Obama and Solyndra

[Kulaf]

Yes I wanted regime change in Iraq. I didn't care what happened to Saddam, that would have been up to the Iraqi people.....which it was in the end.

How is Iraq wrong......but pushing for regime change in Lybia right?

Our duty and our mandate under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Qaddafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qaddafi in power. The International Criminal Court is rightly investigating the crimes committed against civilians and the grievous violations of international law. It is unthinkable that someone who has tried to massacre his own people can play a part in their future government. The brave citizens of those towns that have held out against forces that have been mercilessly targeting them would face a fearful vengeance if the world accepted such an arrangement. It would be an unconscionable betrayal.

Furthermore, it would condemn Libya to being not only a pariah state, but a failed state too. Qaddafi has promised to carry out terrorist attacks against civilian ships and airliners. And because he has lost the consent of his people any deal that leaves him in power would lead to further chaos and lawlessness. We know from bitter experience what that would mean. Neither Europe, the region, or the world can afford a new safe haven for extremists

So if that means I am a sociopath.....well I guess I am in good company.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

I don't see how I tied myself in knots over Saddam.

He was a brutal dictator that needed to go, Clinton should've taken the shot back in the 90s.

[Kulaf]

Well Bush Sr. should have finished what he started. We basically left the Kurds and Shia high and dry.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Yes. Point is, should've been handled long before it was.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

If we were going to invade a country with a flimsy pretext we should've at least chosen Iran instead.

[Kulaf]

We're not talking about what Jimmy Carter should have done.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

Regan FTW /rez

[Ddrak]

Wow - nice derail.

Iraq and Libya are very different. Going in to support an already running revolution is a vastly different proposition to going in to force a revolution. I still don't see the value proposition for Iraq, especially given that the real outcome has been a shitload of money spent to create a new Iranian ally. The value proposition for Libya is marginal at best - the place is still likely to tear itself apart forming a government and you'll be left with the most brutal and best organized group as the de-facto leaders (ie probably a religious mob).

The US has no capacity to enact any sort of lasting positive change in Iran through direct force. It didn't really have it in Iraq, so imagining how it would work in a nation five times larger is a true exercise in delusional thinking, not to mention the cost.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

I dont think the US is really looking at lasting change in Iran. My understanding is the big concern is not letting Iran get a functional nuclear weapon, which would kick off a regional arms race, and destabilze the entire region, moreso than attacking Iran directly.

What is most liekly to happen is Israel will do the job for us, and we will be forced into defending Israel.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

There's no way the current administration would defend Israel at all.

[Ddrak]

Yeah, any US administration would defend Israel. The scope of the defense would depend a lot on what Israel apparently did and how badly they fucked up doing it. The bigger question would be what Europe and the surrounding Islamic states would do, and which way Saudi and its allies would jump.

Just as Iraq did, I wouldn't put it past Iran to be screwing with everyone.

Dd

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Let me reiterate.

This administration would never defend Israel.

[Lurker]

Yeah... because stating the obvious that Netanyahu is a huge part of the problem and that Israel needs to stop building settlements means Obama is just going to abandon Israel.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Because we should be the ones to dictate where Israel can build on their own land...

[Embar Angylwrath]

Fall... there's no way the US would abandon Israel. No way at all. The US needs Israel as a foil in that part of the world. And Obama would certainly support Israel, for no other reason than he needs the Jewish vote to get relected (he can't afford to lose any voting bloc at thispoint in his presidency). That said, even if he were a lock for a second term, he'd still commit defense assets because of long standing military assistance agreements that date back to 1952. The agreements don't rise to the level of a mutual defense treaty, but they're close enough, and are the functional equivalent.

[Ddrak]

Because we should be the ones to dictate where Israel can build on their own land...

If there's a humanitarian reason to do so then absolutely, just as telling Iraq not to push its Kurds out of their towns was fair game. Any nation that is dispossessing one section of its population to make way for a more privileged set deserves smacking around with a diplomatic baseball bat.

Dd

[Partha]

Dd, you're arguing with people who are the descendents of people who did just that (see American, Native) and think of it as not only a good thing, but their Manifest Destiny. You're never going to get them to admit that darker colored folks who are sitting on top of something they want deserve anything at all.

However, congratulations on again showing their pretzelicious positioning - it was okay to authorize military action against Saddam in the form of a no-fly zone because he was forcibly relocating people, but a half century of the same on Israel's part is ok because the Rapture and shut up, that's why.

[MeGusta]

because the Rapture and shut up, that's why.

That actually made me chuckle. Thanks, Partha.