• waywardwind

    When the administration did nothing more than condemn the actions of the mullahs in Iran, they were criticized. We have been meddling into the affairs of nations and for as long as I can remember; they will always be some that agree, disagree, or don't care.
    As for foreign policy, this administration is not doing anything out of the ordinary.i.e. We often give cover for those leaders that criticize us because they have to keep face with their people. They can't be seen cowering to the United States. ... A great negotiator,James Baker,said the back channel deals dominate foreign policy.... Wikileaks backs that up. It's not always what it seems.

    There have been times when our entire congress voted on an non-binding resolution condemming the actions of a country.

    April 5, 2011 at 1:38 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    April 5, 2011 at 1:34 p.m.

  • Mike...We made our preferences known in Egypt; we wanted Mubarek out. We've flown combat missions supporting the rebels in Libya because we want Gadaffi out. We have told the president of the Ivory Coast that we want him gone. You said Clinton warned the president of Syria and we've made the Saudis mad by complaining about the way they treat their people. We're not happy with the way China treats its' people either, but, because it's China, we haven't said too much publically. When will the US learn to stay out of the internal affairs of soverign nations? How Syria, Saudi Arabia or China treats their citizens is none of our business. I know that I'd be poppa oscared if the president of some other country tried to tell us how to run OUR affairs. We'd tell him, rightfully, to mind his own business. We need to do the same.

    Yeah, I expect other countries to spy on us, to try to find out as much about us as they can, but in doing that, they aren't telling us that their government is not pleased with how we are doing things and our president should resign. Ohhhhh, there's a thought! :)

    What do you suppose we'd tell the president of another country who shot off his mouth and told the world that the government of the United States is racist and should be changed because of the way we treat illegal aliens who sneak into our country? When the shoe is on the other foot, we should not be telling other nations how they should treat people, whether citizens or immigrants. If another country wants to change its government, whether by the ballot or the bullet, it's THEIR affair. Now, we CAN refuse to do business with a nation we consider a rogue state, but we have NO right to try to change the government in that state. We don't have to trade with nations we think are run by evil governments, but when have we ever done that? Oh, yeah, we don't allow cigars to come into the US from Cuba.

    April 5, 2011 at 12:35 p.m.

  • waywardwind

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has also warned president al-Assad of Syria about his tactics against his people; it's also the reason we have a tepid relationship with Saudi Arabia right now. ... A rebuke of cruel treatment is and will continue to be the norm and not a prerequisite for an attack.

    I said president Obama signed a presidential finding for a CIA covert operation three weeks ago; in case he needed it in LIBYA...... I never said they were sent to the Ivory Coast. I think it's great that the CIA is checking out those who we might wish to arm.. People have complained that we have set up despots, only to have them turn against us later on, are now complaining because we're taking extra precaution.

    As with everything else,waywardwind, you and I have a different world opinion; I do believe in a country's sovereign rights but I'm not against keeping our eyes and ears open, covert operations, and satellite imaging.... I don't think for one moment that China, Russia, and even Israel is not trying to keep their Intel on us current.

    April 4, 2011 at 1:24 p.m.

  • I don't think there's anybody who has the ear of BO who will try to play that card. I would not be surprised if there are some in the UN who would do that. I also would not be surprised if the rebels in the Ivory Coast don't take up the cry. Obama's secretary of state is already making noises about how we deplore what's happening and urgeing the president of the Ivory Coast to relinquish his power. I guess that's not interfering in a foreign country? According to your post, BO has already sent CIA operatives into the Ivory Coast. Let's see, paramilitary or spies. He's already got people on the ground there. Once again, Mike, this is the internal problem of a soverign nation and it is NONE of our business. The US is already intervening in too many places where we have no business. By the way, feel free to believe what you want about this being racist. I'll sit back and see what happens.

    April 4, 2011 at 12:21 p.m.

  • waywardwind

    It has been my experience that those who start their sentences with " Please understand, this is not a race card that I'm playing" are doing just that. Can you name one person, who has the president's ear, that will bring up a ridiculous claim like that?.. I seriously doubt most Americans even know where the Ivory Coast is, or to what extent genocide is taking place, so that's just about as much as I will dignify that comment.....

    About three weeks ago, the president signed a" Presidential Finding order" in order to start a covert CIA mission of intelligence gathering. We found out that the rebels are about 1600 strong on a good day, will run in the opposite direction at the first sign of hostile fire,and they're made up of shopkeepers, doctors, lawyers and some former al Qaeda fighters. The other day the rebels fired a mortar without securing the base and the round went sideways. In another incident they shot in the opposite direction into the city.

    Omar Gaddafi needs money and lots of it, and it has been reported that he had $10 billion stashed prior to the invasion but he promoted all his officers, armed the civilians, and gave his troops pay raises, so he will need more money to live his lavish lifestyle. The administration hopes defection of Libya’s foreign minister Moussa Koussa will start a trend; it's been rumored that three of four more will follow, forcing Gaddafi to name the conditions of his eventual exile...That's the plan for now..IMO

    This weekend I heard a republican senator Marco Rubio say he wants to introduce legislation to go in and remove Omar Gaddafi,Bill Kristol wants boots on the ground but like others on the right, they don't listen to this president's words.... He has hinted that we will only intervene multilaterally and the attack on Libya was not a model for the future. He understands that the initial bombing of Libya cost us a about $600 million and our secondary role will cost us $40 million a day. Add the $2 billion a week for Afghanistan, the president can say w simply cannot afford to go alone.

    April 4, 2011 at 9:16 a.m.

  • Mike...I fear Obama may have painted the US into a corner we don't want to be in. He "reluctantly" joined UN and NATO forces to send air strikes into Libya. Now, there is big trouble and lots of dead people in the Ivory Coast. How's he going to reconcile helping the rebels in Libya and not help the rebels in the Ivory Coast -- especially since the Ivory Coast rebels are black. Please understand, this is not a race card that I'm playing, but I fear it will be played by those who want us to intervene. How is the US going to explain that we helped white (well, light brown) rebels in Lybia but refuse to help black rebels in the Ivory Coast? If we'd stayed out of Libya, we would not have to worry about this explanation. We'd just say we didn't intervene either place. We already have the Secretary of State making comments that what passes for government should step down. If the government does not change in Ivory Coast, will our concern deepen to the point where we feel compelled to help out militarily?

    April 4, 2011 at 8:06 a.m.

  • waywardwind, your theory is as good as any but it wasn't a spur of the moment thing. Our CIA just gathers intelligence on leaders not necessarily the people of Libya. That's the reason we don't have a lot of Intel( to this day) on the makeup of the rebels. This action took about 31 days of planning, the senate passed a nonbinding resolution for the president to do what he did, and Hillary Clinton and Gates testified before congressional committees.....

    Gates,Biden, Mullen, and the president's security advisers were against this military action, so I don't really know who the bleeding hearts were but President Obama in his speech in Cairo Egypt and the speech he gave when he won his Nobel peace prize, said he would only engage multilaterally and there will be times where war cannot be avoided but it won't be our first option.

    I think it weighed heavily on the president because he knew we were already engaged in two wars but if he had not engaged and had let Omar Gaddafi massacre his people with tanks, jets, rockets, and a door- to- door campaign; I think his detractors would have vilified him...... Especially since the resources were already in the Mediterranean...I'm glad I didn't have to make that decision because it was not an easy call.... There's no excuse, if Gaddafi goes ahead and slaughters these rebels; it's gonna be hell to pay for Obama even though we supplied the rebels with a a lot of firepower.... If this action goes south, it's Obama fault because he is the commander in chief.

    BTW I agree,every country should be able to put down a revolution but when you use fighter jets, tanks, and at times chemical warfare; the U.N. 's job is to issue a resolution to stop the atrocities. ..Gaddafi does have mustard gas but I'm not sure if he will use it... I think if Uganda will take him, we should do everything in our power to make that happen;diplomatically.

    March 30, 2011 at 6:13 p.m.

  • Mike...I haven't read any polls, seen any interviews on television or read any scholorly books on the subject. I'm just going to give you my gut feeling about how we got into this mess.

    I think somebody saw the possibility that a bunch of people were going to get hurt/killed if Gadaffi used air strikes against cities where the rebels were congregated. Whoever remembered his/her history lessons that Nazi Germany butchered more than six million Jews in an attempt to exterminate them and got Obama's ear. "We can't sit back and allow another atrocity like that, Mr. President. What would the world think of us if we don't stop the killing?" The president was convinced and sent the Navy and Air Force and a lot of Marines "just in case." What the bleeding hearts forgot is that this is a civil war; rebels are trying to overthrow the government of the country. When that happens, people get killed. They should remember the comment of Ben Franklin: "We must hang together or we will surely hang separately." That is what happens to the losers in a revolt. Win or face dire consequenses. The bleeding hearts forgot that the Jews slaughtered by the Nazis were completely innocent. They weren't trying to overthrow Hitler. They were minding their own business living their lives and not bothering anyone. There is a vast difference between what the Nazis did and the government's attempt of stop the rebellion in Libya. Mind you, I'm NOT defending Gadaffi -- he IS a bad man, but he is the head of what passes for government and if the Lybians want him out, they're doing what they should. WE, on the other hand have NO reason to be involved. It is not in the purview of the United States (or the UN or NATO) to change the government of any nation. This is one of the few times I have agreed with Obama. For one nation to set out to change the government of another is a war of aggression and should rightly be condemned. This conflict is a rebelliion of Lybians who want to be in power against other Lybians who are in power. Regardless of the outcome, Lybians will be in control and Lybian oil will again be on the world market. No one except those in Lybia will even notice that there was a war.

    March 30, 2011 at 5:40 p.m.

  • waywardwind

    You were right, I just saw last night's Jon Stewart show where he had a segment called " America not- at- war" making fun of the pentagon calling this a "kinetic" operation.... It's better than what Sarah Palin called it " skirmish.'

    I just finished watching and Andrea Mitchell's interview with James Zogby. He said the less we do in a country where we don't know the culture; the better. Our country does not know anything about Libyan culture, so as you said we should just walk away.... You know we were attacked on 9/11 but many countries became our allies in Afghanistan, although it was not in their vital interest,at the time.

    March 30, 2011 at 1:07 p.m.

  • Mike, I'd rather see us side with Gaddafi's forces than with the taliban. NOTHING good can come from that. Better yet, we should just pick up our bat, ball and glove and go home.

    March 30, 2011 at 12:10 p.m.

  • Thanks Kyle

    March 30, 2011 at 9:20 a.m.

  • I think Rossv has been deleted.

    March 30, 2011 at 9:18 a.m.

  • Rossv,what happened to your posts?It's as if I was talking to myself.

    March 30, 2011 at 9:08 a.m.

  • Waywardwind

    To be honest with you, I didn't know what the word " kinetic" meant, after looking it up I still don't know how it applies... The administration has called this a "mission" and an "operation", but not a war. We all know it's a war; so we can move right along...I was not offended just confused by the overuse of a word, because you certainly had a reason to use it.

    I never said it was OK to have al Qaeda as an ally but just emphasizing the point that it just might be the cost of doing business in that part of the world because fortunetelling is not our forte... The northern alliance we put in place in Afghanistan is now the Taliban we're fighting...The word "ally" means:"An associate who provides cooperation or assistance,so in this case, you may be right but it's a little more complicated than what you make it.

    Talking about those who will replace Gadaffi is a little premature because it is not a forgone conclusion that this ragtag rebel force can beat the remnants of Gadhafi's army... Yesterday rebels pleaded for international help as they retreated because at 1600 feet NATO forces cannot distinguish civilians from the military, so air power is not being given in the western region of Libya near Tripoli.

    March 30, 2011 at 8:58 a.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    March 29, 2011 at 7:01 p.m.

  • Just following the administration with their terminology. We know it can't be a war. If it was a war, surely they'd call it a war. Instead, they called it kinetic military operation. I figured that was the correct term. Sorry to offend.

    I'm glad to learn that it's okay to have al-qaeda as an ally. You're right that we don't know what kind of government they'll end up with but I'd be willing to bet that it will be a lot closer to what they have now than what you might find in London.

    And, no, Mike, I don't ever expect to feel warm and fuzzy about anything in the middle east. It's probably easier to die there than in a den of rattlesnakes.

    March 29, 2011 at 7:01 p.m.

  • wayward

    Did you pick a new word while viewing the blogs(kinetic)?..:-)..That's three consecutive post with your new found word.

    Hillary Clinton mentioned that the eastern part of Libya had people that fought with Al qaida against us in Iraq ,in her March 7,2011 congressional testimony and again today. We do not know what the actual makeup is but it's not anything unique. Just prior to the surge in Iraq; (the Sunni awakening) we paid the Sunni who killed our troops the week before to join forces with us.... I don't expect you to be warm and fuzzy about anything but and it's not about you or me..... We don't know what kind of government were gonna get in Tunisia, Egypt, or Libya. We wanted democracy for Lebanon and we got Hamas.... I said the other day that you cannot discount the constant battle between the Sunni and the Shia; we can't expect a Jeffersonian democracy; they will probably end up with a combination of a secular Islamic government...... I keep saying we need to get our self off a dependence on foreign oil and pay the initial cost for alternative fuels. We stay on fossil fuels because it's cheap but if you add in the cost of Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Libyan it would probably be about $15.00 a gallon..... I guarantee if we paid half that much; we would come up with a battery or some other type of alternative fuel really fast.

    Got to go..Have a good kinetic night..:-)

    March 29, 2011 at 6:09 p.m.

  • From the British newspaper The Telegraph: "Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime."
    "His revelations came even as Idriss Deby Itno, Chad's president, said al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, "including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries."

    So, Mike...Why Libya? We're now allies with al-qaeda in the effort to get Gaddafi to retire as dictator. THAT makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. So, just who do you suggest is the biggest threat, Gadaffi or al-qaeda? That story in the Telegraph makes me think that there is no way Libya is coming out of this civil kinetic military action with any improvement in government. All they'll do is replace the thug we know with a thug we don't know. They're not gonna end up as good little democrats and republicans. The average Libyan won't notice the difference once the bullets stop flying.

    March 29, 2011 at 5:47 p.m.

  • Rossv

    I've read countless of pages, viewed many documentaries, and listened to many viewpoints as to why we invaded Iraq and oil was not among the reasons...
    Here are the facts:
    The U.S. gets less oil today from Iraq than before 9/11
    The largest source of crude oil for the United States is the United States
    Iraq has never represented more than 4.5% of crude oil used in the United States
    The United States' dependence on foreign oil has increased, but the amount of oil from the Persian Gulf has decreased

    I don't know why we went to large scale hiring of private contractors and many people are uncomfortable with their military role... You might add the $600 million state of the art embassy we have in Iraq.

    We have never gotten our oil from Libya and I don't think we ever will.

    I hope you're wrong and I certainly hope we're making plans to get off foreign oil and fossil fuels altogether.

    I really think it fell into our lap , our battleships were already in the Mediterranean, we had nearby air bases, Gaddafi was disliked by his Arab neighbors, the Europeans were hell bent in helping the rebels,so it was an opportune time to help avoid a massacre. We have about $33 billion of Libyan money that will be used for their reconstruction, if and when they can overtake Gaddafi... Their oil will have to be used for them.. I think the coalition and the other Arab countries will not go along with a takeover of their oil fields.Besides, it's far from a done deal; the rebels suffered a defeat today.

    March 29, 2011 at 4:49 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    March 29, 2011 at 4:19 p.m.

  • "Humanitarian War," isn't that an oxymoron? It sounds like a recipe for a long protracted stalemate.

    March 29, 2011 at 2:26 p.m.

  • waywardwind

    I know you didn't mention Japan and I'm full aware that we didn't attack them but I was trying to make a point of being where we can set up a no- fly zone and still send troops halfway across the world to help with their need... It wasn't an apple to oranges. We're not getting beyond our military capability for humanitarian or military means.

    Why Lybia?, was a rhetorical question in which I've tried to explain the president's reasoning in his speech last night. I thought it was pretty subjective because I didn't side one way or the other. I also understand that unless I am totally against this action, I will be called a hypocrite because of my views of the Bush administration and the Iraq war. I will just have to live with that.I can separate Iraq from Lybia but I won't be able to if it becomes mission creep as I've stated before. I also stated that I was for the initial invasion of Afghanistan but general Petraeus and McCrystal said that the Bush administration ignored Afghanistan, as their reason for us being there today.... Is not an apples to oranges.... As you try to make me an unreasonable hypocrite; I believe I wrote a blog about my displeasure of sending 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. I am reading " Obama's War in" by Bob Woodward, so I can better understand the situation.

    Its it seems as though you want to be argumentative unless I am fully anti- Obama on this issue... Read the blog where I say that I'm not fully convinced that it was the right thing to do, but after 11 days, I'm still discovering things that I haven't fully comprehended. I'm willing to admit that I don't know the outcome or all the reasoning that went into it.

    Hillary Clinton meant that Egypt is fragile and an influx of refugees coming from Libya would disrupt the country even further; same for Tunisia. They have already overthrown their dictators and are trying to set up a government. The Arabs Spring is interconnected.
    I guess the difference is, I'm not trying to convince you it was the right thing to do because I'm not sure if it was.I'm also separating this war from Iraq or Afghanistan and I'm still listening to critics and supporters of this action.

    March 29, 2011 at 2:23 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    March 29, 2011 at 2:08 p.m.

  • I wasn't looking for a conspiracy. I was looking for a vital American interest that would take us into this kinetic military action, and I still haven't found one. All I was saying was that people are dying in countries other than Libya and we aren't doing anything about that. Are the people there somehow special and more deserving of our help than the people in Egypt? As you wrote, "Why Libya?" This is NOT our fight; NOT our responsibility. You've been bellyachin' about George Bush's war in Iraq and Afghanistan since day one but Libya is okay. I guess the answer to "Why Libya" is that Libya is Obama's tar baby and even HE can't blame Bush for the problems there, so it's okay for us to engage in kinetic military action.

    I completely support any help we can give to Japan in this time of their great need. However, that help does not include armed intervention in their country, sending cruise missiles and combat strike aircraft. It does not include enforcing a no fly zone over their country by force of arms. And, I never mentioned Japan.

    "The secretary defense did say it was not a vital interest but Secretary Clinton said just because they didn't attack us doesn't mean that we want instability in that region." Jeeze, did Clinton say how long it's been since there was stability in the region? It's been a long time.

    March 29, 2011 at 1:39 p.m.

  • waywardwind

    I didn't say we we couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time... This was primarily a naval and air force mission but we have sent out troops to Japan to help out with their need.

    I'm not a military expert but I think I know why we did not intervened in Syria or Yemen.... Syria would be a major undertaking and WAR would have to be declared by Congress because we could never get the support of the Arab League or the coalition we have. I'm sure we could get Israel but that would only start up a major war in several Arab countries. President Ali Saheh of Yemen said he would step down at the end of the year but he is been a major ally in our war against al Qaeda... He has allowed our special forces to kill suspected al Qaeda members; not so sure his replacement will allow us to do that indiscriminately.

    The secretary defense did say it was not a vital interest but Secretary Clinton said just because they didn't attack us doesn't mean that we want instability in that region. She went on to say "“The cries would be, ‘Why did the United States not do anything?’” said Clinton on ABC’s “This Week.” “How could you stand by when, you know, France and the United Kingdom and other Europeans and the Arab League and your Arab partners were saying, ‘you've got to do something?’

    " Could it be that we went there to take people's attention away from the problems of the US economy? lol..... Unemployed people would have to be awful dense to not know that they were still unemployed. Economic numbers will still be made available every day...i.e. I heard that we adde 200,000 jobs this week and that the economy is on an up tick despite te housing problem and lack of jobs...You are going to have come up with a better conspiracy..:-)

    March 29, 2011 at 1:14 p.m.

  • "Why Lybia?" Why indeed. I'm still looking for the reason we're there. BO says it was a humanitarian cause and if not for us, there would have been a lot of people killed. People are dying in Syria and Yemen. People died in Egypt and Tunisia. Those weren't vital American interests, but Lybia was? Why Lybia? The American Secretary of Defense says there was NO vital American interest in Lybia, but Obama eventually decided there was. I don't believe it for one minute. Is it about oil? No. Regardless of the outcome of this civil kenitic military action, Lybian oil will still be sold on the world market. They have nothing else to generate income. Regardless of the outcome, it will still by Lybians running the country. You've asked an important question, Mike. Why Lybia when there are so many other problems we need to address. Could it be that we went there to take people's attention away from the problems of the US economy?

    March 29, 2011 at 12:03 p.m.