Do we all agree that the burden of proof always lies with those arguing FOR millitary action?

[howard112211]

I think the default position should always be that one doesn't go to war, and that those who think one should have to make a strong case for it. That including providing detailed information on what the goals are, how it is planned to achieve those goals, who the enemy is, who the allies are, what other options have been considered, what backup plans are in store for the event that things don't go as anticipated, and so on, and pretty much eliminating any reasonable doubts that it is a good idea.

It seems like Americas tolerance for "unplanned" warfare is extremely high, and that a couple of pictures of dead people and a few earwittness accounts is all it takes to plunge into something, and that the situation is somewhat reversed, in the sense that now people have to make the case why to not get involved into something 95 percent of the country doesn't understand in a place that 95 percent of the country cannot find on a map.

[earthside]

1. Man are you living in a different reality.

The default position is that we go to war first and explain later.

Since the end of WW2, from Lyndon Johnson to Barack Obama that is the position.

If you don't accept that then you are giving aid and encouragement to the likes of Ho Chi Minh, Saddam Hussein, and Ghaddafy.

And note that the American principle of "kill 'em all and let god sort them out" is a truly bipartisan position.




Sarcasm and cynicism above .... unfortunately.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The2ndWheel]

3. What difference does it make what 95% of the country doesn't know or can't find?

These are decisions that most people are so far removed from, that our opinions about these decisions mean less than nothing.

The American military is the de facto global military(although the American tax payer is the only one paying for it). So if the international community agrees on military action, the American military is going to be the option. Even if the international community doesn't agree, there is no governing body which can tell the US Government no, in terms of if it chooses to bomb something somewhere.

[WatsonT]

4. Agreed, unless a Democrat is in the Whitehouse.

:sarcasm:

[jeff47]

5. And what if you don't like the answers?

Goal: Prevent Gaddafi from using his planes and tanks to massacre civilians.

How to achieve these goals: Shoot down any planes in the air, bomb planes and tanks on the ground. Since this will have to be maintained until Gaddafi leaves power, make sure to have the Europeans "take over" the operation so the US can extricate itself from the long-term patrols.

Who the enemy is: Gaddafi's military.

Who the allies are: Libyan rebels, France, UK, Turkey, Quatar, Arab League, UN

Other options considered: Economic sanctions (failed when used in 80's-90's). Sternly worded letters and speeches (failed when used before resorting to military action). Do nothing (will result in slaughter of Libyan rebels, probably increase Arab anger towards the west).

Backup plans: Well, we've already achieved the goal. So I'm not sure what backup plans are necessary. Patrols will have to continue for a while, so I suppose one could argue that handing the job over to NATO lets the US withdraw when the patrols have to continue for a while.

So....now what? Your questions have been answered, but I would guess that you still don't like this Totally Awesome Military Adventure (tm).

[howard112211]

6. Well good. I guess it is mission accomplished then.

[LanternWaste]

7. However I imagine the tactical objectives will be met....

"I guess it is mission accomplished then..."

Not at this point in time. However I imagine the tactical objectives will be met.




(I'm sorry if that's not a paraphrase of a previous president, though)

[jeff47]

8. On the announced goals, yes

Though as I mentioned, to maintain that there's going to be more bombing.

The key thing to note in the Libyan situation is the US isn't leading the operation. That's a radically new change. The US has been the one in charge of every multi-nation military action we've been in since WWII. In fact, we have demanded that the US be in charge of them.

So demanding that we not be in charge of this one seems to indicate a plan to have the US pull out Soon (tm). Probably while Gaddafi's still in power.

[LanternWaste]

10. Precisely what leads you to believe that?

"Probably while Gaddafi's still in power..."

Precisely what leads you to believe that?

[bemildred]

9. "War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength."

There is no burden of proof these days, if there ever was.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. What?? You think that the people should be informed?? Have a say??

What do you think this is? A democracy??

Perish the thought. Just wave your flag, shout "support the troops", and cough up the dough for the MIC like a REAL American.