Libyan Civil War Megathread

[Razgovory]

Looks like the House didn't pass a bill supporting the Libyan adventure.  Almost all republicans were against it, Democrats were split with a slight majority favoring it.  I wonder if he GOP would have supported it if the President was one of theirs.  I remember them going on about a "Muscular Presidency" not so long ago.  Oh well, I think they were right to do it even if they did it for the wrong reasons.

[derspiess]

Looks like the House didn't pass a bill supporting the Libyan adventure.  Almost all republicans were against it, Democrats were split with a slight majority favoring it.  I wonder if he GOP would have supported it if the President was one of theirs.  I remember them going on about a "Muscular Presidency" not so long ago.  Oh well, I think they were right to do it even if they did it for the wrong reasons.

Pretty much agree.  There is some hypocrisy on the GOP side.  I opposed the Libyan thing from the beginning, but I'm a little dubious on the constitutionality of the WPA so I wouldn't have used that as my argument.

[Jacob]

So what does this mean?

[Caliga]

I can't wait for Money to show up and tell spiess he opposed the Libyan intervention because he hates TEH BLACKS.

[alfred russel]

Looks like the House didn't pass a bill supporting the Libyan adventure.  Almost all republicans were against it, Democrats were split with a slight majority favoring it.  I wonder if he GOP would have supported it if the President was one of theirs.  I remember them going on about a "Muscular Presidency" not so long ago.  Oh well, I think they were right to do it even if they did it for the wrong reasons.

As opposed to the adventure as I am, this is stupid. The most humane and sensible thing to do at this point is actually commit to getting rid of Qaddafi and ending this. I can't imagine we would let him win the civil war and stay in power at this point.

[alfred russel]

So what does this mean?

Probably nothing. The lawyers here would know a lot better than me, but I don't think there is a way to bring a case on this. I think the check on presidential power in this case is impeachment, which obviously won't happen.

[Habbaku]

As opposed to the adventure as I am, this is stupid. The most humane and sensible thing to do at this point is actually commit to getting rid of Qaddafi and ending this. I can't imagine we would let him win the civil war and stay in power at this point.

It isn't at all obvious that the most humane and sensible thing to do is to topple Gaddafi.  You have no idea if the regime that will pop up after him will be worse or not.

[Berkut]

As opposed to the adventure as I am, this is stupid. The most humane and sensible thing to do at this point is actually commit to getting rid of Qaddafi and ending this. I can't imagine we would let him win the civil war and stay in power at this point.

It isn't at all obvious that the most humane and sensible thing to do is to topple Gaddafi.  You have no idea if the regime that will pop up after him will be worse or not.

It isn't obvious, but it is a pretty decent play.

Getting rid of dictators doesn't always turn out better, but dictators are usually bad enough that it is worth taking the chance.

And since the cost here is pretty low (we are talking about supporting others fighting, not fighting ourselves) it seems worth the shot, IMO.

[Caliga]

I agree.  However, we know Gadhafi is a cruel dictator, and we don't know for sure that's what he will be replaced with.

I never would have gotten involved in that mess in the first place, but since we're in, we might as well deep-six the regime that we know is hostile to the ROTW and its own people, since there's a chance it might be followed by a friendly one.

[alfred russel]

As opposed to the adventure as I am, this is stupid. The most humane and sensible thing to do at this point is actually commit to getting rid of Qaddafi and ending this. I can't imagine we would let him win the civil war and stay in power at this point.

It isn't at all obvious that the most humane and sensible thing to do is to topple Gaddafi.  You have no idea if the regime that will pop up after him will be worse or not.

I can't imagine we would let a guy with a terrorist history survive after we overtly support a war to overthrow him. So if it is predetermined that he has to go, lets do what it takes to end the war, whether or not the next regime is better or worse. At least that way this conflict will be over.

[Habbaku]

I agree.  However, we know Gadhafi is a cruel dictator, and we don't know for sure that's what he will be replaced with.

I never would have gotten involved in that mess in the first place, but since we're in, we might as well deep-six the regime that we know is hostile to the ROTW and its own people, since there's a chance it might be followed by a friendly one.

And if it isn't followed by a friendly one?  Do we just wash our hands of the matter if it turns out to be worse than Gaddafi?

[Caliga]

Yes. Like I said, the intervention was a mistake in the first place.

[Habbaku]

That's the problem, though.  If it does turn out to be even worse than Gaddafi, I think we're setting ourselves up to be obligated to make sure that they're deep-sixed, too.

[Caliga]

I know... therein lies the quandry and why I would never have gotten involved.  Then again, I'm not a deluded self-important egomaniac that thinks I can single-handedly remold the world... which is why I'd never be POTUS.

[alfred russel]

As Berkut said, "Getting rid of dictators doesn't always turn out better, but dictators are usually bad enough that it is worth taking the chance." So there will at least be some people who want to get involved again, so we will have another war and messy situation. Finally, well down the road, Libya will be a mess and we will be able to say, "we tried, Libya is just too poor with too much of a tradition of fighting, we can't make anything work there."