U.S. Launches Air Strikes in Libya

U.S. Tomahawk missiles have landed in Libya. President Obama today said he has authorized "limited military action in Libya" and that "that action has now begun."

The first airstrikes will take out Gadhafi's air defenses in the western part of Libya, mostly concentrated around Tripoli and Misrata.

"Once we do that, that would open up the environment where we could enforce the no-fly zone throughout, from east to west of Libya," the official said.

The next phase will be "planes flying over Libyan airspace near Tripoli, and in the Mediterranean Sea near Benghazi. ." Also participating: The UK, Canada, France and Italy.

Obama says no ground troops will be going to Libya. On the strikes, he said today in Brazil:

This is not an outcome the U.S. or any of our partners sought...We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy."

< March Madness Day 3 | N. Mexico Senate Rejects Bill Preventing Undocumented From Driving >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    No money for home heating aid (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 04:49:07 PM EST
    to the elderly, but plenty of money to go to war.

    Rah-rah good ol' USA.

    If you were truthful (1.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Politalkix on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 06:00:26 PM EST
    teresainsnow2, you would acknowledge that the cost of fuel in the USA is cheaper than in other countries because of our military and the wars.

    and your point? (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by cpinva on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 10:04:34 PM EST
    If you were truthful teresainsnow2, you would acknowledge that the cost of fuel in the USA is cheaper than in other countries because of our military and the wars.

    are you suggesting that this somehow legitimizes another undeclared war? because make no mistake, we (the US) are now officially at war with libya, whether congress approved it or not.

    any other irrelevancies you'd care to state?


    No (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Politalkix on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 10:25:00 PM EST
    the war against Gadaffi (not Libya) is legitimate to me because of the humanitarian mission. I do not think it is about oil at all (if it was, I would not support it); there would be no war if Gadaffi negotiated a settlement to retire to some other country.
    I am against import of cheap foreign oil and support development of alternative energy options in the United States, development of public transportation etc. I am only exposing the hypocrisies of some in this blog who refuse to acknowledge truthfully that higher living standards in the United States in earlier decades often came at the cost of lives and democracy in other countries. If you think that exposing that hypocrisy is irrelevant, then you are also uncomfortable in examining a problem, honestly.

    Hypocrisy???? (none / 0) (#115)
    by BobTinKY on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 10:56:58 AM EST
    Are you serious?  Humanitarianism is why we are there?  If it is the Middle East it is about oil, it is always about oil.

    The US Govt. is delighted to stand idly by as dictators terrorize and murder their population so long as the keep the spigot of cheap oil flowing.  See Iran, Shah of for starters.


    Your information is either dated to some extent (none / 0) (#152)
    by Politalkix on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 01:39:01 PM EST
    or is not relevant to Libya. Gadaffi was willing to keep the spigot flowing, that is how he came out of isolation and got the Lockerbie bomber released.

    And if You Were Thinking.... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by ScottW714 on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 01:57:45 AM EST
    ... you would realize that the trillions we spend to aid cheap fuel actually makes it very costly, toss in the 100,000+ bodies and it's easily the most expensive energy available.

    Reminds me of when my grandma insists I drive across town so she can use her $.50 coupon, yet costs me at least 10 time that in gas, time, and wear and tear on my vehicle.

    She like you, is only interested in the price tag, not real costs of her cheap goods.


    You assume military action is costless (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by BobTinKY on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 10:53:11 AM EST
    which is absurd.  

    Tell that to the dead & maimed, Americans as well as the collaterally damaged others of various nationalities around the globe.  


    and the elderly (plus others) (none / 0) (#49)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 06:46:14 PM EST
    still can't afford it . . .

    That's true (none / 0) (#64)
    by sj on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 07:32:30 PM EST
    Our lower gas prices have been paid for in lives.  How do you feel about that?

    That is why I strongly support alternative power (none / 0) (#71)
    by Politalkix on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 07:59:20 PM EST
    choices in the US. Unfortunately, many, even in this blog, will be uncomfortable acknowledging that the higher standard of living for the middle class in America in earlier decades came at the cost of human lives and democracy in other parts of the world (napalm bombing in Vietnam, sustainment of dictatorships in the middle east and latin america, etc). Our foreign policy (even with all its flaws and inconsistencies) under the Obama administration has been more enlightened than many in many previous administrations. Ofcourse, I have severe disagreements with some of its policies on other fronts.

    More drone murders than ever (none / 0) (#80)
    by Dadler on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 08:46:55 PM EST
    Our new enlightenment under Obama, I would respectfully submit to you, is not so different as to make much difference.

    Huge increase in mass murder by remote control. Something to be proud of.

    But I agree with you, much our our standard of living came at other's expense.  So when I hear Obama, or any other American leader, go into war by first apologizing for what scumbags we've been, and laying out how we WON'T be like that anymore, then I'll believe we're different.

    Also, it is a bit daft to not acknowledge our willingness to murder for profit (companies get richer than ever through war these days) so quickly while so stubbornly giving anything to the poor that really makes a difference.


    Some preliminary info on real (none / 0) (#111)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 10:33:53 AM EST
    cost to U.S. taxpayers for just the initial strike:

    I know it isn't polite to say, but each Tomahawk freedom bomb costs between $500K and $1milllion. Atrios

    Per U.S. Navy the per unit cost in 1999 was $569,000. Approximately $756,000 in 2011 dollars.
    Total program cost: $US 11,210,000,000

    2031: A US military chief says a total of 110 Tomahawk missiles have been launched against Libyan sites. He said the Coalition operation has been named Odyssey Dawn. BBC

    Without factoring the operational cost of the delivery systems listed below

    The United States has at least 11 warships stationed near Tripoli, including three submarines -- the Scranton, the Florida and the Providence -- and the destroyers the Stout and the Barry. All five fired cruise missiles on Saturday, the Navy said. NYT

    the opening salvo cost the U.S. taxpayers at least $83,000,000 for just the missiles.


    Hey, that money was already spent (none / 0) (#124)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 11:35:37 AM EST
    And the missiles were just sitting there going to waste.

    But I'm all for a 'freedom tax' on the upper 1% to pay the replacement costs. Can we repeal that Bush tax cut now? Perfect time to 'Repeal the Deal'


    Since IMO they will be replaced, (none / 0) (#139)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 12:10:41 PM EST
    probably at a higher per unit cost, this initial salvo will cost the American tax payers upwards of a hundred million dollars. Only way that is not true is if the military choses not to replace their arsenals with new missiles.

    The Mission? (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Edger on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 04:52:29 PM EST
    It would be really uplifting to imagine United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 [1] on Thursday was voted just to support the beleaguered anti-Muammar Gaddafi movement with a no-fly zone, logistics, food, humanitarian aid and weapons. That would be the proof that the "international community" really "stands with the Libyan people in their quest for their universal human rights", in the words of United States ambassador to the UN Susan Rice.

    Yet maybe there's more to doing the right (moral) thing. History may register that the real tipping point was this past Tuesday when, in an interview to German TV, the African king of kings made sure that Western corporations - unless they are German (because the country was against a no-fly zone) - can kiss goodbye to Libya's energy bonanza. Gaddafi explicitly said, "We do not trust their firms, they have conspired against us ... Our oil contracts are going to Russian, Chinese and Indian firms." In other words: BRICS member countries.


    Libya is the largest oil economy in Africa, ahead of Nigeria and Algeria. It holds at least 46.5 billion barrels of proven oil reserves (10 times those of Egypt). That's 3.5% of the global total. Libya produces between 1.4 and 1.7 million barrels of oil a day, but wants to reach 3 million barrels. Its oil is extremely prized, especially with an ultra-low cost of production of roughly $1.00 a barrel.

    When Gaddafi threatened Western oil majors, he meant the show would soon be over for France's Total, Italy's ENI, British Petroleum (BP), Spanish Repsol, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Occidental Petroleum, Hess and Conoco Phillips - though not for the China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC). China ranks Libya as essential for its energy security. China gets 11% of Libya's oil exports. CNPC has quietly repatriated no less than 30,000 Chinese workers (compared to 40 working for BP).

    For its part Italian energy giant ENI produces over 240,000 barrels of oil a day - almost 25% of Libya's total exports. No less than 85% of Libya's oil is sold to European Union (EU) countries.


    Depending on how it is implemented, and for how long Gaddafi resists, UN resolution 1973 is intimately linked to severe disruption of oil supply to the EU, especially Italy, France and Germany; and that implies all sorts of geopolitical implications, starting with the US-EU relationship. Everyone wants to be well positioned for the post-Gaddafi energy environment.

    The Club Med War
    Pepe Escobar, Saturday March 19, 2011

    Is there a prominent statue of (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 05:10:58 PM EST
    Gaddafi we can torpedo?

    Shades of (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 05:45:26 PM EST
    the humanitarian mission in Iraq 2003?

    Funny you should mention Iraq. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by caseyOR on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 06:08:28 PM EST
    It just so happens today marks the 8th anniversary of the start of that little, it'll be over soon, make the middle east safe for democracy adventure of ours. And that's worked out so well for everyone.

    This current military action of ours has, IMO, very little to do with tugs at our humanitarian heartstrings and quite a bit to do with oil. If we chose our military ventures based on humanitarian needs, well, we'd have been in Darfur long ago.

    Just like Iraq, our fearless leaders can spout a lot of pretty words about freedom and democracy and "oh the humanity," but the bottom line is oil and big money. I, for one, am fed up with paying, in lives and treasure lost, to keep the world safe for Exxon.

    h/t to Digby for the link.


    So.... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by christinep on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 07:11:58 PM EST
    Is your position, caseyOR, that we should not be involved in any military support way in Libya and that we should leave the rebels to their own devices?

    I don't ask to be setting up a no-win. In fact, I opposed the Afghanistan invasion in 2001 and, on this day, in 2003, I recall my anguish at hearning people talking breathlessly about "shock & awe." But, I do believe in intervention for humanitarian reasons and on a case by case basis. This situation (as it is coordinated & communicated now) is one that I support for essentially the same reasons that I supported the Bosnian intervention in the 90s. While it would have been nice not to have to deal with this, it was a matter of--putting it nicely--"fish or cut bait" in my eyes.  As to whether there may be mixed motives and that the world isn't pure--read: oil--I'm aware of that; but, the reality of the killings by Qaddafi so openly & notoriously justifies, by itself, the intervention of the UN.


    What I think is that it is disingenuous to call (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by caseyOR on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 12:19:16 AM EST
    this a humanitarian mission. We are interested in helping the rebels only as far as it protects the West's access to Libyan oil. While individuals may care about the fate of the rebels, our country does not. Nor does our country really care about all the other peoples of the world who are routinely and brutally attacked and killed by their own leaders. Qaddafi is hardly unique in the realm of brutal rulers.

    This is not unlike our period declarations that we must stay in Afghanistan for the sake of the women. It's a propaganda tool. We don't care about the women. We are not going to put anything on the line for the women.

    My objections to this new war-making venture are numerous, too numerous for this comment. As I have said before in these comments, if the focus for our intervention in other nations was really humanitarian-based we would have gone into the Darfur a long time ago. While we are on the humanitarian beat, why not go after Kim Jong-Il? Oh, that's right, no oil.

    Let me be clear-- Qaddafi is a brutal evil ruler. There is nothing good that can be said about him. Saddam was the same and really is there anyone who still thinks we invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons?


    You see, there is always hope... (none / 0) (#93)
    by NYShooter on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 10:07:23 PM EST
    I agree totally with your analysis and remarks here.

    Afghanistan has no oil (1.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Politalkix on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 06:38:03 PM EST
    And irrespective of what you feel about the war there, we are building schools and trying to get farming projects started there.

    Although I read on DK today (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 06:45:48 PM EST
    those schools we've built in Afghanistan are not being used.  Why?  Because Taliban doesn't want kids and teachers using them because we built them.

    You've obviously (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Edger on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 07:05:09 PM EST
    never heard of the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline.

    Or, Afghanistan's commodities, (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 07:39:07 PM EST
    maybe a $trillion in minerals.

    Conspiracy theories (none / 0) (#97)
    by Politalkix on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 10:41:38 PM EST
    are often entertaining. I do not think after the fiasco in Iraq any capitalist would be imagining making money through oil flowing through the trans-Afghanistan pipeline or mining of minerals there. The risks and cost-to-benefit ratio is just too high but nothing tickles the fertile imagination of those in the right and the left like an old-fashioned conspiracy theory.

    Actually, I would have been more convinced if you told me that the US is interested in establishing a base there to keep a watch over China and Iran and Pakistan. It is after all a strategic region in the world.


    Good point (none / 0) (#119)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 11:15:14 AM EST
    Since according to your comment above "Afghanistan has no oil", perhaps you'd write to Obama and Gates and the Washington backed Asian Development Bank and advise them that they might drop their conspiracy to protect the development of the $7.6 Billion 1,680 kilometre long Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline with US troops in Afghanistan, before anyone else realizes that the topography of the war on terror matches all the key 21st-century sources of energy from the Middle East to Central Asia, and that TAPI theoretically should be finished by 2014 which is, big surprise, exactly the deadline year (for now ...) for American troops to exit Afghanistan.

    Edgar (none / 0) (#151)
    by Politalkix on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 01:26:53 PM EST
    It seems you are a sucker for conspiracy theories.
    The article that you posted itself mentions that nothing has moved an inch about the TAPI gas pipeline for the last 15 years (since it was originally conceptualized). Chances are next to nothing that anything will happen in the next 20 years. No businessman worth even a cent can imagine making money of a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to markets in India and other places that pass through Pakistan. Remember that the capitalists you claim to fight are not stupid. If they were that stupid, they would not be owning your *. The Zardari govt can fall anytime, war or frozen diplomatic relations can occur between India and Pakistan anytime, the Taliban and Al Qaeda can disrupt building of a pipeline and oil flow at will.
    When you see a motive for oil in every US intervention you have reduced yourself to a one trick rhetorical pony. Things are a little more complicated in the world, my friend!

    Heh. ;-) (none / 0) (#153)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 01:45:46 PM EST
    You're referring to those 50 or so Al Qaeda with superpowers in Afghanistan that are holding 100,000 or so US troops at bay so they can disrupt pipelines in their spare time while destroying western civilization?

    I have no idea (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by sj on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 07:25:29 PM EST
    how goes the school building process in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I certainly haven't seen the successful images and happy schoolchildren with their bookbags and worry free faces.  And it seems to me that construction workers with the tools of their trade would be better at this than soldiers in military gear.  But I hope there are some schools.  Especially for girls.

    Having said that, all too often the people on teevee who bring up "the schools" we're building are the same ones trying to strangle the public school system here.

    Can you imagine our school system -- heck, our whole society and infrastructure -- if the same amount of money had been spent here?


    I Rebuilt Schools in Kuwait (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by ScottW714 on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 02:21:54 AM EST
    Or rather I was a sailor on a ship that rebuilt schools after we chased Saddam out of Kuwait.

    In 6 months we build maybe 6 schools, that in America would be considered turn of the the century, as in 1900.  One room no frills.

    Yet there were literally tens of thousands deployed to put out the raging fires on oil wells.

    There was more press on our ship than construction workers. Not only were we we sitting in the Persian Gulf on a BS mission, we had to be on our very best behavior for fear of the press.

    I can't speak for Iraq and Afghanistan, but I personally think any humanitarian aid organized by the military is strictly for show.


    If everything goes really, really well (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 06:50:16 PM EST
    maybe Libya will have shades of the humanitarian mission in Somalia, 1992-93.  Did not end all that well except for the production companies of Black Hawk Down, but it was not one of our ten-year going on eleven year wars.

    Hopefully (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by Edger on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 07:08:07 PM EST
    the US won't have to kill as many Libyans as they did Iraqis, to save them from their dictator.

    Or get, as we did in Iraq, (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 07:40:12 PM EST
    ensnared in a subsequent civil war.

    It's always expensive (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by Edger on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 07:51:05 PM EST
    delivering freedom to oil companies, I suppose. But I guess they'll find a way to pass on the cost....

    one analysis of the Somalia episode (none / 0) (#58)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 07:10:53 PM EST
    has it that George H. W. Bush set it up shortly before he left office, knowing that it would be a fiasco & reflect badly on Bill Clinton - i do not know but would not put it past Poppy

    As in Mr. CIA Poppy? (none / 0) (#60)
    by christinep on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 07:13:52 PM EST
    the same (none / 0) (#61)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 07:17:25 PM EST
    President Poppy

    A possible analysis, after all (none / 0) (#65)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 07:34:49 PM EST
    the Bushies were pretty mad about the results of the election. Moreover, Daddy Bush was sort of a frenetic fellow and needed a little something to do that December before he left the White House, and,  often, not a great deal of thought is given to the ramifications of military adventures.

    too true (none / 0) (#75)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 08:10:19 PM EST
    Daddy Bush was sort of a frenetic fellow

    who can forget his hysteria during the 1984 VP candidates' debate w/Geraldine Ferraro?


    Of course, our military is commanded (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 07:02:34 PM EST
    by our civilian President.  But Secretary of Defense Gates spoke out in two separate venues about trying to impose a no-fly zone on Libya.  And he postponed his trip to Russia.  Makes me most uneasy.

    Gates today... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Edger on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 07:10:17 PM EST
    The Pentagon said 112 cruise missiles were launched from U.S. and British ships and subs, hitting 20 targets.

    The key target in the first round of attacks is the Libyan missile defense system, said the military official who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss ongoing military operations. U.S. ships and warplanes will take the lead in the first round of attacks because of their "unique capabilities," the official said.

    The missile strikes are designed to prevent Gadhafi from attacking Libyan civilians, particularly those around the besieged city of Benghazi. Attacking missile defenses will allow a coalition of allied warplanes to enforce a no-fly zone. Flights will be denied in northern Libya from west of the capital Tripoli to east of Benghazi and south to the city of Sabha.

    At least 11 U.S. Navy ships and submarines are patroling the Mediterranean off Libya and are prepared to take part in the attack. The first strikes hit targets that included defenses near Tripoli and Misratah, according to a briefing slides shown to reporters at the Pentagon.

    Defense Secretary Robert Gates delayed a trip to Russia on Saturday to remain in Washington and monitor the first phase of the attacks. The military official could not say how long the attacks would last.

    "The U.S. will be at the front end of this," he said.

    Secretary Gates, in my view, (none / 0) (#74)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 08:10:17 PM EST
    wanted to (a) make it  clear that a "no-fly zone was not a day in the park--it means bombings and death--on our hands, and (b) a "no-fly zone" was necessary but not sufficient.  Accordingly, the UN resolution managed to get several add-ons, so as to become a "no fly zone, plus"  and put the Pentagon in the position, if it all goes badly, of I told you so.  While Secretary Clinton probably did not say to Gates what Secretary Albright was reported to say to the reluctant Colin Powell, what is all that great military for if we can't use it, but she may well have remembered the statement. Now we wait and watch.

    While targeting foreign leaders (none / 0) (#94)
    by NYShooter on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 10:20:00 PM EST
    is a whole other discussion, I would like to hear a debate if a situation like Libya (slaughtering one's own citizens) wouldn't warrant an exception?

    Didn't Reagan's message into Qaddafi's bedroom alter the Mad Man's activities somewhat?


    Well, there was the Reagan (none / 0) (#108)
    by KeysDan on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 09:29:36 AM EST
    bombing of Gaddafi in Libya (1986) and the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland (1988)--243 passengers, 16 crew and 111 on the ground killed. The Pan Am 102 disaster was linked to Gaddafi and Libya settled, after sanctions were imposed, for about $10 million per death.

    I never (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by lentinel on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 09:06:14 PM EST
    thought much of "World War One" or "World War Two" as titles for a war. "The Korean War", or "The Vietnam War" ... much too unimaginative.

    "Desert Shield", was pretty good.
    "Desert Storm" --- now we're getting someplace.


    "Odyssey Dawn" - That's the one.

    "Odyssey Dawn" - just love it.
    Kinda evokes Greek mythology with the "Odyssey" stuff. And "Dawn" - the scent of morning dew - or perhaps a dishwashing liquid.

    This is really thrilling.
    A new age is upon us.
    A new Dawn.
    An Odyssey Dawn.

    Do I laugh or cry? (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by ruffian on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 09:46:39 PM EST
    Did they really have to go and name the thing after me?

    Operation Odyssey Dawn. Your parents (none / 0) (#103)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 01:22:42 AM EST
    would be so proud.  

    Well, I AM the stuff of legends! (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 10:57:54 AM EST
    Odyssey Dawn (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by KeysDan on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 11:41:04 AM EST
    sounds a little too romantic.  I prefer "March Madness", not too original but, to me, more apt.

    I think that Libya, (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by desertswine on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 01:48:42 PM EST
    the Land of the Lotus-eaters, was one of the places that Odysseus had visited on his way home. He was lost, too.

    Wasn't Odyssey Dawn was a dancer? (none / 0) (#99)
    by EL seattle on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 12:00:23 AM EST
    About the same time as Blaze Starr and Tempest Storm?

    Godspeed Odyssey Dawn.  And God bless Lili St. Cyr.


    Yesterday PBS Newshour (none / 0) (#110)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 09:51:57 AM EST
    in a Freudian Slip(?) called it "Audacity Dawn"...

    *An earlier version of this post had the incorrect name of the military mission as "Audacity Dawn." This version has been corrected.

    Sounds like s spellcheck switch gone wrong (none / 0) (#112)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 10:36:17 AM EST
    Someone spelled Odyssey wrong and it got switched!

    I understand the Pentagon (none / 0) (#137)
    by brodie on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 12:00:53 PM EST
    originally wanted to use the name "Delta Dawn" but they had someone research it and found out it was already taken.

    And I wonder if Odyssey isn't appropriate for this venture:  a long wandering with many turns of fortune.  I get the feeling this one won't be over quickly or easily.


    Yet another case of (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 12:29:07 PM EST
    ...it's okay if your name is Obama.

    See Glenn Greenwald on candidate (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 03:50:13 PM EST
    Obama's written response to when U.S. President may order U.S. military into action abroad w/o first obtaining Congressional auth.  

    He has 90 days :) (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 03:53:44 PM EST
    I married knowing that :)

    There's lots of realpolitik involved (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 04:51:08 PM EST
    in authorizing military action. In the event, I have no doubt that Congress will appropriate funds to cover this. (Were that it could be so easy to get further stimulus).

    Really? No doubt? (none / 0) (#17)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 04:58:39 PM EST
    I have plenty.  The House controls Obama's fate here and led by the GOP there will be all kinds of games played.

    I can't remember which GOP bonehead said that we wouldn't assist Japan, but they've already gone there.  They'll milk this for all it is worth.  The reality is that the President can do whatever he wants even after 90 days and the initiative will not be stopped - but there will be plenty of pain exacted.  Clinton got "the treatment" for his interventions from a much more sane GOP majority.  One can only imagine what this crowd of crazies will do.


    Really, no doubt whatsoever (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 05:00:22 PM EST
    "Support the troops," and all that.

    If the Republicans even hint otherwise, they are much stupider than I had previously thought (if that's possible).


    Certainly much more hypocritical (none / 0) (#27)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 05:08:41 PM EST
    than I think you are capable of imagining at the moment.

    Oh, and, this will be like Somalia where they support the troops by trying to "protect" them from harm - they've got a "rationale" that the Democratic Leadership should have employed, but didn't have the guts to until much later in the political debate.


    Like clockwork... (none / 0) (#157)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 04:02:16 PM EST
    Boehner wants an explanation from the President about what his mission and goals are.  McCain and Lieberman criticized him today for not acting quickly enough.  Eleanor Clift and the old gang are back to second guess the invasion.  And it will get worse as we go forward.

    Lieberman (none / 0) (#159)
    by sj on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 10:22:59 PM EST
    As much as O so appreciates [constructive] criticism I suspect that he was expecting Lieberman to be a bit more beholden to him after all O has done on his behalf.

    O has yet to learn the lesson of the Republican scorpions and their nature.


    I am sure he does, but he may have (none / 0) (#7)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 04:50:58 PM EST
    made statements that suggested that he wouldn't take advantage of that leeway - which would have been foolish for reasons just such as this one where we are watching a leader slaughter his citizens - but it wouldn't be surprising if he chose to say something that would help paint him into a political corner down the road.  He's made plenty of those kinds of statements.  See: "bipartisan agreement on stimulus" for just one of many examples.

    The War Powers Act (none / 0) (#14)
    by richj25 on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 04:56:48 PM EST
    won't come into play. The congress is not about to
    force a withdrawal and embarrass both the President
    and the Secretary of State. There was a short window
    where intervention would have made a difference but
    its gone.

    Amb Marc Ginsberg (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 04:17:53 PM EST
    Says that Egypt and Saudi Arabia are funneling arms to the Libyan rebels.  

    My preference would be (none / 0) (#6)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 04:50:52 PM EST
    for the reverse: the US providing clandestine supplies and support to the rebels and the Saudis and Egyptians in nominal charge of organizing the no-fly plus operation.  Hope, too, that the costs incurred  will be spread among a coalition of the willing, or the social security eligibility age will be raised to 90--after all, our wars are put a credit card and Japan is, unfortunately, not going to be in a position to buy our bonds for a long time.

    We can't do it (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 04:53:32 PM EST
    Not while still in Iraq trying to undo credibily what the Bush Empire did.  But hmmmm.....who supplies Saudi Arabia and Egypt :)?  They don't make this stuff themselves KeysDan.

    My point exactly. Share the (none / 0) (#26)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 05:06:27 PM EST
    military profile with Arab "partners" in our war with another oil rich Arab country.

    I think we are (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 05:11:13 PM EST
    We keep bringing up that we have Middle Eastern allies in this with us.  I wonder about the turmoil though going on within Saudi Arabian leadership, over being really mad at us about Egypt but now holding hands with us in Libya.  A lot of emotional chaos there for Saudi Arabia while they have protesters too. Maybe this will all help them get over it sooner :)  And become better leaders and a better government to their own people at the same time.  Maybe with special wings pigs will fly too :)  I don't know

    Yes, and at the same time (none / 0) (#52)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 06:55:40 PM EST
    the Saudis are supporting King Khalifa in putting down protesters in Bahrain.  It seems like a bad case of inconsistency is going around.

    It is very inconsistent (none / 0) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 07:45:03 PM EST
    From the perspective of sociology though, when we take up a cause it spreads into our other surroundings and our overall personal "doctrine".  Is it possible that this could have such an affect on the Saudi Royal Family?  I have my doubts overall but perhaps they can get so much enjoyment from doing the right thing in one department they could begin to crave that recognition in other areas.

    Gee Tracy, I did not know (none / 0) (#70)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 07:53:50 PM EST
    your genealogy traced back to the Pollyanna family.:)

    Heh...mostly German (none / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 08:04:25 PM EST
    The people not showing up for any of this crazy chit one way, or the other :)  The new Sweden :)

    Middle East Allies? (none / 0) (#126)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 11:37:45 AM EST
    Despite amazing diplomatic efforts to first secure Arab League support for a No-Fly Zone, always a false hook because a no-fly zone would not have affected the military equation significantly, and then getting a UN resolution through, the head of the Arab League is now saying the organization never signed off on what the US, French and allies are now doing -- meaning, bombing military sites inside Libya. link

    I heard this morning too (none / 0) (#128)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 11:40:15 AM EST
    Not only no longer allies (none / 0) (#136)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 11:52:25 AM EST
    but strong public critics of actions taken.

    Arab League head Amr Moussa told reporters Sunday that the Arab league thought the use of force was excessive following an overnight bombing campaign that Libya claims killed at least 48 people.

    "What we want is civilians' protection, not shelling more civilians," he was quoted saying by the Associated Press. link

    Does that necessarily mean (none / 0) (#138)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 12:09:25 PM EST
    they are no longer our "allies" in this?  I'm not sure, I was never very sure they were our allies in this even in the beginning.  I was surprised they got any of them onboard for the No Fly.  That was miraculous considering what some of them have done to their own protesters on a small scale so far.  Just sayin, I'm not overly concerned about it.  What I do see are some Middle Eastern leaders suddenly realizing that by supporting this, how can they turn around and try to do it to their own people who are protesting if they feel it is warranted.  It sort of makes them look like hypocrites too with their own poor populations that they oppress

    They are having an emergency meeting (none / 0) (#142)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 12:18:26 PM EST
    They haven't taken an official stand yet.

    OUCH OUCH (none / 0) (#144)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 12:24:52 PM EST
    I'm listening to Rami Khouri from the American University in Beruit.  He said that the Arab League is not a very functional body, has very little respect in the Arab World, and has virtually no achievements to speak of since its founding.  He says as an Arab he is very sad to admit that.  Also, he says that the majority of people in the Middle East are fine with what is happening and see protecting the people the most important thing that needs to happen.

    He says that the Arab League has done such a bad job of taking care of its people that they all have thin or disappearing legitimacy among their own people.  They should only be taken semi seriously!  OUCH OUCH OUCH OUCH!  Take that dictators!


    Exactly- no fly zone quickly turned into (none / 0) (#130)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 11:42:44 AM EST
    no 'anything that could conceivably be related to weapons' zone. Aka war on Libya.

    I don't consider taking out (none / 0) (#141)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 12:17:44 PM EST
    tank convoys heading to blast the people something that I'm going to get ruffled about.  Many of those who are "Pro-Gaddafi" are mercs too.  I don't have a lot of deep feelings for mercs.  I never have.  I have been told that this indicates that I am not a feeling human being, but I don't think anyone tossing that one at me has met a merc in the flesh.  I have, just a couple, dedicated to Blackwater.  Making more money in the Middle East now than we will ever see in this household  And well, from that point on I stand back and say that if they go out there being a soldier of fortune and get themselves blown to shit I don't give a feck :)  I'm just horrible about that.  They don't represent or fight for any society of human beings, they kill for money...they don't deal with the aftermath either.

    As a preliminary matter (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 04:49:16 PM EST
    I do not disapprove of this.

    I don't know that I do either, but (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 04:54:34 PM EST
    I do think it a fair point to ask why money is no obstacle to saving people in Libya and it is near impossible to find to save people in the US.

    And anyone who wants to even intimate that this endeavour will be short or profitable can please -- off now.


    Our leadership is blind (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 04:56:21 PM EST
    to the oppression of its own people :)  Isn't that always the case though?

    I guess my thinking on this is that (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 06:17:03 PM EST
    perhaps we need to have the Congress establish, or the president declare via an executive order, that whatever monies are appropriated for wars and military interventions (or whatever other terms of art we are going to have that essentially connote coming to the aid of the citizens of other countries), we need to automatically allocate an equivalent amount to be spent here at home - for nutrition and health programs, for addtional unemployment funding, for jobs programs - whatever.  Money to support things that help the people who live here.

    This will never happen, but it should.


    My thinking is that for such a wealthy (none / 0) (#45)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 06:39:08 PM EST
    country, it should not be an either or proposition.

    No, it shouldn't - but that's where it seems (4.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 06:45:23 PM EST
    to be; I often wonder whether there will ever come a day when we realize that what we are willing to do for those in other countries should be no less than what we are willing to do for our own people.

    There is an increasingly large disconnect between what we say and what we do - and if we can see that, I have to think that the rest of the world sees that, too.

    Bradley Manning continues to be (one of) the elephant(s) in the room; I sure wish there were someone who could take the stand that needs to be taken and show the larger world that we don't just talk a good story - we live it.


    Maybe a "war sur-tax" should (none / 0) (#63)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 07:30:47 PM EST
    be levied to support our wars, be they popular humanitarian, national security  or to protect oil and other business interests.  After all, Boehner says we are "broke" and the president seems to agree; at the very least, the president should reiterate that those Bush tax cuts due to expire and were continued, particularly those of the richest of rich, will need to be allowed to expire in accord with the temporary, two-year agreement. A war sur-tax would tend to keep our wars under ten years.

    No way (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 11:24:44 PM EST
    a war sur-tax is going to happen for two reasons.

    1. People would demand an end to the wars if they were forced to see the actual financial costs by having to have the costs deducted from their pay checks.

    2. The austerity programs which both parties seem to favor have little to do with the country being "broke." Some of the agenda items behind the acts currently being purposed are to a) abolish unions b) drive down wages c) eliminate industry retirement programs and gut SS to funnel more money into Wall St. and d) allow corporations and insurance industry to bottom line by having individuals assume more and more of the cost of ever increasing premiums while making them assume more of the costs of actual care.  

    Agreed. And my point, but (none / 0) (#109)
    by KeysDan on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 09:32:39 AM EST
    I would like to see this proposed and discussed, even though its fate is pre-ordained.

    War surtax was purposed in 2007 (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 11:25:01 AM EST
    and 2009.


    The surtax would be "a percentage of your tax bill," said House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey, D-Wisconsin. "And if you don't like the cost, then shut down the war."

    The measure -- sponsored by Obey, Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, and Jim McGovern, D-Massachusetts -- would require low- and middle-income taxpayers to add 2 percent to their tax bill, while higher-income taxpayers would add 12 to 15 percent, Obey said. link


    Obey, a Democrat from Wisconsin, made it clear that he is absolutely opposed to sending any more U.S. troops to Afghanistan and says if Obama decides to do that, he'll demand a new tax -- what he calls a "war surtax" -- to pay for it.
    His demand for a new war tax echoes a similar call by Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, also a Democrat, who recently told Bloomberg's Al Hunt that he favors a new tax on Americans earning more than $200,000 a year to pay for sending any additional troops. link

    In 2009 a bill, H.R.4130.IH, was drafted purposing the surtax.     It was referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means on 11/19/09 where it died. Idea was struck down by Dem leadership.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has rejected a proposal to create a "war surtax" to fund the escalation of the Afghan occupation. The tax had been proposed by House Appropriations chair David Obey, who opposes the escalation. link

    I would favor it being discussed again but Dem leadership appears to sanction all of Obama's wars (i.e. Bush's wars bad, Obama's wars good) and on board with cutting all domestic programs instead of raising taxes on anyone but the very poor, so I doubt that it will be discussed again anytime soon.


    Thanks Blue for the refresher. (none / 0) (#125)
    by KeysDan on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 11:36:40 AM EST
    I recall Speaker Pelosi's objection in her cheerleading role in those days.  I wonder if now that it is out of her control to do something, she would have a different opinion--we would like to but we do not have the votes scenario.  But, like you, it bears perseverance--if just for a chilling factor, if that is possible.

    like the surtax (none / 0) (#73)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 08:06:09 PM EST
    passed in 1968 to finance the war in Vietnam?

    you can be sure that this time, unlike during the Johnson Administration, the poor would be the ones paying the surtax


    Don't know about the Viet Nam surtax, (none / 0) (#76)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 08:16:51 PM EST
    but I do believe that a war surtax should apply to just about everyone, even the poorest workers, albeit for but a dollar a year--just to make it visible to all.  Of course, the surtax needs to be progressive.  

    your thinking about a surtax (none / 0) (#78)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 08:32:52 PM EST
    sounds like an argument sometimes made in favor of the military draft

    do you think the draft should be brought back?


    No. (none / 0) (#86)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 09:28:18 PM EST
    I understand the idea, as espoused by Congressman Rangel, but the draft also has its difficulties in equity.  It also give a conscripted  military that can be at the ready and still is under the leadership of career officers.   I think, in America, a tax brings the seriousness of war and its broader commitment home to all.

    My husband says this too (none / 0) (#131)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 11:43:46 AM EST
    Reducing taxes on the rich and all those corporate loopholes while we remain at war and doing global policing is also a crime.  It will destroy our nation and it is reality distorting too.  As if all Americans should easily and simply accept that we do what we do and there is no need for concern about all the costs.

    This is not being done to protect (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 06:50:55 PM EST
    the "people."

    If any lives are saved by this operation (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 10:34:45 PM EST
    anyway, will you be able to forgive Obama?

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha! (none / 0) (#132)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 11:45:08 AM EST
    It's going to be really hard selling Obama as a spineless gutless conscienceless wimp now in 2012 isn't it?

    Hmmmm.... (none / 0) (#155)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 03:55:41 PM EST
    subconscious motive?  Wagging the dog?

    At the heart of it I don't think so (none / 0) (#167)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 08:43:23 AM EST
    But I'm sure that at least one advisor made a note that addressing this humanitarian crisis is a twofer because you can't paint him as spineless after this.  He is still free to go forward with his plan to continue to draw down in both war theaters we are currently in and nobody can say he won't take part in slapping down evil powers lobbing bombs at innocents cuz yes he will :)

    Nope, the results speak (none / 0) (#161)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 11:32:34 PM EST
    The question will be, what have you done about getting me cheap gasoline?

    And everyone has figured out that Obama wants high gasoline prices.

    He is a one term President unless he can drop the price of fuel and increase employment.


    You are always upset about the price of gas (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 08:37:37 AM EST
    You must own one giant life sucking fuel hog :)

    And if Obama (none / 0) (#168)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 09:28:15 AM EST
    released oil from the Strategic Reserve in order to lower prices, PPJ would probably be complaining about how Obama hates the oil companies.

    I would? (none / 0) (#171)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 08:06:41 AM EST
    Look, I don't need for Obama to do anything additional to note that he hates the thought of oil companies drilling for oil in the US.

    On the other hand.... Brazil.....


    PPJ, given your record here and (none / 0) (#175)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 08:36:08 AM EST
    @ your blog for blaming Obama(or Obamie, or Hussein, as you used to call him there), you'd criticize him for walking on water because it demonstrated he thinks he's too good to swim like the rest of us.

    Not that there's anything unusual about that.


    On the other hand.... Brazil..... (none / 0) (#183)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 08:22:40 PM EST
    And on the third hand? (none / 0) (#187)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 09:32:50 PM EST
    Really? (none / 0) (#188)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 10:23:15 PM EST

    to note that he hates the thought of oil companies drilling for oil in the US.

    The facts seem to indicate otherwise:

    US oil production last year rose to its highest level in almost a decade, thanks to an increase in the use of "unconventional" extraction techniques .

    As a result, analysts believe the US was the largest contributor to the increase in global oil supplies last year over 2009, and is on track to increase domestic production by 25 per cent by the second half of the decade.

    The rise would still not be enough to end America's dependence on imported oil, which accounted for roughly half of US demand in 2010.

    But it would reduce the country's vulnerability to supply shocks and its trade deficit.

    According to the US government's Energy Information Administration, domestic production of crude oil and related liquids rose 3 per cent last year to an average of 7.51m barrels a day - its highest level since 2002.

    The rise enabled a 2 per cent drop in US oil imports to 9.45m b/d, in spite of rising demand as the economy recovered. US oil imports have fallen steadily since 2006.

    Click or Financial Times Me


    Actually I own (none / 0) (#172)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 08:14:58 AM EST
    three vehicles. One old compact pick up. One near new full size sedan and one 6 year old midsize sedan.

    Does that make me evil????

    I do have great difficult driving all of them at one time. I am considering hiring two people to help out.


    Kidding aside, the sky high price of gasoline will destroy the economy, again, just as it did in 2008.

    Too bad our "leaders" can't figure that out.


    The high energy prices certainly didn't help (none / 0) (#176)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 08:39:07 AM EST
    but the high fuel prices caused the recession?

    This is your brain on Fox News.

    Any questions?


    Please keep up (none / 0) (#181)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 08:18:24 PM EST
    I have opined before that in April/May 2008 the Feds had almost brought the housing crisis under control... then the other shoe dropped. The rapid run up in oil prices finished off the economy.

    When Bush finally and much too late issued his EO re off shore drilling the over expanded bubble burst. Pelosi and Harry didn't help in the May time frame by shooting various Repub proposals re drill here drill now.

    Interesting thing is that many people in 2008 still had jobs and still had credit cards with enough capacity to absorb the hit.

    That's not true now. And yes, the market is perking right along. I went to cash a while back. Time will tell if I was right. But sometimes breaking even isn't a bad thing.


    Seeing as you can't remember your (none / 0) (#185)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 09:30:23 PM EST
    remarks from less than a month ago, it's risible that you write:

    the sky high price of gasoline will destroy the economy, again, just as it did in 2008.

    and then refer me to your previous screeds on the subject to modify your unambiguous statement in the first place.

    Thanks for demonstrating the clinical effects of watching Fox News once again.


    Actually (none / 0) (#189)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 08:47:21 PM EST
    there is something called the Internet that you can use to search.

    BTW - Can you explain why you stalk me?

    It seems a bit sick to me.


    And yet the consensus (none / 0) (#179)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 04:17:51 PM EST
    amongst the Teabaggers seems to be that further deregulation of Wall St is the way to go. Go figure.

    Guess stuff like the speculative creation of commodities bubbles and it's effect on prices from oil to food won't save America as assuredly as routing out secret marxist-muslims will..


    Having been to more than a few (none / 0) (#182)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 08:21:46 PM EST
    Tea Party meetings I can tell you that your giving them a "consensus" is more than they give themselves.

    As for calling them "Teabaggers," what can I say? You continue to prove that you never want to debate, just insult.


    I'm aware of the major rift (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 04:07:29 PM EST
    between those who believe he's secret marxist-muslim and those who say he's an African devil worshipper..

    What other serious disagreements are there?


    You're the one who earlier stated (none / 0) (#163)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 07:40:31 AM EST
    that Obama thinks that high fuel prices will help him get re-elected, so your concern is duly noted.

    I did??? (none / 0) (#170)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 08:04:41 AM EST
    I don't remember writing that Obama thought high gasoline prices would get him re-elected.

    Can you provide a quote?

    But he certainly wants high energy prices to try and build support for his so-called green energy policies.


    green-energy politics (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 04:23:37 PM EST
    which is, of course, nothing but a plot on the part of a consortium of America-haters, tenured radicals and freemasons to destroy the nation..

    Obama is obviously having trouble deciding between reelection-at-all-costs and furthering the Left Wing master plan..


    Yes it is Jim (none / 0) (#135)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 11:49:37 AM EST
    They can't really enforce a no fly zone when he has those air defense systems in place

    My point was that this is about oil. (2.00 / 1) (#160)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 11:29:06 PM EST
    I think it is for you :) (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 08:37:57 AM EST
    As always, (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by getoffamycloud10 on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 08:29:36 AM EST
    your point is that you have no point to make or ability to make it.

    You're consistent. I'll give ya that much.


    Humanitarian concerns aside (none / 0) (#164)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 07:51:39 AM EST
    would you rather Obama do nothing?

    Of course that's a fair question (2.00 / 1) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 04:57:20 PM EST
    Perversely, there may be some stimulative effect from this. That's not the reason to intervene, though.

    I don't foresee anything (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 05:02:09 PM EST
    really stimulative in unloading 110 Tomahawk missiles.  Having a reason to stay at current Navy active duty capacity, yeah....there is that.  In the Army we are experiencing pressure to downsize our active duty numbers.  There is also a newly established hiring freeze on post, and I think it is likely most bases and posts are under a hiring freeze now.

    The missiles will have to be replaced (2.00 / 1) (#22)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 05:03:16 PM EST
    It is a highly protected system of production (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 05:04:12 PM EST
    and they are stockpiled anyhow.

    Well, the stockpile won't be (2.00 / 1) (#24)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 05:05:38 PM EST
    unlimited. I doubt we will fail to replenish it.

    That's true but we won't create any (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 05:13:36 PM EST
    new jobs doing it.  Everyone within that production system is highly vetted and placed with care.  You don't run an ad in the newspaper when you are looking for workers to make Tomahawks.

    Question of stimulative effect... (none / 0) (#19)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 05:00:56 PM EST
    Maybe three's a charm?  Highly unlikely.

    Nothing much stimulative here about blowing up places and rebuilding them.


    On the contrary (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 05:02:17 PM EST
    We're firing lots of missiles this weekend that our defense contractors will have to rebuild. And they are very expensive.

    Yes, but stimulative in the (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 05:05:45 PM EST
    Main Street sense, not likely.  Were that the case, we would have oodles of cash left over from the "profitable" invasion and occupation of Iraq.

    But they are in continuous production anyway (none / 0) (#122)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 11:25:43 AM EST
    I doubt there will even be any overtime needed to keep the supplies flowing, much less new jobs.

    Consequences of things (none / 0) (#39)
    by christinep on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 05:54:22 PM EST
    Would not be surprised if a short term stimulative effect--in more ways than $$--occurs with this so-far coordinated operation. (MT's remarks about the various interwoven relationships in the MidEast, e.g., suggest kinds of stone-thrown-in-pond ripple effects. And, some of them, could be progressive for numbers of populations in the Mediterranean rim.)

    "Life can be complicated."  Actually, I think of the rising phoenix sometimes. E.g., a little item in the business section yesterday related to the weakening dollar against the Japanese yen. The reason: The international community is now expected to pump lots of $$$ into Japan's economy. That would certainly be needed to help rebuild; but, the article mentioned that the weakened dollar is good for American exports overall...leading to fulfilling what the US economists have wanted for awhile...that means a better balance for trade, and job growth.

    I know, I know. You use the word "perversely" and that was my initial sentiment. The suffering in the Far East and, for so long, in the MidEast cannot be gainsaid.  And, with all that...there are these other potential outcomes as well. A short anecdote: Our tax person (whom we visited this week) remembered--as we talked about the grief in Japan--an incident when he was stationed for 14 years in Japan. It was several years after WWII, and he had just been assigned to the South of Japan near Hiroshima. He talked with my husband & me about the philosophical approach amidst the destruction shown be so many with whom he spoke. Then, one survivor was seen harvesting a few pole-type structures in the prefecture...for rebuilding.


    inclusiveheart, let me explain it to you (1.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Politalkix on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 05:32:32 PM EST
    if a tyrant showed up in your neighbourhood and threatened you or someone else in America with physical violence or death for speaking up, the US govt would also send its forces to protect you. Your rhetorical question makes it clear that you lack a sense of proportion.
    Would you offer to trade places with a Libyan facing the wrath of Gadaffi at this time?

    Really? The US government would? (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 05:38:59 PM EST
    How quickly the Bush years are forgotten.

    An my ultimate position is that we should be able to offer humanitarian military assistance and take care of our own citizens and country.  But we can't at the moment because we got ourselves into two fairly ridiculous military conflicts that have sucked us dry both within our military and in our country - AND opted not to figure out ways to pay for either other than to wildly and fantastically speculate that the wars we started would be profitable and short.


    The military action in Libya (3.67 / 3) (#38)
    by Politalkix on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 05:50:00 PM EST
    is for a humanitarian cause. The challenges that people in Libya are facing are on a different scale than those faced by even the poorest in America.

    Both populations are worthy (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 06:40:32 PM EST
    of our attention and resources whether the money is in the bank or borrowed.  That's my position.

    For a humanitarian cause? (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by Romberry on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 08:20:00 PM EST
    You can't be that dumb. If it's for a humanitarian cause, why are we not attacking other nations where the situation is as bad or worse? Why is Bahrain not in the crosshairs? Saudi? Yemen?

    Your comment was a joke. An unfunny one.


    Romberry (none / 0) (#87)
    by Politalkix on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 09:35:18 PM EST
    It must be to appease the HRC primary supporters- those who could be appealed to with promises of universal healthcare (that was interpreted by some to mean free healthcare) and incineration of Iran and establishment of a defensive shield around the countries you mentioned in your post. Remember how excited those supporters got about summer gas tax holidays in 2008. If these people did not get upset about a rise in gas prices, administrations would have more flexibility in charting a more progressive foreign policy.

    Nobody is saying that there is no inconsistency in our foreign policy at this time. But your question about why Libya and not Bahrain, Saudi Arabia or Yemen is like asking why did we attack Germany in WW2 and not the Soviet Union (which was also under a dictatorship).


    Now THAT ... (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 06:02:21 AM EST
    ... was a joke ...

    ... right?


    Reminds me of (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 10:37:01 AM EST
    No, it's not (none / 0) (#88)
    by Zorba on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 09:40:28 PM EST
    After Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and we declared war on them, Germany declared war on us.  The Soviet Union did not.

    If you think that WW2 (none / 0) (#91)
    by Politalkix on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 09:59:27 PM EST
    for the United States did not actually start till formal declarations of war, there is a lot you will need to learn. America had already chosen sides long before Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, FDR had decided that his country would not remain neutral in WW2 and since it had chosen sides, it would not attack the Soviet Union.

    HRC? (none / 0) (#192)
    by Romberry on Sat Apr 16, 2011 at 10:33:36 PM EST
    I don't know who you are and the more you post, the less I care. I find you to be a pretty consistent contributor of nothing worthwhile. At all. But that's just me. Others are certainly entitled to disagree.

    And that's a reason... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Dadler on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 09:13:55 PM EST
    ...to let poor kids in this country continue to be ignored?  Because they aren't lucky enough to have a dictator shooting at them?

    You don't decide how poorly to treat your own people based on how badly some tin-pot dictator (many others of whom we still support) treats theirs.  At least I wouldn't think so.  Color me dumb like that.

    In a nation where the 400 richest families possess as much wealth as half of the entire country, I'd say we're much more like a tin-pot republic than either of us would like to ponder.

    I mean, bub, didn't you see the latest NEWSWEEK?  Usually a fairly worthless, dying rag, but this issue's cover was about guns, and how, just since the shooting of the congresswoman in Arizona, more than 2500 people have been killed by guns.

    We're different than Libya alright, I couldn't argue.  But in disturbing ways...we're not so different at all, just less obvious.

    Since money is completely man-made anyway, a collective illusion we all have to participate in, I would logically and rationally suggest that we can do all of these things.  If we really want to.  Of course that would require shaming and humiliating and soaking the wealthy as never before.  And we're far too brainwashed to do that.  The right won that battle.  Money trumps people.  Always.


    correction (none / 0) (#85)
    by Dadler on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 09:14:59 PM EST
    just UNDER 2500 people have been killed by guns since the Arizona shooting.

    U.S. government protecting people who (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 06:02:39 PM EST
    speak up?

    1. U.S. current SOP - classify everything and prosecute whistle blowers for leaking classified information.

    2. Government seeks unusually tough charges against activists who chose to speak up against government policies (unless of course they belong to the Tea Party).

    While the government is not killing people here in the U.S. for speaking up, they are not sending their forces to protect them.

    And, the government may try (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 07:10:37 PM EST
    to chill  protests not to their liking. For example, Firedoglake (Michael Whitney) reports that the director of operations at Quantico Marine Base issued a "threat advisory" in advance of tomorrow's rally to support Bradley Manning.  A peaceful demonstration is planned at the base with Daniel Ellsberg.

    No U.S. government protection for (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 07:29:43 AM EST
    speaking up on Saturday either.

    WASHINGTON -- More than 100 anti-war protesters, including the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers, were arrested outside the White House on Saturday in demonstrations marking the eighth anniversary of the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

    The protesters, some shouting anti-war slogans and singing "We Shall Not Be Moved," were arrested after ignoring orders to move away from the gates of the White House. The demonstrators cheered loudly as Daniel Ellsberg, the former military analyst who in 1971 leaked the Pentagon's secret history of the Vietnam War that was later published in major newspapers, was arrested and led away by police. link

    Wars often start with (none / 0) (#13)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 04:56:40 PM EST
    approval.  Indeed, if the operation is successful and quick, in the model of Serbia, it will remain so; it may change if in the model of Afghanistan.  And, what do we do about Bahrain? or Yemen, or ?  

    Serbia is the model, yes (2.00 / 1) (#16)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 04:58:38 PM EST
    And arguably so was Gulf War I.

    If the rebels have enough oomph left to beat the incumbents with our air support, this should go well. If not. . .


    Hence your "preliminary" approval, (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 05:11:31 PM EST
    I gather.

    Not exactly (none / 0) (#32)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 05:16:05 PM EST
    I think the swift international approval is nothing to sneeze at. You think the Senate is hard to  pass things through? Try the U.N. Security Council!

    I assumed your approval was as to (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 05:17:48 PM EST
    current involvement of U.S. military.

    Well, yes, it is. (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 05:31:35 PM EST
    My husband noticed this too (none / 0) (#118)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 11:11:42 AM EST
    But nobody doubted that a genocide was about to take place.  And Gaddafi has few friends because he is so crazy dangerous, just business associates.

    Listening to "March," (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 08:41:08 PM EST
    a fictional story about the Alcotts. Did Lincoln really say the Civil War would last 90 days?

    Not exactly. After Ft. Sumpter (none / 0) (#101)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 01:19:27 AM EST
    was fired on, Lincoln called for volunteers to serve for 90-days.  

    And (none / 0) (#156)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 03:57:28 PM EST
    the Confederate Secretary of War, LeRoy Pope Walker, famously claimed that all the blood shed in the upcoming Civil War would be able to be wiped up with a pocket handkerchief.

    Guess he was a little off in his estimation.


    Was LeRoy Pope Walker an ancestor of (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 04:57:24 PM EST
    Paul Wolfowitz?

    He certainly didn't think (none / 0) (#178)
    by getoffamycloud10 on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 09:19:33 AM EST
    it would last as long as it did.

    Even then there were cheneys, rummys and curve balls shaping the facts and telling people what they wanted to hear irrespective of the evidence.


    I find myself very cynical about this (none / 0) (#81)
    by ruffian on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 08:52:28 PM EST
     I honestly don't know if it is the right thing to do. I note that the goal of 'regime change' has not been stated. Is this enough to make it a fair fight? If the rebels lose anyway, what good have we done? Where do we stop?

    I hope it turns out well of course, and I guess this is why we vote for  people whose judgement we trust.

    I (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by lentinel on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 09:06:57 PM EST
    don't trust Obama, and I don't trust McCain.

    That was our choice.


    And I might add that mcCain and Graham were the (none / 0) (#89)
    by ruffian on Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 09:45:11 PM EST
    first I heard call for this two weeks ago. Remembering that, I've changed my thinking. I'm pretty sure this is the wrong thing to do.

    And Sen. Kerry (D-MA). (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 01:19:59 AM EST
    Kerry (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by lentinel on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 04:59:52 AM EST
    -  Another waste of space.

    Lord, George Will agrees with me (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 10:37:48 AM EST
    The end of days is nigh.

    At this point (none / 0) (#117)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 11:08:45 AM EST
    The only goal is to end a developing genocide and make sure that it never takes place.

    Genocide? Is gaddhafi targeting a particular (none / 0) (#120)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 11:21:29 AM EST
    ethnic group with intent to eradicate?

    I've heard good reasons for going in there, but I have not heard that one.


    His own people (none / 0) (#123)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 11:27:38 AM EST
    Hey...that's what the media is using to describe what they are preventing too.  It isn't just me :)  He has in the past committed a few such genocides.  He's pretty good at it when he deems it necessary to maintain his power or enhance his power.

    Isn't he one of e same genetic background himself? (none / 0) (#127)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 11:39:28 AM EST
    I'm sure the media is saying it too...just seems like a very loose use of the term, to the point that it has no meaning.

    I don't know (none / 0) (#133)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 11:47:10 AM EST
    I looked up the defintion of it and National Group is also included in the official definition.  Are the rebels are "National Group", they have a media representative :)

    It is the systematic murder (none / 0) (#134)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 11:47:58 AM EST
    of a specific group

    So I guess he's committing genocide against (none / 0) (#140)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 12:13:07 PM EST
    The specific group of people that are fighting against his regime? Is every counter-insurgency a genocide?

    And I know I don't have to remind you (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 12:28:33 PM EST
    that in countries where we support the leaders, we aid and abet such 'genocide' everyday.

    Leaders killing their own people better not be our new standard for war, or we will be fighting our own troops in Iraq and Afghanistan soon.


    So you just want to keep aiding and abetting? (none / 0) (#150)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 12:42:00 PM EST
    As a Buddhist I know that the world must save itself and nobody can do everything.  But when things knock on my door and the time and place presents itself in ways where I can be affective, I take that as my cue that this is something that I'm meant to face and deal with.  That's just me though. Nobody has to subscribe to anything I feel or do.  But that is how I approach such things.

    And therein lies the difference (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by getoffamycloud10 on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 09:12:35 AM EST
    between you and the counterfeit-Christians and faith-based frauds who insist the USA is a Christian Nation and just want everyone to be free to adhere to their values and practice their religion as they see fit.

    You know, the evangelical clowns who love Israel, hate Jews, hate Muslims even more and think that Sharia Law and people named Garcia are the greatest threat facing this country today.


    I didn't create the definitions (none / 0) (#145)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 12:27:59 PM EST
    Dont' beat me up

    Sorry, I don't mean to beat you up (none / 0) (#148)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 12:30:01 PM EST
    You have a new puppy for that!

    I just like this thing less the more I hear.


    Did you hear what (none / 0) (#149)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 12:39:30 PM EST
    Rami Khouri from the American University in Beruit is saying?  He is saying that the "little people" of the Middle East are fine with what we are doing in Libya.  They want it.  It is the Arab League that doesn't want it and he says that they have all treated their people so badly they all have very little legitimacy among their own people.  I know these things are scary, but enabling people to be murdered and deeply oppressed is scarier.  We have done a lot of enabling of that.  I don't care what they call it, turning our backs while he systematically murders people who talked back on a grand scale isn't something I'm okay with.  What word used makes you feel more okay with that sort of murder?

    All I know for sure is that if I lived (none / 0) (#143)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 12:18:51 PM EST
    next door to that released Lockerbee bomber, I'd be heading for the hills. Gotta believe there is a Brit bomb with his GPS coordinates on it coming soon. Operation Collateral Damage.