• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

No Fly zones over Libya?

Yes, I know you don't like to hear the truth about Clinton or see comparisons drawn between Clinton and Obama. :D

I do not give two figs about Clinton. I am not the one who obsesses about him. I just do not like your nonsense being slung all over threads it doesnt belong.
 
Wait a minute. Is President Obama now a neocon? Hillary (who was for this action while Sec Def Gates was against it) is now a neocon?
Obama is not a neocon, but Hillary arguably is. She voted with neocons on several issues - intervention in Iraq, Patriot Act, fewer restrictions on government wiretapping.

When it comes to foreign policy, Hillary holds the same positions as a neocon. Domestically she's different, but that's not relevant here.

Maybe I should have substituted "moral interventionist" for "neocon". Moral interventionism is what's going on here, and it's basically the neocon's foreign policy, but the two are not synonymous.
 
Obama is not a neocon, but Hillary arguably is. She voted with neocons on several issues - intervention in Iraq, Patriot Act, fewer restrictions on government wiretapping.

When it comes to foreign policy, Hillary holds the same positions as a neocon. Domestically she's different, but that's not relevant here.

Maybe I should have substituted "moral interventionist" for "neocon". Moral interventionism is what's going on here, and it's basically the neocon's foreign policy, but the two are not synonymous.

That makes Bill Clinton a neocon, in re Bosnia.

Sorry, not seeing it.
 
Bernard-Henri Levy has no doubt as to his superior intellectual discernment

Asked why Libya, he replies: "It was an accident of history. I happened to be in Egypt when Gaddafi sent his planes to shoot at the pacifist demonstrations in Tripoli. It seemed to me such an enormous, unprecedented thing, and I felt the Egyptian democrats around me were so horrified by it that I decided on instinct to go to Libya straight away.

Please dear God, don't let him help any more countries.
 
I can see we are just going to have to accept history is going to recall Gaddafi called his own planes out to bomb protesters - Hilary is saying it as well

#
1347: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said the world should not expect military intervention in Syria to protect civilians as there has been in Libya. "Each of these situations is unique," she told CBS. "What's been happening there the last few weeks is deeply concerning, but there's a difference between calling out aircraft and indiscriminately strafing and bombing your own cities, and police actions which frankly have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see."
 
That makes Bill Clinton a neocon, in re Bosnia.

Sorry, not seeing it.

I think the difference between traditional liberal interventionism vs. neo-conservative interventionism is the emphasis the latter puts on remaking countries in the image of the US, while the former is more concerned with interventions to uphold international laws/norms i.e. to stop specific actions or events.
 
What is annoyning about BAC is that if this had been a GOP president making this decison

And when and where has an GOP president gotten us involved in a similar decision? Maybe we can look at what I actually said instead of making up strawmen. :D
 
I think the difference between traditional liberal interventionism vs. neo-conservative interventionism is the emphasis the latter puts on remaking countries in the image of the US, while the former is more concerned with interventions to uphold international laws/norms i.e. to stop specific actions or events.

And I think that what you just posted is a load of bollocks. The differences, where they exist, are not that simply framed, not to mention often at odds with what you attempted to state.

Reagan's intervention in Lebanon was intended to stop a specific set of actions/events, where it had a clear objective at all.
It was not intended to remake Lebanon in the image of the US.

On the "liberal" side, Woodrow Wilson was very much an interventionist interested in both spreading American imperial influence, and "remaking those countries in the image of the US" given his beliefs in the proselytization of democracy as an American mandate. I'll suggest JFK had similar motivations, though we'll never know due to his abbreviated term. I am not sure what Jimmy Carter's intentions were, as what ever efforts he made to spread democracy were frustrated by his ineptitude, and the political context of his time.

GW, Bush, on the other hand, did seem bound and determined on inflicting democracy upon Iraq at the point of a bayonet. We'll see how that works out, it's a work in progress there. I'll say, to be charitable, that it's been a less than elegant attempt to revive Wilsonian principles in a new time and new context.

DR
 
Last edited:
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/28/obama-arming-al-qaeda

Further, and perhaps more troubling for the Obama Administration, White House sources confirm that in the run up to the decision to involve U.S. military personnel, President Obama was fully briefed that a large portion of the Libyan rebel forces most active in areas around such critical cities as Benghazi had ties to al Qaeda, particularly Al Qaeda in Iraq, the wing of the terrorist group that killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq.

"He was warned that should we reach a point where NATO needs to re-arm the rebels -- it appears that time is coming now -- we will be arming the very enemy that we have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan," says a career employee at the State Department. "Secretary Clinton knows it, the White House knows it, but we're working with these thugs anyway because the President thinks it's the moral thing to do in the face of Gaddafi."


Should be interesting to see if Obama mentions that in his speach tonight. Bet he doesn't. :mad:
 
http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ht-its-we-knew-he-was-right-andrew-c-mccarthy

It’s Not that Qaddafi Was Right,
It’s that We Knew He Was Right

… snip …

We can continue pretending that these jihadists, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other anti-American Islamists are not a significant part of the Libyan mujahideen that commentators keep calling the “rebels” and the “freedom fighters.” Similarly, we can keep pretending it’s an “Arab Spring” of “democratic revolution” in neighboring Egypt … and never you mind those “virginity tests” or that election they just had in which nearly three-quarters of Egyptians voted for a process that will shift control of the country and the writing of its next constitution to the Muslim Brotherhood. But pretending won’t change who the “rebels” really are and what this “Arab Spring” is really about.

:p
 
Whatever happens on the other end, the militants will not be able to dictate the constitution in either Egypt or Libya. The people will not let the whackos cheat them out of an open election.

Our not looking like an implacable enemy will go a long way to encourage them to adopt a more rational constitution. If we push it, they might write one we will not like just to push back.
 
Regarding Obama's decision to intervene in Libya …

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...ya-decision-based-on-best-interests-in-region

"We don’t make decisions about questions like intervention based on consistency or precedent," said Denis McDonough, the administration's deputy national security adviser, amid an off-camera gaggle of reporters. "We make them based on how we can best advance our interests in the region."

Anyone here, beside lefty, believe that garbage?

Or should I say anyone gullible enough to believe it? :D

Ed: Actually the first statement is true. There is no consistency or precedent. To heck with the law. :D
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom