Thomas Lindaman writes:
With Libyan leader Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi in hiding, it appears America...I'm sorry, NATO, may have scored a victory in Libya. Yet, I can't help but feel something's not quite right with the celebrations going on in Obamaville right now. Some would chalk it up to right wing disappointment at the victory, but they'd be wrong.
Back in 1979, then-President Jimmy Carter achieved a victory over the Shah of Iran. For those who don't remember or never learned, the Shah was an Islamic leader who was by most standards more moderate than his counterparts. However, Carter undertook the overthrow of the Shah, which opened the door for the Ayatollah Khomeini, an Islamic leader who was more radical. This, in turn, caused American-Iranian relations to deteriorate, leading to the Iran Hostage Crisis that ultimately doomed Carter to being a one-term President.
Call it deja vu, but I get a feeling President Obama has repeated the Carter mistake by siding with the rebels in Libya. You may not get it from the mainstream press, but the rebels are more radical than Qaddafi was. Whether this leads to another hostage crisis, time will tell. However, it cannot be ignored that again a Democrat President sided with a more radical group of Muslims than advisable. If America "wins" anything in this venture, it may be more contempt from the radical Muslim community worldwide for letting us do their dirty work for them.
There is one additional thing to consider, one that might make the Left put down their champagne glasses for a minute.
With the fall of Jimmy Carter came the rise of Ronald Reagan.
And that's one bit of history the Left doesn't want to repeat.
Yes, we know, Republicans: You hope America gets attacked if it means you can win an election. Party before country. We get it.
First, Carter did NOT undertake the overthrow of the Shah.
The worst Carter ever did was remind the Shah to exercise human rights, due to the fact Iran's secret police had thousands of prisoners due to suppression of political dissent.
Don't forget, it was Carter's reluctant allowance of the Shah into the US (due to the Shah's sickness) that was a major reason for the hostages being taken.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/carter-hostage-crisis/
Carter had nothing to do with the overthrow of the Shah. It was inevitable at that point.
As for Libya:
Well! Here's something you don't see every day:
Unless Obama is president, of course.
So, the Republicans LIKE Quaddafi, and wants his regime to endure. Okay, I got it now.
"Obama was totally not responsible for the victory in Libya! But if it fails down the road, it's his fault!"
This is what happens when you put someone competent in charge, fire breathers who hate government and then proceed to work in government generally don't do well when in office.
Republicans like Lindaman can't stand the fact that a Democrat mobilized the armed forces for something justified (as Democrats are wont to do).
Civilians were suffering. But who cares, right? Why help in the smallest way possible for the maximum result? Screw them. Not our friends. Self-determination of a country's people is only okay if they pick the governance we agree with?
Certain people need to educate themselves about NATO and how it works. We come to the aid of our allies so that, if we need aid, they will come to ours. You know...I got your back, you got mine. That's the point of the treaty. And we are Constitutionally obligated to honor that treaty. But no, let's ignore the treaties we have signed because they are inconvenient to us at the moment.
Libya is the kind of shit we SHOULD be involved in - where the people ask for our help against a tyrant so they can install democracy. We've spent decades crowing about democracy, then propping up assholes, dicking around, and generally being hypocrites. Now we have the chance to live up to our word - to have the Democratic, Western world help these people establish a more free society for themselves. I'm for it.
Rebels had already taken the Eastern part of the country, and the leaders had already been overthrown in Egypt and Tunisia. There was no good play in backing Quaddafi.
By the way, here's what Mustafa Abdel Jalil, President of the Libyan rebel council, had to say at a press conference a few hours back:
"We are on the threshold of a new era ... of a new stage that we will work to establish the principles that this revolution was based on. Which are: freedom, democracy, justice, equality and transparency. Within a moderate Islamic framework.
"A nation in which all citizens are equal ... and which can include all factors and factions of society. From the east of Libya to the west. From the North to the south and the centre. We are all Libyans. We all have the right to live with dignity in this nation. We appreciate the cities that have been delayed in joining the revolution as a result of the siege.
"[...] We aim for a country where all people are equal, regardless of race or colour. And a country in which minorities have rights. And can practice their culture and their way of life. And take on their responsibilties. We would like to comfort all countries on the safety of their citizens and their interests in Libya.
"We would like to confirm to the international community that New Libya will take care to establish strong relations on the basis of mutual benefits and mutual respect and will work hard to become an effective member of the international community. And to uphold the international law and human rights. And to establish rule of law and to contribute effectively to international peace and security. And will take care and appreciate the nations that support this revolution. And which stood by the revolution since its birth until its end.
"These countries will have a special form of relations and Libya will have good and friendly relations with everyone.
"May peace be with you."
Now I realize it may just be rhetoric, but if that pans out, coupled with their oil money, I forsee a lot of prosperity in that nation soon. Maybe they'll be more friendly after this sorts itself out. Or, maybe not. Are you really so selfish that you'd only have gotten involved In WWII's European theater if the interests of Americans were at stake, regardless of what the Germans were doing? Maybe one should do the right thing simply because it's the right thing.
The problem that Conservatives have with this war is that it's too perfect. It's basically the Democratization blueprint they would want from a stable revolution. Power is and has always been invested in the elites of the county. There is a willingness to compromise certain local tensions for the common good. And there are outside powers directly invested in the future of the country. Sure, it's not going to be all roses and honey, but show me a revolution that was.
The Republicans in the House have had several months to make an official proclamation that they're against the war. Why haven't they done that? They secretly support the war but can't be seen agreeing with Obama on ANYTHING.
We wanted a President that could win wars. We got one. Bush is still 0-2.
It's the Republican way to start fights. Its the Democrats' way to finish them. President Obama and NATO have gotten more done there in mere months than our friends on the Right accomplished in Iraq and Afghanistan combined (unless you consider spending money an accomplishment).
Here's the Republican timeline on their treatment of Obama regarding Libya:
Attack him for not rushing in to the engagement.
Attack him for entering the engagement.
Attack him for doing too much.
Attack him for letting other NATO allies take over.
Attack him for doing so without congressional approval while blocking votes for congressional approval.
Attack him for spending money to do something you advocated.
Vote to approve spending.
After winning, attack him for not winning sooner.
After winning, hoping the United States gets attacked by Libyan's new government.
Conservatives are already praying that the Libyan people will continue to suffer just so Obama looks bad. I have a message to the Republicans/Libertarians/Independents from the American servicemen and women who risked their lives flying sorties and dropping supplies to the rebels, spent months away from their families working on aircraft carriers and bases supporting the operation, and special forces who went into enemy territory and helped train the rebels: Fuck you and your dead grandparents up the ass.
Whatever the outcome in Libya, it is what the population wanted and asked for help. It wasn't a question of intervening or not intervening. The Western world has sustained this dictator for decades by buying this oil, selling him arms and stashing his money for him. We bear responsibility for him being in power so long.
Taking part in a NATO led operation to assist a popular uprising against a dictator is not the same as the Iraq invasion or Afghanistan. Democrats opposed the Iraq war because it was a unilateral action based upon faulty intelligence, with no plan for fixing what we broke.
After the war in Iraq, a power vacuum was created in Iraq for years that spawned violence, which has only recently shown signs of stabilizing. In Libya, there is already a transitional council in place BEFORE Quaddafi has been killed/captured. HUGE difference between the two situations.
Instability in Libya (creating a refugee crisis in Egypt) threatens not only European (and to a lesser extent American) access to energy, but the Suez Canal and thus global trade.
Libya was handled in the most cost effective and diplomatic way possible. It is very interesting to look at the contrast between the way we handled Iraq/Afghanistan and the way we handled Libya. At least Obama did it with a level of competence. We just have to see what the new Libyan government does in terms of foreign policy. Hopefully, they will realize that we didn't shit all over their country, and might trust us a bit more.
Quaddafi falls and the other tyrants will fall too. Right wing religious authoritarianism cannot survive as society advances.
No ground troops. No American casualties. That's how it's done, people.
Vote Democrat, because it's been made very clear that the Republican party has no trouble killing our own troops, but lots of trouble defeating the enemy effectively.
Meanwhile, Republicans enable terrorists.
With Libyan leader Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi in hiding, it appears America...I'm sorry, NATO, may have scored a victory in Libya. Yet, I can't help but feel something's not quite right with the celebrations going on in Obamaville right now. Some would chalk it up to right wing disappointment at the victory, but they'd be wrong.
Back in 1979, then-President Jimmy Carter achieved a victory over the Shah of Iran. For those who don't remember or never learned, the Shah was an Islamic leader who was by most standards more moderate than his counterparts. However, Carter undertook the overthrow of the Shah, which opened the door for the Ayatollah Khomeini, an Islamic leader who was more radical. This, in turn, caused American-Iranian relations to deteriorate, leading to the Iran Hostage Crisis that ultimately doomed Carter to being a one-term President.
Call it deja vu, but I get a feeling President Obama has repeated the Carter mistake by siding with the rebels in Libya. You may not get it from the mainstream press, but the rebels are more radical than Qaddafi was. Whether this leads to another hostage crisis, time will tell. However, it cannot be ignored that again a Democrat President sided with a more radical group of Muslims than advisable. If America "wins" anything in this venture, it may be more contempt from the radical Muslim community worldwide for letting us do their dirty work for them.
There is one additional thing to consider, one that might make the Left put down their champagne glasses for a minute.
With the fall of Jimmy Carter came the rise of Ronald Reagan.
And that's one bit of history the Left doesn't want to repeat.
Yes, we know, Republicans: You hope America gets attacked if it means you can win an election. Party before country. We get it.
First, Carter did NOT undertake the overthrow of the Shah.
The worst Carter ever did was remind the Shah to exercise human rights, due to the fact Iran's secret police had thousands of prisoners due to suppression of political dissent.
Don't forget, it was Carter's reluctant allowance of the Shah into the US (due to the Shah's sickness) that was a major reason for the hostages being taken.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/carter-hostage-crisis/
Carter had nothing to do with the overthrow of the Shah. It was inevitable at that point.
As for Libya:
Well! Here's something you don't see every day:
Unless Obama is president, of course.
So, the Republicans LIKE Quaddafi, and wants his regime to endure. Okay, I got it now.
"Obama was totally not responsible for the victory in Libya! But if it fails down the road, it's his fault!"
This is what happens when you put someone competent in charge, fire breathers who hate government and then proceed to work in government generally don't do well when in office.
Republicans like Lindaman can't stand the fact that a Democrat mobilized the armed forces for something justified (as Democrats are wont to do).
Civilians were suffering. But who cares, right? Why help in the smallest way possible for the maximum result? Screw them. Not our friends. Self-determination of a country's people is only okay if they pick the governance we agree with?
Certain people need to educate themselves about NATO and how it works. We come to the aid of our allies so that, if we need aid, they will come to ours. You know...I got your back, you got mine. That's the point of the treaty. And we are Constitutionally obligated to honor that treaty. But no, let's ignore the treaties we have signed because they are inconvenient to us at the moment.
Libya is the kind of shit we SHOULD be involved in - where the people ask for our help against a tyrant so they can install democracy. We've spent decades crowing about democracy, then propping up assholes, dicking around, and generally being hypocrites. Now we have the chance to live up to our word - to have the Democratic, Western world help these people establish a more free society for themselves. I'm for it.
Rebels had already taken the Eastern part of the country, and the leaders had already been overthrown in Egypt and Tunisia. There was no good play in backing Quaddafi.
By the way, here's what Mustafa Abdel Jalil, President of the Libyan rebel council, had to say at a press conference a few hours back:
"We are on the threshold of a new era ... of a new stage that we will work to establish the principles that this revolution was based on. Which are: freedom, democracy, justice, equality and transparency. Within a moderate Islamic framework.
"A nation in which all citizens are equal ... and which can include all factors and factions of society. From the east of Libya to the west. From the North to the south and the centre. We are all Libyans. We all have the right to live with dignity in this nation. We appreciate the cities that have been delayed in joining the revolution as a result of the siege.
"[...] We aim for a country where all people are equal, regardless of race or colour. And a country in which minorities have rights. And can practice their culture and their way of life. And take on their responsibilties. We would like to comfort all countries on the safety of their citizens and their interests in Libya.
"We would like to confirm to the international community that New Libya will take care to establish strong relations on the basis of mutual benefits and mutual respect and will work hard to become an effective member of the international community. And to uphold the international law and human rights. And to establish rule of law and to contribute effectively to international peace and security. And will take care and appreciate the nations that support this revolution. And which stood by the revolution since its birth until its end.
"These countries will have a special form of relations and Libya will have good and friendly relations with everyone.
"May peace be with you."
Now I realize it may just be rhetoric, but if that pans out, coupled with their oil money, I forsee a lot of prosperity in that nation soon. Maybe they'll be more friendly after this sorts itself out. Or, maybe not. Are you really so selfish that you'd only have gotten involved In WWII's European theater if the interests of Americans were at stake, regardless of what the Germans were doing? Maybe one should do the right thing simply because it's the right thing.
The problem that Conservatives have with this war is that it's too perfect. It's basically the Democratization blueprint they would want from a stable revolution. Power is and has always been invested in the elites of the county. There is a willingness to compromise certain local tensions for the common good. And there are outside powers directly invested in the future of the country. Sure, it's not going to be all roses and honey, but show me a revolution that was.
The Republicans in the House have had several months to make an official proclamation that they're against the war. Why haven't they done that? They secretly support the war but can't be seen agreeing with Obama on ANYTHING.
We wanted a President that could win wars. We got one. Bush is still 0-2.
It's the Republican way to start fights. Its the Democrats' way to finish them. President Obama and NATO have gotten more done there in mere months than our friends on the Right accomplished in Iraq and Afghanistan combined (unless you consider spending money an accomplishment).
Here's the Republican timeline on their treatment of Obama regarding Libya:
Attack him for not rushing in to the engagement.
Attack him for entering the engagement.
Attack him for doing too much.
Attack him for letting other NATO allies take over.
Attack him for doing so without congressional approval while blocking votes for congressional approval.
Attack him for spending money to do something you advocated.
Vote to approve spending.
After winning, attack him for not winning sooner.
After winning, hoping the United States gets attacked by Libyan's new government.
Conservatives are already praying that the Libyan people will continue to suffer just so Obama looks bad. I have a message to the Republicans/Libertarians/Independents from the American servicemen and women who risked their lives flying sorties and dropping supplies to the rebels, spent months away from their families working on aircraft carriers and bases supporting the operation, and special forces who went into enemy territory and helped train the rebels: Fuck you and your dead grandparents up the ass.
Whatever the outcome in Libya, it is what the population wanted and asked for help. It wasn't a question of intervening or not intervening. The Western world has sustained this dictator for decades by buying this oil, selling him arms and stashing his money for him. We bear responsibility for him being in power so long.
Taking part in a NATO led operation to assist a popular uprising against a dictator is not the same as the Iraq invasion or Afghanistan. Democrats opposed the Iraq war because it was a unilateral action based upon faulty intelligence, with no plan for fixing what we broke.
After the war in Iraq, a power vacuum was created in Iraq for years that spawned violence, which has only recently shown signs of stabilizing. In Libya, there is already a transitional council in place BEFORE Quaddafi has been killed/captured. HUGE difference between the two situations.
Instability in Libya (creating a refugee crisis in Egypt) threatens not only European (and to a lesser extent American) access to energy, but the Suez Canal and thus global trade.
Libya was handled in the most cost effective and diplomatic way possible. It is very interesting to look at the contrast between the way we handled Iraq/Afghanistan and the way we handled Libya. At least Obama did it with a level of competence. We just have to see what the new Libyan government does in terms of foreign policy. Hopefully, they will realize that we didn't shit all over their country, and might trust us a bit more.
Quaddafi falls and the other tyrants will fall too. Right wing religious authoritarianism cannot survive as society advances.
No ground troops. No American casualties. That's how it's done, people.
Vote Democrat, because it's been made very clear that the Republican party has no trouble killing our own troops, but lots of trouble defeating the enemy effectively.
Meanwhile, Republicans enable terrorists.