POTUS Speech on Libya

#1
volinbham

volinbham

VN GURU
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
69,802
Likes
62,558
#1
Didn't see it but watching coverage on CNN. Based on that a few thoughts:

1. Once again, Obama will be justifying a "if we didn't do this, really bad things would have happened". Will be interesting if people buy it 2 years from now.

2. He stressed getting Col. Q out but not militarily. Can you really say you are trying to enact regime change without military power when you are in fact using military power.

3. We are now officially helping the rebels; not just preventing a humanitarian disaster.

4. CNN has been asking an interesting question - what does the UN resolution prescribe if the rebels kill civilians loyal to Col. Q? Apparently, said civilians are being armed by Col. Q.

Thoughts?
 
#2
#2
One more thought - both the Bush and now emerging Obama doctrine are heavy on pre-emption.
 
#3
#3
I saw a portion of it. To me, the news was that he basically said that every situation is different. Seemed to me he was saying this guu's a nut, been a dictator for 40 years, and we've had it with him. You can't assume from that we would involve ourselves in any other given situation. I realize that's not terribly satisfying (mostly because its hard to argue with it unless you can say, "yeah, but what about situation y"?).
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#4
#4
what about situation y was a continual criticism of Bush.

For the record I agree that each situation is unique.
 
#5
#5
Seems like he talked twenty minutes and said nothing.

mazex.jpg
 
#6
#6
Interventions will be a fact of life during the End Times of Capital. It is just the way the system works. It has to crack open difficult "markets" in order to expand. Interventions have been and will continue to be, a fact of US political life until a reorientation of the culture is accomplished.

The question I would ask, since we are now in the business of helping the rebels, who the hell are they? Again, our own State Department thinks they are anti-American / jihadists....
 
#7
#7
Didn't watch it but was wondering, how much will this cost us along with all the other wars?
 
#10
#10
droski said:
sounds similar to a war he was violently against.
Click to expand...


Well, there are two key differences. First, the involvement there was 100,000+ troops on the ground at any one time, 5,000+ Americans killed, and over a trillion dollars spent. Second, and related, the justification offered turned out to be false.

With Libya, Obama has established the reason for intervention as humanitarian and not directly implicating our strategic interests such that he cannot justify an expansion of what we are doing now. By stating our objectives as he has, he effectively has capped our involvement there at something far short of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now, I realize that robs the GOP of some talking points against Obama. And he has captured back from the right wing auto-anti-Obama machine most of the high ground. And that disappoints you, naturally.

But its hard to argue with. Mostly because it makes sense and there is a de facto limit now on what our role is going to be in this.
 
#11
#11
lawgator1 said:
Well, there are two key differences. First, the involvement there was 100,000+ troops on the ground at any one time, 5,000+ Americans killed, and over a trillion dollars spent. Second, and related, the justification offered turned out to be false.
Click to expand...

way to compare a week old operation with years in Iraq.

also what is the legit justification exactly? The rebels, backed by Al-Queda are being "slaughtered" and the US is there to help? Interesting twist don't you think?
 
#12
#12
utvolpj said:
way to compare a week old operation with years in Iraq.

also what is the legit justification exactly? The rebels, backed by Al-Queda are being "slaughtered" and the US is there to help? Interesting twist don't you think?
Click to expand...


Ah, but that's the key. Obama on the front end says we want Ghadafi gone, but that we are not going to use our military to accomplish that. We will not put troops on the ground. The military will be used to prevent Ghadafi's forces from killing thousands of rebels or general citizens.

By stating that a week into this, he has limited our involvement by definition.

If two months from now we are landing in Tripoli, I will be the first in line to complain about it. Don't think that is going to happen. If Ghadafi goes, what a brilliant move this will turn out to be. We will have helped the rebels stave off disaster, they will be victorious, but we can credibly argue that we did not nation-build in the ME, which is where we get ourselves into trouble.
 
#13
#13
troops are on the ground. Complain away :popcorn:

and are you saying we should celebrate a victory by these "rebels"? Really?
 
#14
#14
lawgator1 said:
I saw a portion of it. To me, the news was that he basically said that every situation is different.
Click to expand...
IOW's, when I do the same things that I and/or my VP once said a President shouldn't do or should even be impeached for... it is different.
Seemed to me he was saying this guu's a nut, been a dictator for 40 years, and we've had it with him. You can't assume from that we would involve ourselves in any other given situation. I realize that's not terribly satisfying (mostly because its hard to argue with it unless you can say, "yeah, but what about situation y"?).
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Saddam was a bigger nut and more out of control when Bush took him out on the mistaken pretext of WMD's. He abused his people far more and more often than Qaddafi even engaging in genocidal acts. Yet somehow with you liberals it is "different" now.

What a bunch of abject hypocrites.... the whole lot of you.
 
#15
#15
utvolpj said:
troops are on the ground. Complain away :popcorn:

and are you saying we should celebrate a victory by these "rebels"? Really?
Click to expand...


People keep speculating about special forces and I suppose that's possible. I don't equate it with an invasion.
 
#16
#16
lawgator1 said:
Ah, but that's the key. Obama on the front end says we want Ghadafi gone, but that we are not going to use our military to accomplish that. We will not put troops on the ground. The military will be used to prevent Ghadafi's forces from killing thousands of rebels or general citizens.
Click to expand...

This may be technically true but I find it laughable to draw this fine distinction (not you but Obama).

To say we are not using our military to remove him is only true if you say technically our military won't be the one to kill him or attend his surrender.

However, we are killing his forces and destroying his equipment. We are arming and likely providing intelligence to the rebels so they can kill him.

Make no mistake - we are using our military to get rid of Col. Q.
 
#18
#18
lawgator1 said:
Ah, but that's the key. Obama on the front end says we want Ghadafi gone, but that we are not going to use our military to accomplish that. We will not put troops on the ground. The military will be used to prevent Ghadafi's forces from killing thousands of rebels or general citizens.

By stating that a week into this, he has limited our involvement by definition.

If two months from now we are landing in Tripoli, I will be the first in line to complain about it. Don't think that is going to happen. If Ghadafi goes, what a brilliant move this will turn out to be. We will have helped the rebels stave off disaster, they will be victorious, but we can credibly argue that we did not nation-build in the ME, which is where we get ourselves into trouble.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't get too far ahead of yourself there, lawgator. Do you know who these rebels are, exactly?
 
#19
#19
sjt18 said:
IOW's, when I do the same things that I and/or my VP once said a President shouldn't do or should even be impeached for... it is different.

Saddam was a bigger nut and more out of control when Bush took him out on the mistaken pretext of WMD's. He abused his people far more and more often than Qaddafi even engaging in genocidal acts. Yet somehow with you liberals it is "different" now.

What a bunch of abject hypocrites.... the whole lot of you.
Click to expand...


That, plus he committed over 100,000 troops and cost many thousands of lives of Americans and Iraqis.

You want so desperately to call us hypocrites that you just ignore the facts. I'm sorry, but the world is not as black and white as you'd like it to be. There are shades of grey that require smart policy choices. That's what was missing for the Bush administration on so many fronts.
 
#20
#20
lawgator1 said:
Ah, but that's the key. Obama on the front end says we want Ghadafi gone, but that we are not going to use our military to accomplish that. We will not put troops on the ground. The military will be used to prevent Ghadafi's forces from killing thousands of rebels or general citizens.
Click to expand...
Ah, that's the key. Take an incoherent, bush league action and spin it as brilliant strategy.

By stating that a week into this, he has limited our involvement by definition.
Click to expand...
Which is stupid even if he has no intentions of getting further involved. You never let an enemy know where the limits are. It gets people killed.

If two months from now we are landing in Tripoli, I will be the first in line to complain about it. Don't think that is going to happen. If Ghadafi goes, what a brilliant move this will turn out to be. We will have helped the rebels stave off disaster, they will be victorious, but we can credibly argue that we did not nation-build in the ME, which is where we get ourselves into trouble.
Click to expand...

WE didn't do any of that. Obama was embarrassed by the French and British taking the lead and had to do something... anything to save face.

If we do not have anything to do with the post-Qaddafi structure of Libya then it is more likely to be more radical than less. However I think the French will reassert their influence there.
 
#21
#21
volinbham said:
This may be technically true but I find it laughable to draw this fine distinction (not you but Obama).

To say we are not using our military to remove him is only true if you say technically our military won't be the one to kill him or attend his surrender.

However, we are killing his forces and destroying his equipment. We are arming and likely providing intelligence to the rebels so they can kill him.

Make no mistake - we are using our military to get rid of Col. Q.
Click to expand...



It's not perfect, I'll agree. By defending the rebels, we certainly increase their chances of winning in indirect fashion.
 
#22
#22
sjt18 said:
Ah, that's the key. Take an incoherent, bush league action and spin it as brilliant strategy.

Which is stupid even if he has no intentions of getting further involved. You never let an enemy know where the limits are. It gets people killed.



WE didn't do any of that. Obama was embarrassed by the French and British taking the lead and had to do something... anything to save face.

If we do not have anything to do with the post-Qaddafi structure of Libya then it is more likely to be more radical than less. However I think the French will reassert their influence there.
Click to expand...


Again, you are just making up facts.
 
#23
#23
lawgator1 said:
People keep speculating about special forces and I suppose that's possible. I don't equate it with an invasion.
Click to expand...

that's the way it started in iraq. are you really arguing that we wont be part of any peacekeeping force even if the rebels win?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top