Advertisement

LJWorld.com weblogs Science Becoming Religion

Mr. O'Bombers' War

Advertisement

Barack Obama who ran on a platform of ending his predecessor's wars has apparently decided he wants his own war. As candidate Obama, he felt Congress should have a role in such decisions. As President O'Bomber, he thinks he can ignore Congress.

Like his predecessors O'Bomber is starting out with a bombing campaign. He hasn't said whether he will send Marines back to the shores of Tripoli if the bombing campaign fails to cause a surrender. Bombing didn't produce a surrender in Vietnam and Iraq. Muammar Gaddafi doesn't seem any more likely to relinquish power because of a bombing campaign than Saddam Hussein was.

Barack O'Bomber claims he is acting because the Libyan government has attacked those protesting the government, but Libya isn't the only government to use violence to put down protests.

Syria has been accused of using violence against protesters. Will O'Bomber also attack Syria? It would be easy considering we already have troops in neighboring Iraq. They could be moved out of Iraq and into Syria.

Will O'Bomber attack Iran which reportedly has been putting down mass protests? He could use it as an excuse to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. Prior to the election O'Bomber said he considered Iran a "tiny country" even though it's the 17th most populous nation in the world with a population is 78% that of Nazi Germany, a country which conquered Europe. from the Atlantic's to near Moscow.

China has killed protesters before. Does that mean the U.S. should consider attacking China?

I'm worried that if Gaddafi does give in to the bombing campaign, O'Bomber and the other Western Imperialists will think they can do the same thing in any country with a form of government they disapprove of. That is if they are really motivated by Gaddafi's treatment of his subjects rather than his oil.

If NATO is really concerned about injustice, why didn't it intervene in Darfur?

If O'Bomber succeeds in destroying the Libyan military will he or the Europeans spend years reestablishing order setting up a new government? Or will they let it become a lawless country like Somalia"

The most disturbing aspect of O'Bomber's action is his failure to consult Congress like Lyndon Johnson did before bombing North Vietnam and George W. Bush did before bombing Saddam Hussein. Both of those presidents took the lead in getting the U.S. involved in a war. O'Bomber seems to be following the orders of the European governments who get their oil from Libya.

Regardless of whether or not Barack Obama was born in Hawaii or not, he was born a British subject because his father was a British subject. Unless he formally renounced that citizenship he may still be a British subject and may be following the orders of his Queen in determining how to respond to Libya.

Those who like to protest America involvement in foreign wars need to start protesting now instead of waiting until the Marines land in Tripoli.

Comments

Plurilingual 3 years, 9 months ago

Hahaha, good one about the Queen there. I needed a good laugh.

RoeDapple 3 years, 9 months ago

. . . be right back. I haven't got near enough Jiffy-pop for this one.

beatrice 3 years, 9 months ago

Nazis and birther comments in the same blog? Sure, you are serious.

However, you actually got a laugh from me for your use of "O'Bomber." Usually used for his basketball game, this time it was funny. I just wonder if there is a return policy for the Peace Prize.

Despite the laugh, you still get a Godwin flag.

llama726 3 years, 9 months ago

If you're serious, lol.

If you're not, bigger lol. What a waste of time. Good satire, though.

ralphralph 3 years, 9 months ago

Barrage O'Bomber ... I like that.

Since he opted to 'Go to Rio' while starting his war, I had considered 'Pablo Cruise Missile' -- but that reference apparently dates me.

OldEnuf2BYurDad 3 years, 9 months ago

What I learned from this post is that you don't like Obama. That's all.

"may be following the orders of his Queen in determining how to respond to Libya"

You are an anxious man who needs to learn to regulate his emotions. That statement about the Queen is preposterous. 1000% ridiculous. Not even in the same galaxy as the planet Sanity. Your brand of reason came to you from that alternate universe where Mr. Spock has a beard. It's the anti-matter of rationality.

Take a nap, then come back and re-read what you wrote. If you still think it makes sense, then see your doctor.

RoeDapple 3 years, 9 months ago

Yeah but he did it on purpose! Okay, C+

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

Actually, I think this blog raises some interesting and good questions.

What is our rationale for getting involved in other countries militarily? Is there any consistency to it? Why do we accept human rights violations in China, but make a big deal out of them in other countries? If we are to get involved whenever there is an injustice going on, we'll have to get involved in a lot of places. Are we ready for that level of involvement? And, why didn't Obama consult with Congress?

geekin_topekan 3 years, 9 months ago

The only reason the repubs are whining is because their cohorts aren't getting uberrich.

If republican contractors stood to gain billions of dollars through humanitarian efforts, faux news would be chiming about how we are doing the lord's work and their 44 million couch dwelling viewrs would be bleating their support. But, nope, we are only protecting innocent strangers and repubs hate that crap.

ChiHawk 3 years, 9 months ago

I also think Reasonmclucus brought up some very important things worth thinking about. There are a few inaccuracies in his post, and the suggestion that President Obama is somehow carrying out the wishes of an entirely ceremonial, and politically speaking powerless British Monarch is absurd.

First the two inaccuracies:

The President has explicitly stated that he will not send ground troops into Libya. (source: http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/03/19/exp.sot.obama.libya.us.strike.cnn?iref=allsearch ) You've stated in other posts on this site, that Obama can't be trusted because his predecessors Bush and Clinton were liars. Could Obama back on his word? Sure! But the decision to do so would be immensely unpopular here in the US, and it would be political suicide. It would certainly cost him the upcoming election and could lead to impeachment hearings. At the very least there would be a vote to withdraw ground troops or refuse funding for ground troops in Congress. There is no real support for ground troops. It's very unrealistic to assume there will be Marines storming the shores of Tripoli again given that 70% of Americans are opposed to the use of ground troops according to polls conducted over the weekend.

Also, Reasonmclucus wrote that Obama ran on a platform of ending both his predecessors wars (Iraq and Afghanistan). This is incorrect. Obama ran on a platform of ending the war in Iraq in order to re-focus US military efforts on Afghanistan. Obama made it very clear when he was running that he would remain committed to Afghanistan. Somehow there was and still is this notion that Obama was the "peace candidate", and wanted to end both wars. This notion is just blatantly false. Obama was pretty hawkish on Afghanistan and Pakistan during the campaign.

(continued next post)

ChiHawk 3 years, 9 months ago

Reasonmclucus certainly beings up good points in regard to when and where the US gets involved in foreign conflicts. It's naive to think that access to resources (namely oil) isn't a major determining factor when the US choses to use its military abroad. Reasonmclucus is correct when he cites Iran, China, and Darfur as examples of when the US has conveniently loosened it's principled stances on human rights, and opted not to use military force. There are similar popular uprisings going on in Bahrain and Yemen, but the US isn't sending military aid to the Bahraini or Yemeni opposition. Instead we've looked the other way as Saudi Arabia and the UAE have sent in their own tanks to put down the popular uprising in Bahrain.

Reasonmclucus also brings up the issue of Constitutionality; The US stopped formally declaring war after World War II, and this has become a convenient way for politicians (namely Presidents) to engage in war without going through the Constitutionally mandated procedures for declaring war. Officially declaring war has significance. It's a commitment, and it shouldn't be one that is embarked upon lightly or without just cause. Since WWII the executive has gained the power to declare war without technically declaring war through the war powers act. This is a very slippery slope.
I think President Obama has made a major mistake in not calling for a vote to authorize the use of military force in Libya. David Cameron the Prime Minister of the UK, authorized military action over the weekend, but he was in the House of Commons on Monday Morning explaining why immediate action was necessary and asking for a vote of approval (which overwhelmingly passed). The fact that President Obama hasn't sought congressional approval outside of meeting with a select few Senators and Representatives over the weekend bothers me. There should have been a vote for authorization Monday, or at the latest by today. I suppose there is an argument to be made for the necessity of immediate action over the weekend on behalf of the rebels in Libya, given the fact they were in peril of being totally overrun. That doesn't absolve the President of the need to seek Congressional approval for the use of force, and for funding.

Finally on the implication that Obama is a puppet for the UK's monarchy because he has British citizenship through his father. There have been numerous Presidents who's parents were immigrants and therefore their children held dual-citizenship. (listed below) I assume all these Presidents were acting under the orders of a foreign head of state? Reasonmclucus must also think that because John. F Kennedy didn't completely renounce his Catholic faith then he was under Papal control during his presidency, right? Next time leave the xenophobic conspiracy out of your argument and it will be taken more seriously. There are points you made that are certainly worth taking seriously. Don't cheapen them.

ChiHawk 3 years, 9 months ago

You may be very right. The establishment Republican party line has been "Obama should have acted sooner, or I support military intervention etc" (ala McCain). I'm not sure there would be enough Dem peaceniks and non-interventionist Tea-Partiers in the House to make a difference "vote wise" though.

That said, you'd certainly have a VERY vocal opposition on the House floor who would want to be heard. Like you said, there would be the potential for a ruckus. The last thing the President wants is soundbytes of him getting lambasted from both sides of the aisle on the news.

I wonder how many of these newly elected tea-partiers are in the mold of Ron Paul, and how many are relatively hawkish. It seemed to me like the tea-party candidates were divided between Paulites and Palinites. Seems to me like the Palinites lean towards a more hawkish foreign policy and would be apt to support military intervention. The Tea Party is such a melting pot, it's hard to define them at all really.

whats_going_on 3 years, 9 months ago

so first you are okay with war, then you hate it? (This isn't even a war?)

He's also acting with several other allied countries, lest I remind you all. It's not a decision he sounded like he took lightly. Did Bush bring up a vote when he decided to declare war in 2002, or whenever that was, with Iraq? No. And I'm willing to bet none of you said ANYTHING at that point. Not that I'd EVER compare the two presidents...just pointing out the irony. He's not sending troops there (or so I gathered, last time I heard), and he's not declaring war. He's helping people who are being murdered because of a tyrant. I don't like it at all that innocent civilians have been attacked in this raid, I will say that...no excuses. Wouldn't you all want help in that situation? I believe none of you could even imagine what it's like anyway, but if the tides were turned, and we couldn't defend ourselves, would you brush off the idea of outside help? Let me guess, most of you will start with your patriotic "We'rethemightyUSofAandwecan'tbetouched" garbage, but...just think about it.

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

That's ok as far as it goes, but then we should be intervening in many more places around the world, where people are being oppressed and hurt by their governments, including in countries which we are allied with.

beatrice 3 years, 9 months ago

Yes, Bush did get approval through a majority of votes of Congress before starting the war in Iraq. He used incorrect data about WMDs that potentially included nuclear weapons (some state he intentionally lied), with dramatic, but false, tales told by Colin Powell at the UN. Hilary Clinton was one of the senators who voted to approve the war in Iraq. I believe this is the ultimate reason Clinton lost to Obama in the primaries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Res...

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 9 months ago

It's official! Obomber has launched more cruise missles than all other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined.

beatrice 3 years, 9 months ago

Let us hope it is a record he holds for a long, long time.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.