On the Libyan Uprising

Obama is not a leader, he is a Chicago community organizer.  He is way in over his head.

We do not.  However, the last time we did not wait, the left demonized the action (Iraq).  Obama is no Bush in that respect.  He is a coward in dealing with international issues as has been demonstrated multiple times.

I doubt we will "act" again any time soon as the left loves to demonize war - no matter the reason for it.  If they had been in charge in 1941, we would be speaking german now.

I agree with you completely, Island Dog, that is exactly what he is, never should have been elected in the first place.

The U.S. Intervenes and we're criticized for manipulating foreign governments. Other foreign governments don't intervene and we're criticized for not getting the ball rolling. We act unilaterally and we're called arrogant and destabilizing. The world wants to have us act when there is a price to pay and also demands an on off switch so they have control on when and where we do. Now you know why Europe has had so many wars on it's continent over the centuries. Every nation wants an advantage but doesn't want any other nation to have one. We are fools to try to accommodate them. We should help when it's the right thing to do and ignore the peanut gallery when we do so. Unfortunately it takes conviction and principle an leadership to this and most American "leaders" now lack those qualities.

The U.N. is fiddling, you lying assholes.

The U.N. always fiddles and who's lying?

Funny, I could have sworn I heard Libyan people saying they did not want our help, Link. I guess we are only needed when they finally realize they can't do it without us. As much as I would love the idea of getting rid of that piece of garbage Qaddafi, sometimes I can't help but want to hold back on helping people who complain about us first them want our assistance afterwards.

Ah, typical liberal name-calling mentality. You must be a teacher or probably wanted to be one.

That's spectacular ignorance worthy of Glen Beck. Both our declared wars in the 20th century were the product of Democratic majorities in Congress and administered by Democratic presidents. In 1941, they were freakin' New Deal Democrats. Gah! Even our last big debacle of a misguided war was almost entirely the responsibility of Democratic leaders, although LBJ & friends managed to avoid busting the treasury, unlike Bush 43 & friends.

You're woefully ignorant if you assume that what passes for 'the left' in the U.S. is dominated by pacifists. First, we have no real left, just molly-coddlers who have yet to recover from the Regan era. Second, Jimmy Carter is the closest thing we've had to an 'anti-war' president (Obama's rhetoric is anti-war, but his policy is obviously closer to some neo-real-politik mutant thing). Clinton threw our military weight around just as freely as Reagan or Bush 41, he just tried for different spin because he wanted to keep the real anti-war folks deluded enough to keep supporting him.

Most Democrats vehemently opposed the draft, assistance of any kind to Europe and any sort of involvement just prior to WWII. Pearl Harbor forced a different response and the lone dissenting vote was a Democrat (who was also a member of the Pacifist movement at that time). The left are primarily zealous idealists but the problem is not their zeal but their absolute contempt an disdain of those who don't share their ideals--even if it's a majority of people in the country. Like Stalin's and Mao's communism, "We know what's best for you even if you won't agree and we have to force you.".

Some worthy considerations on this subject here.

What was Bush supposed to do, not go after the terrorists that want to kill us, not defend this country from a very real threat, and not retaliate when 9/11 was an act of war?

Most citizens vehemently opposed getting involved in "foreign wars" before Pearl Harbor, and before Pearl Harbor the GOP included many leading isolationists. For better or worse, it was Democratic leadership that broke the tradition of isolationism that held more or less from the founding to WW I.

The 'contempt for disagreement' thing is certainly no Democratic monopoly. Your Stalin/Mao line applies equally well to the attitude the Bush 43 administration took towards those of us who disagreed with the decision to invade Iraq. Because they refused to go the legal route and ask for a formal declaration of war, they used a lily-livered Congress to force that war on our uniformed services and taxpayers.

"We" does not equal the U.N.  What are they doing anyways, getting one of those strongly worded letters ready?

Wow, look at all the neocons!

The UN is fiddling because the UN can do nothing but fiddle. The UN was specifically designed to be ineffectual by the large powers of the WWII era, and was based on the idea that a US-EU-USSR-PRC alliance would remain in effect in perpetuity (which obviously didn't happen). I also find it ironic that the conservatives who so often scream about the UN doing nothing are also the ones who seem to be the most afraid of ever giving it any real power. You can't have it both ways.

I in theory support a no-fly zone over Libya, but pretty much every time the US sends the big men with big guns and little accountability in to do "something", it gets botched and they end up doing more harm than good. Qaddafi is a brute and the rebels need all the help they can get, but I simply don't trust the Air Force to properly "liberate" anything more complicated than a photo op.

Better re-read my post.  I said LEFT - not democrats.  So the ignorance is yours.

Again, so?  You are arguing a strawman.  But I will give you one bone.  The left then liked the war because their idol was attacked - Stalin.

Hmmm....Seems we had only a 200b deficit in 07 (before the democrats got control of the purse strings), and now we cannot even pay for the "mandated" spending.  In terms of % GDP, LBJ and Bush 43 are on equal terms.  Ignorance on your part again?

I guess I am not woefully ignorant.  I never used the term pacifists.  Cowards was the word I think I used (and that was in describing Obama, not necessarily the left).  Cowards are a better term as they want to fight - when there is no risk.  Like beating up helpless old ladies and such.

They seemed to have recovered very well with all the death threats against those they do not like (Walker, Palin, Bush, Cheney, etc.)

You confuse rhetoric with actions.  Obama and Carter are the same.  The difference is that no one attacked the US before Carter became president, so he did not have to maintain anything.  Obama did (Carter of course refused to defend America, but see comment about Obama above).

Nice spin, but no dice.  He threw bombs around - at empty training camps, Chinese Embassies and aspirin factories.  But yes, Clinton is no Obama or Carter.

Perhaps if you want to debate a comment, you should debate the comment, not the strawman you choose to create from the comment.  You are universally wrong and if you believe what you wrote, ignorant as well.

No, working on getting potassium"iodide" pills for the world.

Well, you could help give a good start if you'd define what you mean by "the left." Nearly all the rhetoric I hear and read from 'your side' these days assumes that all Democrats are 'on the left' at best, and more likely courting socialism or already in bed with Stalinism.

With people like Ben Nelson and Barack Obama in my party, I find that a very confusing rant theme because I actually believe in social democratic ideals such as public education, policing, health care, firefighter services, mass transit, and military assets under civilian authority. The leadership of my party pays more lip service than policy follow-through to those ideals, hence our nation's deplorable public health situation and decaying infrastructure.

This is why political parties suck; they lead to an us versus them mentality. When one party takes a position the other will oppose it as a matter of course. Benjamin Franklin was right.

Public education is not a 'social democratic ideal' - it was and is a 'representative republic' ideal.  Do you know anyone who is against policing, healthcare and fire departments?  Where we might disagree, honorably to be sure, is on how to finance and implement those components of civilized society.  While I'm also in favor of flush toilets, I don't think you should be required to pay for mine, though it is quite reasonable for us to share the cost of sewage treatment.

As an aside, I enjoy reading someone disdainfully dismiss arguments not made.  Good entertainment.

And, speaking of our 'deplorable public health situation'... link

Those are not mutually exclusive, and if you are talking in terms of the Tea Party-captured part of the dear old GOP, it is not an ideal but an evil, or at best an excessive drain on the public treasury.

Most certainly. A healthy democracy is nothing but the results of ongoing arguments such as this. As a Duchamp-loving new son of the Old South in the U.S., I deeply cherish having a toilet to call my own. The thing is, we depend on far more than commodious plumbing to enjoy our luxurious 'middle class' lifestyles.

Free market zealots refuse to admit that those boundaries are fundamentally a matter of ongoing debate in a healthy democratic polity. I don't know if you're a free market zealot, but I'm not an anti-market zealot. I don't expect to pay for your personal toilet, nor for anyone to pay for mine. But, I do expect whatever taxes I manage to pay to help provide for public toilets in many locations; they're good for private dignity and public health.

How about this info from Gen. Wesley Clark, a retired Army general and NATO’s former supreme allied commander in Europe

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gen-wesley-clark-has-rules-for-us-interventions-libya-doesnt-meet-them/2011/03/09/ABu5jrQ_story.html

 He summarizes

Given these rules, what is the wisest course of action in Libya? To me, it seems we have no clear basis for action. Whatever resources we dedicate for a no-fly zone would probably be too little, too late. We would once again be committing our military to force regime change in a Muslim land, even though we can’t quite bring ourselves to say it. So let’s recognize that the basic requirements for successful intervention simply don’t exist, at least not yet: We don’t have a clearly stated objective, legal authority, committed international support or adequate on-the-scene military capabilities, and Libya’s politics hardly foreshadow a clear outcome. We should have learned these lessons from our long history of intervention. We don’t need Libya to offer us a refresher course in past mistakes.

Even 'free market zealots' shit like the rest of us and recognize the benefits of communal solutions to certain problems.  The tension comes from the incremental, but relentless, push to define more and more activities and functions as 'problems' requiring communal/governmental 'solutions'.

What frustrates me is the simplistic notion, perpetuated ad nauseum by much of what passes for the press here, that the 'correct' position, on virtually any issue, is somewhere in the 'middle' between 'right' and 'left', a view that is completely devoid of consideration of principle.  Some of the more important things we tussle over in a representative republic are all or none propositions - you can't be 'slightly' pregnant; sometimes the 'opposing' views are quite incompatible and not subject to the kind of forced 'compromise' the press is so fond of.

At least Clark is consistent.  But you know what they say about a broken clock.

You make me wish I knew a three-part analog to the pot-kettle metaphor. Tall order, that. Worst sort of problem for a peace-loving citizen who values a civic-minded officer corps. Maybe not all that easy for conflict-loving citizens, either.

Aristotle. If a goverment does not work, then the people it rules will change it on its own.

In this case, the clock is not broken; rather some people cannot tell time.