14 wrote:

I don't want foreigners involved in our affairs and I don't want us to involve ourselves in their affairs.

You've obviously never been anywhere near a class in political science or foreign relations.

Qaddafi seized power in a military coup.

Yup.

But you said:

but his government was the legitimate authority

Do you really feel that a government that came into power by the use of force (as opposed to one that was elected by the people) is a "legitimate authority"?

If the Tea Party overthrew the U.S. government by force (OK-- that's a pretty weird example-- but it does make a point)-- would you consider them to be a "legitimate" authority? (FWIW, I would not!!!)

IMO you have some rather..how shall I put it?...rather unconventional views as to what constitutes democracy.

We fought our imperial enemies alone.

Nope-- you are wrong.. yet again!

From the outbreak of armed rebellion in 1775, many in France sympathized with the colonists. Young, idealistic French officers like the Marquis de Lafayette volunteered their services and in many cases their personal wealth to help equip, train and lead the fledgling Continental army.

We fought our imperial enemies alone.

FYI-- here's more:

This clandestine assistance became open after the defeat of General Burgoyne at Saratoga in 1777, which demonstrated the possibility of British defeat in the conflict and led to French recognition of the colonies in February 1778. As a result of the victory of the Continental forces at Saratoga, Benjamin Franklin, who had gone to Paris as ambassador in 1776, was able to negotiate a Treaty of Amity and Commerce and a Treaty of Alliance with France. From this point, French support became increasingly significant. The French extended considerable financial support to the Congressional forces. France also supplied vital military arms and supplies, and loaned money to pay for their purchase.

French military aid was also a decisive factor in the American victory. French land and sea forces fought on the side of the American colonists against the British.

"French military aid was also a decisive factor in the American victory."

DUH!

Obama's advocated for NATO "intervention" to aid rebel groups that desired to overthrow the Qaddafi regime.

So?

You said:

. I have personally had enough of pro-war Obama overthrowing foreign governments.

First of all-- advocating intervention is not the same as actually overthrowing a government.

Secondly-- The Libyans themselves were the ones who overthrew the Ghaddafi gov't-- not Obama. (We merely provided air support-- and even there it wasn't just the US...)

Third point: Your comment alleged that Obama overthrew "governments"-- plural. Your claim re Libya is false-- so which other "governments" do you feel the President has "overthrown"?

Polka,

Like you and having been a soldier for 20 years, I'm against war, too. Yet that doesn't mean it doesn't have it's place. You seem to believe our intervention resulted in the deaths of thousands. Maybe, but it is likely that had we not intervened, a lot more would have been killed. We helped eliminate Gadhafi's ability to kill his own people. How many thousands more do you think might have died had he been able to keep his fighting strength? Remember, we did not start that conflict, we just helped the people who won it.

Why is that important? Well, hopefully it will result in a government more friendly toward it's own people and the rest of the world.

Also, if, as you're asking us to do and we only look at one specific issue, you're completely correct in your view.

You argue that no nation has the right to interfere with the internal workings of another sovreign nation. As right as that sounds on the surface, it isn't very realistic. You may as well say the rest of the world has no right to interfere with the internal workings of North Korea. I'd invite you to look at that place. Do some research on it. The place is as much like the book "1984" as any place could be. Have you no pity on such people? Would you not try to save them even if it took war to do it?

Again, I ask you to look at North Korea and see what true isolationism can bring you.

ummm, i dont think you can blame all of N. Korea's problems on isolationism, and besides, the US has many more vast natural resources than N. Korea...

anyway, i wanted to talk about the article. this isnt obama's first. are you crazy. obama is now killing reagans enemies. he has single handedly killed every single enemy of the US alive outside of saddam husein. he is more a texas cowboy delivering range justice at the end of a gun than either bush ever was. no matter who you are, or where in the world you think you can hide, obama will find you, and when he does, you will die.

ummm, i dont think you can blame all of N. Korea's problems on isolationism, and besides, the US has many more vast natural resources than N. Korea...

South Korea and North Korea have similar natural resources, similar terrain, and similar demographics. They have the exact same history up to the mid 1900's. South Korea is one of the top fifteen richest countries in the world. North Korea is starving.

I'm sorry, you were saying?

im saying its possible to have an isolationist government that doesnt hold its people down.

Don't agree with your premises at all. This was not a war of aggression. The legitimate government was the lybian rebels when they became the majority. Obama basically sat back and let it happen--with a little bit of help along with our allies. Gadhafi was charged with crimes against humanity by the european council. End of story. Blood from this war is for once not on our hands. Now, what do you think the GOP would have done instead--rhetorical question.

Oh and Mr Polka you are seriously aggravating me---WE did not overthrow his government--The REBELS did; jiminy christmas!

we belong to nato!

WE did not overthrow his government--The REBELS did;

Exactly.

But there are some peple who have no regard for facts..if the facts contradict their political agenda!

"...has lead to 6,652 reported civilian deaths including the deaths of children..."

My question would be, and how many civilians including children died under Qaddafi? The problem I have is, if you go in and try and get rid of the Qaddafi's or the Hussan's you're wrong. If you stand back and watch as they butcher their own people, and you do nothing...you're wrong.

Believe me, I'm no fan of going into another country and fixing their problems...I had my Vietnam. But if you don't like what's going on somewhere else...close your eyes. Yes, there are a lot of organizations that see all these ills in all these countries, and start screaming about what WE should do. Folks, unless we want to annex all these countries and make them part of the U.S., then I'm sorry, let the people of those countries settle their own problems, and let our people come home. We are NOT world police, and if the rest of NATO can't get it together to get the job done, then I'm sorry.

But if you are looking to remove a dictator from power...keep one thing in mind...he don't play by the rules. Either kill them, or stay at home and mind your own business.