Sunday, March 20, 2011

Ten Thoughts on Libya...

In no particular order:

1. The U.S. has 'permission' from the United Nations to bomb Libyan forces in the form of a single Resolution, so the Obamatards say this particular application of military force is good and just. George W. Bush had 17 United Nations Resolutions on his side, and yet, action in Iraq was wrong. Yet another example of Liberal hypocrisy; it's almost not even worth the effort to call attention to all the contradictions, anymore.

2. GWB was criticized for getting the U.S. involved in an Iraqi Civil War and a Afghan Civil War , and we, the Public, were assured that both would be 'quagmires' from which we would never be able to extricate ourselves, because we had no 'Exit Strategy'. Barack Obama has just embroiled the United States in the Libyan Civil War, with no clear objective other than 'separating' the two sides, and 'protecting civilians' (by dropping bombs in close proximity to them?) . To what end, no one seems to know. If this is the emergence of an 'Obama Doctrine', then it's pretty much consistent with all of his other policies, to date: when you finally do get around to taking action, talk it to death for as long as possible beforehand, make certain you can't clearly explain your objective, execute in half-assed fashion, make certain your fingerprints aren't all over it, and leave someone else in a position to take the heat (in this case, Britain and France), make sure you're out of the country so that you don't have to answer any questions from the Press or Congress.

So, here we are, engaged in 'combat operations' to 'prepare the battlefield' (a battlefield which will see no U.S. Ground Troops?) in order to 'prevent violence against civilians', and yet, there will be no commitment of soldiers -- that we know of -- to maintain what cannot be achieved by an air campaign alone, let alone one in which we're only involved 'on the front end', i.e. the preservation of peace, and the removal of Khaddaffi.

3. Obama crows that the Arab League has blessed this operation, yet as of this morning, no Arab League forces are involved (there was just a news report of Qattari forces 'moving into position', but no one is quite sure what this means). No one has explained just why the Arab League has given it's official Okie-Dokie to this thing, because it's not as if the Arab League has been known for, or has an interest in, supporting democratic movements within the Arab World, so I have to question their motives, too.

4. If I hear the phrases 'unique capabilities', 'front-end' and 'no American Ground Troops' or 'We did not lead this...' again, I shall tear my hair out. It seems no spokesperson for the Administration can talk about this thing without using words designed to calm the fears of pantybunched American Left Wingers, who get nervous every time you start a war because someone, somewhere, might be freed from totalitarian oppression. They'd rather let Libyans live under a dictatorship and remain squishily 'pacifist'...unless there's union violence somewhere, then that's okay.

5. One report has stated that Canada, Denmark, and Norway have each contributed six planes to this operation. How long do you think it'll be before some moron in the Taliban Wing of the GOP frames this as an occurrence of the number 6-6-6, and calls the faithful to hoard canned goods and ammo in the compound/church, prepare for the Rapture, and label Barack Obama the Antichrist?

6. Does anyone actually know who these rebels are, and what the fuck they want, other than no more Khaddaffi? Have we just aided a bunch of people who will form another Iranian-style theocracy or Taliban? I rather doubt they want constitutional democracy, pluralistic society.- and WiFi access. They are NOT fighting to make Libya safe for Starbuck's and Arby's.

7. Khadaffi needed to be whacked because he announced that he would 'show no mercy' towards his people, but when Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds, or hunted them in helicopters after Gulf War I, Libtards were deadly silent. This proves once again, that a Liberal abhors violence...unless they, or others of totalitarian mindset, get to inflict it. They believe their brand of violence is somehow always benevolent, and is always applied in an altruistic way.

8. Everyone agrees that Khadaffi must go, but President Odingbat keep saying 'no troops on the ground'. If you think you can get rid of him with an air campaign, guess again. Saddam Hussein hung on despite No-Fly Zones and Sanctions, Slobadan Milosevic, likewise, held out despite Clinton's bombing campaign. You cannot control events on the ground from the air. Ronald Reagan bombed Khaddaffi in 1982, and he's held on to the present day. Barack Obama couldn't even be a pimple of Reagan's Ass, on his best day.

9. Libtards like to crow that American force only leads to the creation of more terrorists, and now they've just used force against a regime that has actually used terrorism as a weapon against it's enemies. Good going. I live in New York, douchebags, and now we're on super-duper-hyper alert, even if no one in City Government (oxymoron) has asked us to be.

10. Last night on the idiot box, Geraldo Rivera was all worked up over Libyan WMD's, particularly Mustard Gas. I seem to remember Saddam Hussein having WMD's, including Mustard Gas -- just ask the Kurds -- and that fact never registered with liberals. Even when Iraqi WMD's were found, they pretended as if that was no big deal, and no justification-after-the-fact for GWB's military adventurism in Iraq.

Discuss...

1 comment:

onebc37 said...

I know that you "know" the NYTimes. Possibly, if given the opportunity, you might like to (figuratively) "know them"... in a biblically, ala Old Testament manner.

You and I have common ground... and I've mentioned your site to a few assholes that I'm glad to be in the company of.

I'm surprised that today, I got a comment posted on the Times... in, of all blogs (The Lede). It's minorly apropos to your current, and welcome rant:

"From the printed excerpt (i.e. Robert Mackeys' printing Obamas' future excuse and self-exoneration. Here follows the Presidents repetititious phrases, in a short speech):

“in support of an international effort”… “the United States is acting with a broad coalition”… “That coalition met in Paris today to send a unified message”… “the international community offered Muammar Qaddafi the opportunity”… “the writ of the international community must be enforced.”… “That is the cause of this coalition.”… “our international partners.”… “I’m also proud that we are acting as part of a coalition”… “uphold the mandate of the international community.”… “But make no mistake: Today we are part of a broad coalition.”

OK Mr. Obama. We won’t make that mistake. How could we possibly make that mistake? I think that we get it. You’re not acting alone. It’s not your decision, alone. If there’s hell to pay for all of this… you won’t be alone. The “coalition” will be to blame. Understood. We get it.

If this guy wasn’t already a lawyer, I’d say that he should be."

The above actually got posted.

Obviously a very slow day for the blog host.