POTUS Speech on Libya

[droski]

Again, you are just making up facts.

are you seriously arguing that obama's euro love wasn't a factor here?

 

[utvolpj]

It's not perfect, I'll agree. By defending the rebels, we certainly increase their chances of winning in indirect fashion.

approx 20% of the people fighting us in Iraq are from Libya. They are also being backed by Al-Qaeda. Why do we want them to win again and what exactly is the plan once the leadership of the country is gone? Do these rebels have a power structure in place already?

 

[volinbham]

Again, you are just making up facts.

Actually, Clinton and Gates basically told all the Sunday shows that Britain, France and the Arabs were the driving force for this and convinced the US to participate.

Obama is spinning that the US led the forming of the coalition.

 

[droski]

We didn't go into Iraq for peacekeeping.

the losses came from peacekeeping. we took over the country almost instantly. so you attribute the iraq peacekeeping losses to the iraq war, but wont attribute the lybia losses to obama's war?

 

[utvolpj]

the losses came from peacekeeping. we took over teh country almost instantly.

actually did it faster than the first time we went to Iraq

 

[utgibbs]

There is no doubt these rebels will require a sizeable (I'm assuming NATO) contingency to run the country. However, they might invite Iranian consultants / expertise instead.

Again, I ask, does anybody know who these guys are? I admit, I don't. The State Department didn't think too highly of them.

Not that we don't have a long and rich history of backing the wrong guys....

 

[volinbham]

There is no doubt these rebels will require a sizeable (I'm assuming NATO) contingency to run the country. However, they might invite Iranian consultants / expertise instead.

Again, I ask, does anybody know who these guys are? I admit, I don't. The State Department didn't think too highly of them.

Not that we don't have a long and rich history of backing the wrong guys....

Important questions with no provided answers to date.

 

[utvolpj]

Again, I ask, does anybody know who these guys are? I admit, I don't. The State Department didn't think too highly of them.

they sound like fine young men

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Intelligence on the rebel forces battling Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has shown "flickers" of al Qaeda or Hezbollah presence, but there is still no detailed picture of the emerging Libyan opposition, NATO's top operations commander said on Tuesday.

Intelligence on Libya rebels shows "flickers" of Qaeda - Yahoo! News

 

[volinbham]

I'm 50/50 on our involvement in Libya.

What bothers me though is that we are getting the same crap justification double talk that we got for Iraq.

I'm also concerned about the emerging Obama doctrine that allows international coalitions to "volunteer" our military.

 

[sjt18]

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

IIRC, none of the top 5 battles of the Civil war lasted more than 3 days. All of those battles produced more American casualties in the name of liberating an oppressed people than Iraq.

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.

I have not ignored anything. Situations ARE different.... that does not save you, Obama, and almost every other liberal from being hypocritical on these issues. Biden even said that a President should be impeached for doing what they just did. That is by definition hypocrisy. When Bush or other conservatives use military force, you guys howl about blood for oil, our "image", exit strategies, defined goals, collateral damage, casualties, etc. Somehow none of that is brought up when your guy does it. Are we seeing nightly casualty counts on the MSM? No. But we did during Iraq. Why? Because it was important to the liberal media to build a certain impression about Bush's decision... they have the opposite motive with Obama.

Last year 499 Americans died in Afghanistan. That is about half the worst years in Iraq but with far, far less troops engaged. Why doesn't the left care so much about the guys getting killed now? HYPOCRISY.

FWIW, I have a problem with guys like Hannity right now too. They are also holding Obama to a different standard as Bush... not as blatant but still not fair.

There is no right answer for Libya. Every action has more negatives than positives yet doing nothing probably has the most negatives... but it is STILL important how you do what you do... like involving Congress for starters... sending a clear and consistent message about intents...

There are shades of grey that require smart policy choices. That's what was missing for the Bush administration on so many fronts.

They made mistakes but nowhere close to the absolute incompetence we see with the current administration. I actually do not agree with Bush's premise regarding foreign policy. I don't think we should get involved unless our direct national interests are at stake. I don't think we should get involved for the express purpose of deposing someone we don't like then rebuilding a country in our image.

I don't think we should have many limits when we do get involved. You aren't being nice by invoking "rules" that extend a conflict... be brutal, be sudden, be complete, be fast. Yes, you are going to have more front end civilian casualties and collateral damage but you avoid the prolonged suffering.

 

[utvolpj]

obama did it but didn't include it in his speech

White House aide Samantha Power, a former news reporter turned anti-genocide advocate, said President Obama’s two-year campaign to promote human rights helped trigger the uprising in Libya against Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s rule.

“The president has argued our interests and our values cannot be separated,” Ms. Power said, speaking to a friendly crowd of about 130 people. “These values have caused the people of Libya to risk their lives on the street.”

Anti-genocide advocate credits Obama for Libyan uprising - Washington Times

 

[volinbham]

obama did it but didn't include it in his speech



Anti-genocide advocate credits Obama for Libyan uprising - Washington Times

Man, that guy is good.

He single handedly assembled an international coalition including Arab nations to help in the uprising he began.

 

[lawgator1]

obama did it but didn't include it in his speech



Anti-genocide advocate credits Obama for Libyan uprising - Washington Times

I'd say its more like fortunate timing. These sentiments have been brewing for years or decades. Now, I suppose some might figure that the change in leadership here might signal a USA more prepared to understand and react appropriately to problems in their countries than in the past administration. I can see that.

But I doubt they took some populist message from him and suddenly thought to themselves for the first time, "Ghadafi sucks."

 

[droski]

and you people said his noble peace prize was a joke. . .

 

[volinbham]

Wow, even the New Yorker seems to be getting tired of the "set up 2 extreme strawmen then show how I'm in the middle with the just right solution" approach Obama loves to use.

Close Read: Obama’s Speech: Choices for Libya : The New Yorker

 

[lawgator1]

I'm 50/50 on our involvement in Libya.

What bothers me though is that we are getting the same crap justification double talk that we got for Iraq.

I'm also concerned about the emerging Obama doctrine that allows international coalitions to "volunteer" our military.

I'm 50-50 on the wisdom of it, but for a different reason. I figure that the reason we did this is that we project an outcome whereby Ghadafi is gone and we intend to be on the winning side of this. Heard today on radio we are in talks with some of the opposition leaders.

I've got a pretty much outcome-oriented view of this. And that's in part because I don't think this is some sort of "doctrine." I think we are doing it out of our own self interest.

 

[IPorange]

I'm 50-50 on the wisdom of it, but for a different reason. I figure that the reason we did this is that we project an outcome whereby Ghadafi is gone and we intend to be on the winning side of this. Heard today on radio we are in talks with some of the opposition leaders.

I've got a pretty much outcome-oriented view of this. And that's in part because I don't think this is some sort of "doctrine." I think we are doing it out of our own self interest.

self-interest is the doctrine, is it not?

 

[volinbham]

self-interest is the doctrine, is it not?

except when it isn't - Gates and Clinton indicated Libya was not in our vital interests.

Obama made an argument it is based on:

1) it is in the interests of others in the world
2) our "values" (humanitarian) were at stake as well.

these combined make something that is not in our vital interests part of our vital interests.

We'll see how the Ivory Coast plays out (over 500 killed) and Syria (close to 100 protesters killed so far). Of course, Clinton believes Assad is a reformer so the killings were apparently an unfortunate mistake rather than intentional slaughter (and thus against our values)

 

[IPorange]

except when it isn't - Gates and Clinton indicated Libya was not in our vital interests.

Obama made an argument it is based on:

1) it is in the interests of others in the world
2) our "values" (humanitarian) were at stake as well.

these combined make something that is not in our vital interests part of our vital interests.

We'll see how the Ivory Coast plays out (over 500 killed) and Syria (close to 100 protesters killed so far). Of course, Clinton believes Assad is a reformer so the killings were apparently an unfortunate mistake rather than intentional slaughter (and thus against our values)

So basically, we now have a mandate to invade every country now, as long as it is part of a coalition. Sounds like what some liberal members of Congress accused Bush of setting up.

The ironic parallels are endless.

 

[volinbham]

So basically, we now have a mandate to invade every country now, as long as it is part of a coalition. Sounds like what some liberal members of Congress accused Bush of setting up.

The ironic parallels are endless.

They really are.

I'm wondering what France and UK think of Obama taking credit for building the coalition and getting the UNSC to pass a resolution.

Kinda goes against his speech in El Salvador when he said the international community "volunteered" our military for action they were in favor of.

Best I can tell, the Obama doctrine is we will use military force:

1) unilaterally if attacked
2) multilaterally if our "values" are at stake AND the international community is urging us to do it.

If the international community is not calling for US action to avert a humanitarian crisis (see Ivory Coast) then our values aren't enough.

 

[lawgator1]

except when it isn't - Gates and Clinton indicated Libya was not in our vital interests.

Obama made an argument it is based on:

1) it is in the interests of others in the world
2) our "values" (humanitarian) were at stake as well.

these combined make something that is not in our vital interests part of our vital interests.

We'll see how the Ivory Coast plays out (over 500 killed) and Syria (close to 100 protesters killed so far). Of course, Clinton believes Assad is a reformer so the killings were apparently an unfortunate mistake rather than intentional slaughter (and thus against our values)

Ok, then maybe I will make you happy when I say I don't believe Obama's speech. He said what will make the eventual victors happy. It's self-interest to do so.

I'm not sure you even think that's a bad thing. There's no doctrine here, no agenda. Other than the standard one for the US of A.

 

[volinbham]

Ok, then maybe I will make you happy when I say I don't believe Obama's speech. He said what will make the eventual victors happy. It's self-interest to do so.

I'm not sure you even think that's a bad thing. There's no doctrine here, no agenda. Other than the standard one for the US of A.

I think there is doctrine here - what informs Obama's FP interventions.

The Bush Doctrine was never articulated but informed the Bush approach - ME transformation via democratic nation building with or without significant international participation.

Obama's speech was full of what he believes merits use of US military force. New components relative to Bush and past presidents are the "values" component coupled with heavy multi-lateralism. You may agree or disagree with his view but I do believe it signifies his rules of engagement - hence Obama Doctrine.

I've stated I'm 50/50 on the intervention. I don't agree with the underlying justification logic nor the "nuanced" sales job.

 

[volinbham]

Speaking of Iraq parallels:

Mission Accomplished?

Now we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we wanted — if we waited one more day, Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.

It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973.

We struck regime forces approaching Benghazi to save that city and the people within it. We hit Qaddafi’s troops in neighboring Ajdabiya, allowing the opposition to drive them out. We hit Qaddafi’s air defenses, which paved the way for a no-fly zone. We targeted tanks and military assets that had been choking off towns and cities, and we cut off much of their source of supply. And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Qaddafi’s deadly advance.

 

[utvolpj]

I bet Obama can't land a plane on a carrier

 

[utvolpj]

Man, that guy is good.

He single handedly assembled an international coalition including Arab nations to help in the uprising he began.

he should probably give some props to Bush

"Iraqi democracy will succeed," President George W. Bush declared in November 2003, "and that success will send forth the news from Damascus to Tehran that freedom can be the future of every nation." The audience at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington answered with hearty applause. Bush went on: "The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution."