Who Supported Military Intervention in Libya? (POLL)

[aberrant85]

With all the talk about Syria vs. Iraq, I was curious as to who was on board with Libya.

 

[lizzie]

I haven't supported any of our actions, dating back to WWII.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

I haven't supported any of our actions, dating back to WWII.

even though we got involved in world war 2 as a combatant because our nation was attacked and its main naval base and pacific fleet suffered horrendous damage and appalling casualties?

 

[lizzie]

even though we got involved in world war 2 as a combatant because our nation was attacked and its main naval base and pacific fleet suffered horrendous damage and appalling casualties?

Yes. Even though. We were attacked by the military of another country. We can't say that about any other action that we have been involved in since. War isn't nice, and it isn't pretty. If your serious enough to go to war, then you should be willing to do whatever it takes to win.

 

[specklebang]

I supported it the same way I supported Gulf War 1. Specific objective, fast and relatively clean. This dictator oversaw attacks on our civilians and deserved a painful death.

I don't feel the same about Syria. Where are all these WMDs now? Either they never existed, or there weren't many or they're now hidden all over the place so exactly who are we shooting at, where and why.

Just blowing up military targets isn't a solution. You're just killing soldiers who have nothing to do with the famous "chemical weapons attack" so what does that do besides making some Syrian families hate us even more when Habib doesn't return from his job at the motor pool?

Too little. Too late. Obama better pray they can't buy enough Congressional votes.

 

[APACHERAT]

Yes. Even though. We were attacked by the military of another country. We can't say that about any other action that we have been involved in since. War isn't nice, and it isn't pretty. If your serious enough to go to war, then you should be willing to do whatever it takes to win.

It's known as the "Weinberger Doctrine."

It's incorrectly referred to the "Powell Doctrine" but it was Caspar Weinberger who originally came up with the guidelines of using the U.S. military during the Reagan administration based upon the mistakes and lessons learned from the Vietnam War.

The Weinberger Doctrine:

1.The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
2.U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
3.U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
4.The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
5.U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
6.The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.

 

[aberrant85]

It's known as the "Weinberger Doctrine."

It's incorrectly referred to the "Powell Doctrine" but it was Caspar Weinberger who originally came up with the guidelines of using the U.S. military during the Reagan administration based upon the mistakes and lessons learned from the Vietnam War.

The Weinberger Doctrine:

1.The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
2.U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
3.U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
4.The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
5.U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
6.The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.

I like that, in theory.

 

[DiAnna]

I didn't actually support involvement in Libya, wasn't at all happy about it. However, I accepted it because Spain, the UK and France, all of whom were our allies and all of whom had strategic national interests in Libya, spearheaded the action and the US honored the request of our allies to assist and support them.

The invasion of Iraq, however, pissed me off no end, and I'll never forgive Bush, et al, for preemptively invading a country that had not and could not do our nation any harm.

As for Syria, I'm absolutely opposed to our unilateral intervention. We have no allied support, it is not in our national interest, and the repercussions could be significant. If the U.N. and the rest of the world doesn't care that Assad is slaughtering his own people with bombs, bullets and chemical weapons, then it's none of the US's business either.

 

[APACHERAT]

I like that, in theory.

That's the way it should be.

That's why I wasn't 100 % behind G.W. Bush when he wanted to put boots on the ground in Iraq. Bush didn't meet #4. and #6 of the Weinberger Doctrine. Also the U.S. military should never be used for nation building.

But as soon as our troops entered Iraq, I had no choice but to support the war effort knowing what it was like being backstabbed in Vietnam by my own peers. It's not a good feeling and had a negative effect upon the troops.

 

[cpgrad08]

That's the way it should be.

That's why I wasn't 100 % behind G.W. Bush when he wanted to put boots on the ground in Iraq. Bush didn't meet #4. and #6 of the Weinberger Doctrine. Also the U.S. military should never be used for nation building.

But as soon as our troops entered Iraq, I had no choice but to support the war effort knowing what it was like being backstabbed in Vietnam by my own peers. It's not a good feeling and had a negative effect upon the troops.

Semper Fi Devil Dog

 

[APACHERAT]

Semper Fi Devil Dog

Semper Fi cpgrad08.

 

[Beaudreaux]

i haven't supported any of our actions, dating back to wwii.

wwii???

 

[lizzie]

wwii???

Ummm, having trouble with the quote function, eh?

 

[Beaudreaux]

It's known as the "Weinberger Doctrine."

It's incorrectly referred to the "Powell Doctrine" but it was Caspar Weinberger who originally came up with the guidelines of using the U.S. military during the Reagan administration based upon the mistakes and lessons learned from the Vietnam War.

The Weinberger Doctrine:

1.The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
2.U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
3.U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
4.The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
5.U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
6.The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.

If only we had another Cas in the Pentagon. Wait... isn't that a combination of the Constitution, basic military tactics, and common sense? No wonder that isn't our current policy, nor has it been since, well, since Cas was SecDef; one exception - GHWB who got me the hell out of Somalia and stopped GW-I when the actual mandate was accomplished rather than rolling to and through Baghdad.

 

[aberrant85]

Dang, this is a tight poll.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Ummm, having trouble with the quote function, eh?

:doh :3oops:

I so bad...

 

[Beaudreaux]

Dang, this is a tight poll.

I could make a number of off color comments about that statement, but I defer to others.

 

[a351]

Supported. Ousting Gaddafi was a worthwhile goal, and doing so without a life lost can only be considered a resounding success. The current Libyan leadership is also quite preferable to the previous regime and many others in the region.

 

[cpwill]

I didn't actually support involvement in Libya, wasn't at all happy about it. However, I accepted it because Spain, the UK and France, all of whom were our allies and all of whom had strategic national interests in Libya, spearheaded the action and the US honored the request of our allies to assist and support them.

:lol:

The invasion of Iraq, however, pissed me off no end, and I'll never forgive Bush, et al, for preemptively invading a country that had not and could not do our nation any harm.

Wait a minute. What harm was Libya going to do to the U.S.?

And our allies were with us in the invasion of Iraq. We had more partners in Iraq than we did in Libya.

The only thing that seems to change between the two wars (under the issues you have highlighted) is who happened to be President at the time.

Methinks you may want to think through your approach here a bit more thoroughly...

As for Syria, I'm absolutely opposed to our unilateral intervention. We have no allied support

....Except for France, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc, etc....

You seem to be utilizing a highly selective concept of what qualifies as "allied support".

it is not in our national interest

Actually we have huge national interests in Syria. Not only is it Iran's chief ally in the region, but it is responsible for enabling the deaths of thousands of American servicemembers. It's provides aid to Hezbollah and (until recently) al-Qaeda, has WMD production and stockpiles, and has the ability to destabilize a high-impact portion of the globe. It also serves as Iran's early-warning network and second-strike capability in the event of a move against a nuclear program. Geography and politics both require that we maintain our interests in the middle east, and Syria is a big piece of that.

and the repercussions could be significant.

Yup. Unfortunately, doing nothing will produce significant repercussions as well. As Christopher Hitchens put it to well: "Nonintervention does not mean that nothing happens. It means that something else happens."

 

[APACHERAT]

If only we had another Cas in the Pentagon. Wait... isn't that a combination of the Constitution, basic military tactics, and common sense? No wonder that isn't our current policy, nor has it been since, well, since Cas was SecDef; one exception - GHWB who got me the hell out of Somalia and stopped GW-I when the actual mandate was accomplished rather than rolling to and through Baghdad.

Casp was an excellent Sec. of Def.

President Reagan had a very professional and competent administration. Reagan surrounded himself with individuals who weren't yes men. I think that's one of the secrets of having a proficient and competent White House administration. Look at Clinton's White House, it was compared to National Lampoons "Animal House." Or look at the Obama White House, Obama surrounded himself with nothing but incompetent, second rate people who are mostly yes men.

 

[DiAnna]

:lol:



Wait a minute. What harm was Libya going to do to the U.S.?

And our allies were with us in the invasion of Iraq. We had more partners in Iraq than we did in Libya.

The only thing that seems to change between the two wars (under the issues you have highlighted) is who happened to be President at the time.

Methinks you may want to think through your approach here a bit more thoroughly...

Really? Comparing a massive boots-on-the-ground invasion of an entire country that lasted nearly a decade, with supporting allies that had a UN Resolution by knocking out targets inside Libya for a few months? That's what you're going with? You're ignoring the fact that I've repeatedly stated I didn't support the Libyan action either.

....Except for France, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc, etc....

You seem to be utilizing a highly selective concept of what qualifies as "allied support".

Which countries are actually going to be lobbing bombs into Syria, and which are sitting on the sidelines hoping we'll take care of their border problems? :lol: Not that it matters. If it's important to Turkey, Israel, SA and France to bomb Syria because it serves their national interest to do so, let them do it. In my opinion, it does not serve the USA's national interest, and even Obama claims that we'd only be doing in because in the course of slaughtering 100,000 Syrians, Assad slaughtered 1400 of them with chemical weapons. Well if the UN the majority of our European allies don't want to be bothered, then neither should we.

Actually we have huge national interests in Syria. Not only is it Iran's chief ally in the region, but it is responsible for enabling the deaths of thousands of American servicemembers. It's provides aid to Hezbollah and (until recently) al-Qaeda, has WMD production and stockpiles, and has the ability to destabilize a high-impact portion of the globe. It also serves as Iran's early-warning network and second-strike capability in the event of a move against a nuclear program. Geography and politics both require that we maintain our interests in the middle east, and Syria is a big piece of that.

I feel like Charlie Brown... all I hear is "Whah, Whah, Whah." We are not going to agree on this. America cannot fix what is broken in the ME. They either fix it themselves or die trying.

Yup. Unfortunately, doing nothing will produce significant repercussions as well. As Christopher Hitchens put it to well: "Nonintervention does not mean that nothing happens. It means that something else happens."

Then I'm quite willing to let something else happen, because as I've said, it is not our job to fix what is broken in the ME. :shrug:

 

[APACHERAT]

Dang, this is a tight poll.

Maybe if the people knew what was the real reason behind why the Frogs (France) and a few other European countries wanted a regime change in Libya it wouldn't be so tight ?

It was all about wanting to pay less for Libyan oil. The Frogs wanted to renegotiate a new contract for Libyan oil. Libya wasn't going to renegotiate a new oil contract as long as Qaddafi and his Oil Minister was still in power.

Remember, in 2003 Qadaffi joined America as an ally against Al Qaeda. Qadaffi destroyed his WMD's and dismantled his nuclear weapons development project. Qaddafi also stopped sponsoring terrorist. Qadaffi was no longer a threat to America or western Europe. Qadaffi was only a threat to Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist facist and fanatics.

While Obama's cruise missiles were still taking out Qadaffi's military and before Qadaffi was analy sodomised and executed, the black flag of Al Qaeda was already seen flying all over Libya.

 

[cpwill]

Really? Comparing a massive boots-on-the-ground invasion of an entire country that lasted nearly a decade, with supporting allies that had a UN Resolution by knocking out targets inside Libya for a few months? That's what you're going with? You're ignoring the fact that I've repeatedly stated I didn't support the Libyan action either.

You gave an argument in favor of Libya that equally applies to two conflicts you mention you oppose without adjusting for that fact, and appear to shift back and forth on how you define "allies" based on your level of support or opposition to the action being considered.

Which countries are actually going to be lobbing bombs into Syria

If we go? France, Israel, and probably Turkey. Britain if we'd been smarter, but likely not now (though they may still support in non-kinetic ways - sharing intelligence and the like). If we don't? Probably just Israel.

Other nations will also probably support in more covert ways. As an example, I would be astonished if mixed in with those 'volunteers', the Saudi Intelligence services didn't have a few case officers.

:lol: Not that it matters. If it's important to Turkey, Israel, SA and France to bomb Syria because it serves their national interest to do so, let them do it.

Israel will and has - but it is a far worse solution. Syria still has a powerful military relative to the Middle East, and the other nations lack the force-projection and sustainment power to do so without being part of a U.S. - led coalition.

In my opinion, it does not serve the USA's national interest

Then I would urge you to read up on the area - we have a huge national interest in the conflict in Syria.

even Obama claims that we'd only be doing in because in the course of slaughtering 100,000 Syrians, Assad slaughtered 1400 of them with chemical weapons

That is indeed what he said. I have no idea if that is what he thinks. It is not what I think, although I think that the use of CW is in particular going to be something that gets far worse if we do nothing now.

Well if the UN the majority of our European allies don't want to be bothered, then neither should we.

Because we require the approval of others in order to do the right thing?

I feel like Charlie Brown... all I hear is "Whah, Whah, Whah."

Really? That's your response to the national interests I laid out for you? .

America cannot fix what is broken in the ME.

Nope. Just as you cannot fix what is broken in the American populace with the State. But you can lock up serial killers.

Then I'm quite willing to let something else happen

...and what, precisely, do you imagine that "something else" is?

 

[Jredbaron96]

...

Alright, first I was agreeing with apdst, now I'm agreeing with cpwill.

Strange bedfellows indeed.

 

[MadLib]

Well if the UN the majority of our European allies don't want to be bothered, then neither should we.

The UN is not a reliable indicator of how many of our allies support us or not, because the United Nations Security Council - the only part of the UN that can do anything - is ****ed up. There are five permanent members - the US, the UK, France, Russia, and China - and 10 nonpermanent members, who cycle through alternating 2-year terms. The permanent members have a veto power that they can use to block any resolution that they do not like but which gains support from the other nations. So all 10 of the nonpermanent members plus 4 of the permanent members can wish to pass a resolution, but the fifth permanent member can simply block it.

This wasn't quite how it worked out with Syria, but our allies - including Britain - supported intervention on the SC. Russia and China didn't, so nothing happened.