So the "breaking news" banner over at Faux News says that NATO is going to take over.

That's great, we can wash our hands of the whole thing.

Wait a tic... We pretty much ARE NATO.



Who is being fooled by this?

[Edited on March 24, 2011 at 2:42 PM. Reason : *]

3/24/2011 2:40:59 PM

They've got to keep the Eastern Bloc at bay somehow or this might spread to West Germany.

3/24/2011 4:01:01 PM

There are 28 member nations in NATO, and given America's relative disdain for international organizations, methinks its contribution is disproportionately low: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/NATO

3/24/2011 4:29:44 PM

actually this is important news, because moving control from AFRICOM is something they wanted to do ASAP



[Edited on March 24, 2011 at 5:26 PM. Reason : so in conclusion, this is a retarded thread]

3/24/2011 5:26:21 PM

Quote :

"Who is being fooled by this?"

Not me, man. I got my tractor-beam deflecting helmet, weeks worth of canned food and enough ammunition to supply a Congolese militia.

3/25/2011 8:42:24 AM

Quote :

"There are 28 member nations in NATO, and given America's relative disdain for international organizations, methinks its contribution is disproportionately low: "

Nah dude. NATO is the one international organization we're all about. Even hardcore, UN-hating conservatives don't get too up in arms about it, because we built it to fight commies and it pretty much puts us in command of the Europeans.

I'm sure we'll still be involved after NATO takes over, but to a lesser extent -- not so much because their entry shifts the burden, but because of all the heat Obama's taking over this.

[Edited on March 25, 2011 at 11:26 AM. Reason : ]

3/25/2011 11:25:03 AM

This is interesting and worth watching. (just 3.5 minutes)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn__tMbhQHU

What do the econ experts of TSB say?

5/8/2011 5:52:55 AM

^^^AHAHAHA

5/8/2011 12:56:24 PM

Quote :

"South African President Jacob Zuma met Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi for truce talks on Monday as NATO said the strongman's "reign of terror" was nearing its end and top military officers deserted him."

[Edited on May 30, 2011 at 5:29 PM. Reason : .]

5/30/2011 5:29:06 PM

Strange how the Obama administration is unwilling to talk about the legality of military actions taken in Libya. The War Powers act no longer applies - we're beyond the 60 day mark. So at this point, is it pretty much understood that the President does whatever the fuck he wants, and Congress has no say in it?

5/30/2011 7:14:05 PM

NATO is not the United States.

5/30/2011 7:32:08 PM

Are any U.S. military resources being used? If so, who paid for those resources, and what is the elected representative body that is given "the power of the purse" in this country?

[Edited on May 30, 2011 at 7:46 PM. Reason : ]

5/30/2011 7:41:00 PM

^^we are NATO, and a NATO ruling does not supercede our own constitution.

I suppose if NATO wants us to bomb our own nuclear plants we would have to do that too. haha

5/30/2011 7:54:52 PM

Quote :

"we are NATO, and a NATO ruling does not supercede our own constitution. I suppose if NATO wants us to bomb our own nuclear plants we would have to do that too. haha"

I'm sorry, but our own constitution doesn't really exist anymore. We don't have freedom of speech, we don't have freedom of press, we don't have the right to bear arms. The US constitution is hanging by a shoestring. The United States is not a free country.

That said, NATO is not under any constitution. Perhaps 1/28th is under it at most. But that 1/28th can be further diminished by this country's inability to read and interpret the simple words of the constitution.

[Edited on May 30, 2011 at 9:48 PM. Reason : .]

5/30/2011 9:43:29 PM

Quote :

"Goldman Sachs invested more than $1.3 billion from Libya's sovereign-wealth fund in currency bets and other trades in 2008 and the investment lost more than 98 percent of its value, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing internal Goldman documents."

5/31/2011 3:53:11 AM

Quote :

"I'm sorry, but our own constitution doesn't really exist anymore. We don't have freedom of speech, we don't have freedom of press, we don't have the right to bear arms. The US constitution is hanging by a shoestring. The United States is not a free country."

So we should just give up the fight, then? Why even bother holding up the law of the land, we'll just cede our sovereignty to some international body.

5/31/2011 12:10:26 PM

Pentagon sees Libya military costs soar

Quote :

"US military operations in Libya are on course to cost hundreds of millions of dollars more than the Pentagon estimated, according to figures obtained by the Financial Times. Robert Gates, the outgoing secretary of defence, said last month that the Pentagon expected to spend “somewhere in the ball park of $750m” in the 2011 fiscal year as part of efforts to protect the Libyan people. But according to a Pentagon memo which includes a detailed update on the progress and pace of operations, by mid-May US operations in Libya had cost $664m, a figure confirmed by the Department of Defence."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/11d5624c-920f-11e0-b8c1-00144feab49a.html#axzz1OnupljeN

You can label this as a "NATO operation" all you want, but we're spending U.S. dollars there, and it's a lot more than was projected. When you're talking about government spending, when is that not the case?

[Edited on June 9, 2011 at 2:17 PM. Reason : ]

6/9/2011 2:16:57 PM

I too have to stop reading the Drudge report for fear of something getting worse... And who has the solution to the problem?

No one.



Good; Great; Grand; Wonderful.

6/9/2011 4:46:54 PM

Quote :

"You can label this as a "NATO operation" all you want, but we're spending U.S. dollars there"

You cannot possibly be telling me that NATO partners spend money on NATO operations.

6/10/2011 9:22:08 AM

It's money spent by the U.S. government, therefore Congress has a say in how the money is spent. I know you want a military dictator; we all know this, you've told us. Most of the people here believe in attempting to maintain some semblance of a republican form of government, though. If a war is worth fighting, then Congress should be on board, period.

6/10/2011 11:41:46 AM

But Libya has Demolition trucks from RA2. And they might spawn rush us with them.

6/10/2011 12:47:52 PM

Quote :

"it has been absolutely hilarious watching a White House full of children of the 1960's retroactively justifying Nixon’s Christmas bombings of Cambodia. It’s not a war, they claim, as long as our soldiers are safe and we are mostly just killing citizens of other nations from the air. Of course, by this definition, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was not an act of war. There are many reasons to put separation-of-powers-type scrutiny on war-making that go beyond just the risk to American lives. In particular, killing people from other countries can radically change our relationship with other nations. I find it ironic that that White House has deliberately put blinders on and declared that the only reason to get Congressional approval is if US soldiers are at risk, since it was Obama who lectured the nation on the campaign trail about how damaging to our world image he felt Bush’s wars to be."

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2011/07/on-war.html

7/1/2011 11:58:11 AM

It's your opinion, then, that the action in Libya has diminished our world image, and that that is truly the most important consideration?

Quote :

"I find it ironic that that White House has deliberately put blinders on and declared that the only reason to get Congressional approval is if US soldiers are at risk, since it was Obama who lectured the nation on the campaign trail about how damaging to our world image he felt Bush’s wars to be."

This, I think, is a conflation of the two arguments. Obama's campaign positions on Iraq were in reference to what he thought US foreign policy ought to be. His position with respect to US troops in Libya is in reference to what he feels he is legally obligated to do by the War Powers Act.

[Edited on July 2, 2011 at 12:37 PM. Reason : ]

7/2/2011 12:30:56 PM

good night, sweet prince...

7/2/2011 12:56:17 PM

Quote :

"Of course, by this definition, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was not an act of war."

Technically, the Americans at Pearl Harbor returned fire and the Japanese lost 64 men...so that fits into an act of war for Obama

Unless we get into conspiracy-level stuff about how many drones and helicopters we've lost over there that we're not talking about

7/2/2011 1:17:38 PM

MEANWHILE

[Edited on August 21, 2011 at 6:32 PM. Reason : +]

8/21/2011 6:23:37 PM

now what do we do when the country falls into chaos amongst the power vacuum?

8/21/2011 7:57:32 PM

The same thing we do every night, Pinky.

8/21/2011 8:34:59 PM

^oh, nationbuilding/policing

8/21/2011 8:42:09 PM

power vacuum? you realize the National Transitional Council was organized back in Feb to serve as the political body representing the rebel forces, yes?

AND that countries around the world have already recognized its legitimacy? Just today, neighboring Tunisia recognized after months of being neutral.
http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=64005&Cat=1

I'm sure everyone is wondering how the NTC will translate into a governing body after Gaddafi is totally gone. But that is a far cry from saying there is a "power vacuum".

Honestly, I'm not sure where everyone is getting the idea that NATO is going to carry out an Iraq-style occupation of a chaotic Libya. They are ALREADY in the process of forming their own government and have been for months.

[Edited on August 21, 2011 at 9:00 PM. Reason : ``]

8/21/2011 8:50:03 PM

This is a very rich, very tribal, sect-oriented country. These rebels have been unified against a common enemy and it would be very optimistic to think they will lay down arms and sing coom bah yah happily ever after he is gone.

There is tons of money and power to be had. The group in benghazi is not really aquanted with the groups that a lot of the fighters have come from. A lot of the fighters are thugs who will have their hands out once this is over. A lot of extremist militants among the fighters as well. There is likely to be another civil war.

Sure theres a would-be government but one city won't have complete legitamicy after the dust settles. They don't have political parties that could represent all the different groups. There will also be tons of gadhafi supporters who will integrate into the public and look to keep what they have.

8/21/2011 9:07:58 PM

^ I agree with some of that. But power vacuum is possibly the LEAST accurate way to describe these transitional issues and leads to misinterpretations of how NATO will be involved. For example , Unlike what u said earlier, no nation building wl go on here.

[Edited on August 21, 2011 at 9:18 PM. Reason : '']

8/21/2011 9:17:31 PM

not at this point but what happens if violent civil war breaks out? Do we just sit back?

8/21/2011 9:27:40 PM

Maybe I'm just naive but when ppl take over a nation saying they're going to implement democracy, take over the capital, and take over the streets partying, I think there's a lot of room for optimism.

The biggest threat in that environment are the people who are used to power, like what we've seen in Egypt. The "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" thing.

Ultimately I think that the leaders in the rebellion are the most critical figures. I imagine they'll be heroes, and with that comes political leverage.

I hate to say it, but international involvement clearly accomplishes the greater good in this case. The more open they are to the rest of the world and the more the rest of the world is willing to lend a hand, the better chances they have for a government for the people.

8/21/2011 11:53:58 PM

Why would you hate to say that?

8/22/2011 9:05:38 AM

because of Iraq

8/22/2011 9:12:14 AM

What do you mean? What is your position on Iraq? What was your position on Iraq prior to March 2003 (if you had one)?

[Edited on August 22, 2011 at 9:27 AM. Reason : ]

8/22/2011 9:25:50 AM

To begin with, the argument the simple fiscal argument against military involvement in foreign conflict is valid. Plain and simple, domestic concerns will ultimately take presidence.

We do not lack examples of productive international involvement, like Bosnia, and maybe Libya if history has a happy ending to this story. But the risk of sustained involvement at great cost has shown to be significant from many post-WWII examples. We haven't figured out the right point to cut losses and leave.

If the world really is getting better, then it would be nice to see us as moving toward a more compassionate age. World governance will have to exist at some point, with an ideological litmus test of "are you shooting your citizens" and "do your citizens have free speech". The reason this point matters is because a US-centric approach is unsustainable. International involvement in conflicts like the Libyan civil war commits every nation on Earth to ultimately be able to take sides based on the aforementioned value judgements. There is such a thing as shared human values, and it's not unthinkable that self-organization occurs around these principles in the future. That's what has to happen.

But right now everything is still US led by default. What we have is an uncomfortable hold-over and evolution of the Bush Doctrine. Our past 2-3 engagements may have had ultimately positive results but they were conducted in a patently unsustainable way. The proposition that involvement now is justified, productive, and sustainable might actually be right. But anyone who does not find comfort with the idea simply hasn't been paying attention.

[Edited on August 22, 2011 at 10:00 AM. Reason : ]

8/22/2011 10:00:04 AM

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2011/08/30/prism.libya.africans.cnn?hpt=hp_c2
racist rebels

8/30/2011 8:33:39 PM

Overall mrfrog has a good post. The only thing I'd seriously quibble with is:

Quote :

"But right now everything is still US led by default."

In the Libyan context, this hasn't been the case. US leadership was a given in Afghanistan -- we were the ones al Qaeda attacked, AQ was based in Afghanistan, it made sense. In Iraq, it's possible that a more multilateral leadership was possible, but a variety of factors (our particular interest and experience with that country, to say nothing of our force projection capability) made us the logical choice.

Libya has been another animal entirely. It wasn't "our fight," and Obama wisely shied away from making it ours. It didn't require a great deal of force projection capability -- France, Italy, and much of the rest of NATO could participate in the air war without need of carriers or foreign bases. We haven't taken the lead, and -- at the risk of a little national egoism -- I'm pleased to see that things can work out well without us running the show.

Quote :

"There is such a thing as shared human values, and it's not unthinkable that self-organization occurs around these principles in the future. That's what has to happen."

As an academic concern, I agree wholeheartedly. As a practical concern, not so much. There's well over a billion Chinamen that don't have free speech and who are shot by their government with a little more gusto than most people would like. And they've got a UN veto and the Bomb, no less.

For the foreseeable future, I suspect that a Western (rather than solely US) centered view is going to be at the core of such actions, with other nations brought in by various concerns that are bound to be more mercenary than principled.

8/30/2011 10:41:54 PM

http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/libya-aug-31-2011-2029

9/1/2011 10:23:39 AM

Quote :

"World governance will have to exist at some point, with an ideological litmus test of "are you shooting your citizens" and "do your citizens have free speech"."

If there is ever "world governance", the answer to those questions will be "Yes" and "No," respectively. No organization or group should ever be able to wield that kind of power.

9/1/2011 1:43:22 PM

Why not? What is the maximum amount of land surface that an organization should be allowed to govern over? Is it conveniently the size of the largest US State?

9/1/2011 1:47:01 PM

Ideally, people govern themselves. If they are unable to do so, communities should govern. Each stage above that decreases the effectiveness of government and increases the burden on the people.

Values are subjective. That's why government isn't one size fits all. Obviously, the people driving American foreign policy believe that government is one size fits all - we attempt to force our values on other people, whether they want it or not.

9/1/2011 1:53:42 PM

I'm not convinced that values are subjective, but I'm not saying that American values are even close to ideal.

[Edited on September 1, 2011 at 1:58 PM. Reason : .]

9/1/2011 1:57:48 PM

The entire concept of "people govern themselves" goes against basically everything humans are about, including basic biology. For the first 2 years of our lives, death is guaranteed without constant "governance" by another human. For the first 5 years death is almost guaranteed. And without the support of a stable social structure that provides education and basic human needs from birth to adolescence, chances of survival are slim to none. No one human, family group, or community (whatever that means) can provide everything a person needs to make it in today's world. What you're suggesting has been obsolete since the day apes started walking on two legs.

[Edited on September 1, 2011 at 2:08 PM. Reason : :]

9/1/2011 2:07:10 PM

It doesn't look like you understood my statement.

Ideally, individuals govern themselves. You're probably familiar with The Federalist #51, where James Madison says the following:

Quote :

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

Of course, in reality, men are not angels - that is to say, they are not infallible. People do make mistakes, and people do need help from others at times. In many instances, individuals have to be forced to stop behavior that harms others.

In cases where it is reasonably possible, individuals should be left to make life decisions without outside initiation of force. That doesn't mean that we should neglect the role of family, relationships, or community. Those make up the fabric of any society.

[Edited on September 1, 2011 at 2:19 PM. Reason : ]

9/1/2011 2:15:12 PM

Quote :

"The entire concept of "people govern themselves" goes against basically everything humans are about, including basic biology. For the first 2 years of our lives, death is guaranteed without constant "governance" by another human. For the first 5 years death is almost guaranteed. And without the support of a stable social structure that provides education and basic human needs from birth to adolescence, chances of survival are slim to none. No one human, family group, or community (whatever that means) can provide everything a person needs to make it in today's world. What you're suggesting has been obsolete since the day apes started walking on two legs."

I fail to understand how you can compare the rearing of a child by parents as a valid comparison to the governance of a society.

9/1/2011 2:49:02 PM

^it's not a far leap for him. He thinks the people should have to depend on big government the way a toddler depends on its parents.

9/1/2011 2:56:19 PM

Quote :

"We do not lack examples of productive international involvement, like Bosnia, and maybe Libya "

Don't compare this neocon shit to bosnia. There was never a genocide taking place. This is essentially us taking state sponsored terrorism to a new level and working aside the terrorists to overthrow an albeit bad, but legitimate government. Just because a government is "bad" does not mean we can just roll in and replace it.

9/2/2011 5:10:37 AM