- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 79,903
- Reaction score
- 20,981
- Location
- I love your hate.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Because in his 2009 remarks Obama laid down the predicate that it was appropriate for America to act militarily in concert with other nations on humanitarian grounds. With that the foundation was established almost precisely for what followed this month with the U.N. Security Council sanctioned military intervention in Libya on humanitarian grounds by a broad coalition including America but also the Arab League and many European nations. You call that “killing Libyans” but of course there is a little doubt that far more Libyan civilians would have perished if the coalition had failed to intervene when it did. To borrow a line from a former president:
“We got there just in time.” — Ronald Reagan, Address to the Nation on Events in Lebanon and Grenada, October 27, 1983
I think Obama said something about not getting into nation building or something like that as a candidate.
There is a big difference. In Iraq, The US did the heavy lifting, to the tune of a trillion dollars. In Libya, we stepped into the leadership for a few days, and are now functioning only as support for NATO, which are now the main load bearers.
Moammar Gadhafi's forces hammered rebels with tanks and rockets, turning their rapid advance into a panicked retreat in an hourslong battle Tuesday. The fighting underscored the dilemma facing the U.S. and its allies in Libya: Rebels may be unable to oust Gadhafi militarily unless already contentious international airstrikes go even further in taking out his forces.
Opposition fighters pleaded for strikes as they fled the hamlet of Bin Jawwad, where artillery shells crashed thunderously, raising plumes of smoke. No such strikes were launched during the fighting, and some rebels shouted, "Sarkozy, where are you?" — a reference to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, one of the strongest supporters of using air power against Gadhafi.
Honest question for you...
Who do you think the main load bearers of the new "main load bearers" in Libya are?
… if the american/nato/un/arab league mission in libya is protection of civilians how can we WIPE OUT the citizens of sirte?
It's a good point; our new rebel friends need to be better than Gaddafi; their treatment of their fellow Libyan should be a considerable concern on the coalition's part.
I think you misread the 2009 quote: it is actually very consistent with the president's speech last night; and, of course, at no time in 2009 was Barack Obama a candidate: he was either president or president-elect.
The point is that the president had established the guidelines for military intervention on the basis of “humanitarian grounds” over a year ago; indeed announced them at the Nobel Peace Price acceptance ceremony and, now, case in point: a broad military coalition has acted on a United Nations Security Council resolution and intervened in Libya on humanitarian grounds. I think it is quite impressive.
There is a big difference. In Iraq, The US did the heavy lifting, to the tune of a trillion dollars. In Libya, we stepped into the leadership for a few days, and are now functioning only as support for NATO, which are now the main load bearers.
However, I do NOT believe that we had any business getting involved with Libya, and am opposed to our involvement there. This is consistent with my belief that we should not have gone into Iraq either, and I was also opposed to that. However, I did support the Afghan war, because it was the nation that provided a base of operations, and also a shelter, to those who attacked us on 9/11, and I saw war there as vital to US interests.
the neocons are ecstatic, congrats
I don't know what a neocon is but nobody I know is "ecstatic" about the US intervention in Libya. It's a tragedy and chaos as are all military operations.
Kristol is surprised to hear 0bama talk about a military operation this way. Kristol summed it up nicely;
The president was unapologetic, freedom-agenda-embracing, and didn’t shrink from defending the use of force or from appealing to American values and interests. Furthermore, the president seems to understand we have to win in Libya.
I support the President. It's extremely unfortunate that Gaddafi didn't just leave instead of killing people. But he didn't. Now that we are engaged we have to see it through.
This morning his butchers are on the offensive. That would not be happening if decisive action had been taken early. When carriers show up I'll know 0bama has realized that serious pounding of Gaddafi's ground forces is the only way to win this.
At this point after hearing recently about snipers targeting civilians, continued shelling of cities and offensive operations more firepower is needed. This may also require a significant covert special operations mission within Libya to designate targets and conduct counter-sniper operations.
If they are there today and the President is deliberately withholding that information to protect their lives I would have no problem with that.
President Barack Obama’s approval rating and prospects for reelection have plunged to all-time lows in a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday.
Half of the registered voters surveyed for the poll think that the president does not deserve a second term in office, while 41 percent say he does. In another Quinnipiac poll released just four weeks ago, 45 percent said the president did not deserve reelection, while 47 percent said he did.
The decline in support for a second Obama term comes as his approval rating has dropped 4 percentage points since early March, landing at 42 percent – a record low – in the poll released Wednesday. His disapproval rating has risen from 46 percent to 48 percent.
The downward shift may in part be the result of dissatisfaction over U.S involvement in Libya, with 47 percent of those surveyed saying they oppose it. By a margin of 58 percent to 29 percent, registered voters said that Obama has not clearly stated U.S. goals for the mission.
Liek I said... he gives good speech. hat's about it.
Side note... What are Obama's chances of re-election, should we actually end up with even a single pair of US boots on the ground in Libya?
you can barely withhold your glee as you discuss your sacred golden calf
I don't think it was even a good speech. He was irritating to watch with his constant hand gestures and audible thumping of his hands on the podium.
Hannity would be ALL for a Lybia campaign if it were a Republican at the healm, and he's fooling himself if he thinks no one realizes this.
in sum, Lybia is a tactical political move for Obama, nothing more, nothing less. Personally, I think he would have nothing to do with it, if politics weren't front and center. On this one, I'd say to Obama, you should have gone with your instincts on this one, and stayed away.
Tim-
I have no idea what this means.
But as one poster put it: Party On!!
I don't think it was even a good speech. He was irritating to watch with his constant hand gestures and audible thumping of his hands on the podium.
He was trying to look all leaderly and forceful and decisive and ****.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?