Libya, Yemen, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait...

[Socialite]

Good points, Mr. Speaker.. though I'd be curious how Newt responds to his own questions

Newt Gingrich blasted the decision to attack Libya Sunday afternoon as “opportunistic amateurism without planning or professionalism.”

“It is impossible to make sense of the standard for intervention in Libya except opportunism and news media publicity,” Gingrich said in a statement to POLITICO, his first public comments since President Barack Obama gave the go-ahead order on Saturday.
Continue Reading

Iran and North Korea pose “vastly bigger threats” to American national interests, he argued. There are other countries in Africa where strongmen brutalize civilians, including Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

“Mugabe has killed more people, the Sudanese dictatorship has killed more people, there are a lot of bad dictators doing bad things,” Gingrich said.

The former House speaker, and all-but-declared Republican presidential candidate, raised four questions that he wants answers to:

• “What is the Obama standard [for deciding to intervene]?”

• “What is success?”

• “What are we prepared to do to achieve that success?”

• “What supplemental is the president prepared to ask for to pay for all this?”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1HMj6RqUq

[Socialite]

A comment on the Newt article I thought was fair:

Even the most base conservative can see that Gingrich is grasping for straws in order to score cheap political points during a time of war.

In this article alone, Politico highlights Gingrich's duplicity on the topic of Libya.

On Thursday, Gingrich contended that "Obama was too distracted by filling out his NCAA tournament bracket to resolve the crisis in Libya."

On Friday, Newt claimed that Obama "had not taken a strong enough stand against Qadhafi, which “made us look weak and uncertain and increases the danger in the Persian Gulf.”

Now, he purports that he can't fathom "the standard for intervention in Libya except opportunism and news media publicity" and that Iran and North Korea "pose vastly greater threats."

This is the problem with the GOP contenders right now--they stand for absolutely nothing other than staunch opposition to this President. This reeks of sophistry and hypocrisy, and further shows why Gingrich is unqualified for the presidency.

At least Senator Obama remained consistent in his opposition to Bush's war.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1HMk8aNSs

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Socialite

HERE IT IS! Just after I posted this, I turn on FOX... and there he is...

[URL="http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/freedom-watch/index.html[/url]"]http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/fr...tch/index.html

MUST WATCH. (Listen to some of the historical precedent he provides as well)

I don't feel he was on a subjective Anti-Obama rant either. In fact, his "the Third George Bush" kills that notion. I enjoyed what he had to say.

*BUMP*

Did anyone listen to the video clip?

Good points with his anecdotes of how intervention sometimes does more bad than good.

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Are you being serious or a trying to be a joker with me. Can't tell.

Being serious.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Good points, Mr. Speaker.. though I'd be curious how Newt responds to his own questions

True however supposedly this was not about national interests but "doing the right thing" (France and Britain might have national interests though) and in order to intervene in other African conflicts a mere "no fly" zone would not suffice. It would require going to ground troops

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

True however supposedly this was not about national interests but "doing the right thing" (France and Britain might have national interests though) and in order to intervene in other African conflicts a mere "no fly" zone would not suffice. It would require going to ground troops

But there's so many other opportunities to "do the right thing" that we are just, for some strange reason, choosing Libya... *scratching head*

Is "doing the right thing" a good enough reason to deploy US military?

And I'm not even sold on this being "the right thing." A civil war is a civil war.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Socialite

But there's so many other opportunities to "do the right thing" that we are just, for some strange reason, choosing Libya... *scratching head*

Is "doing the right thing" a good enough reason to deploy US military?

First of all Im just critiquing what the man said and giving possible answers

Second, sometimes you have to pick your battles. Take Iran. Iran has significant military infrastructure. Libya is easy pickings and does not require a ground assault particularly when we are already entrenched in Afghanistan

Is doing the right thing a good enough reason? Absolutely! The real question is if it is the right thing and can we afford it

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

First of all Im just critiquing what the man said and giving possible answers

Second, sometimes you have to pick your battles. Take Iran. Iran has significant military infrastructure. Libya is easy pickings and does not require a ground assault particularly when we are already entrenched in Afghanistan

Is doing the right thing a good enough reason? Absolutely! The real question is if it is the right thing and can we afford it

Well yeah... what does "the right thing" even mean? Right morally? Right legally? Right in which way?

Libya isn't even a battle for us to pick, and Bahrain would be just as susceptible to aircraft missiles as Libya -- sans ground forces. It just all seems unnecessary -- and I'm not convinced it's even legal.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Socialite

And I'm not even sold on this being "the right thing." A civil war is a civil war.

Im not sold it is either, however if it was, it should have been doing from the get go instead of waiting a month.

It presents a problem for the US in friendly areas like Bahrain...if we don't do the same there we end up looking hypocritical and doing this ONLY for US interests.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Well yeah... what does "the right thing" even mean? Right morally? Right legally? Right in which way?

Libya isn't even a battle for us to pick, and Bahrain would be just as susceptible to aircraft missiles as Libya -- sans ground forces. It just all seems unnecessary -- and I'm not convinced it's even legal.

In the context of the UN decision the right thing was to stop the whole sale slaughter of civilians by the Libyan military