PDA

View Full Version : Obama Telegraph: Obama makes Jimmy Carter look like Douglas MacArthur


chiefsnorth
02-24-2011, 08:18 AM
The Obama Administration’s spineless response to Colonel Gaddafi's reign of terror
By Nile Gardiner*
February 23rd, 2011

What is the White House’s strategy on the Libyan crisis? Quite simply there isn’t one. As Alex Spillius noted in his post yesterday, the US government has been remarkably meek on Libya. Like the EU, the Obama administration is stuck in classic deer in the headlights mode, offering little more than mealy-mouthed statements condemning the state-sponsored violence against anti-government protesters on the streets of Tripoli, Benghazi, Tobruk and other key Libyan cities, which has already claimed at least 1,000 lives.

Both Barack Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s remarks today on Libya were distinctly underwhelming and non-confrontational, offering little beyond a carefully worded expression of outrage, except for a pledge to hold yet more meetings with the international community to discuss the Libyan situation. And both failed to even mention the man behind the reign of terror sweeping the country – “Mad Dog” Gaddafi, a ruthless dictator with Libyan, American and British blood on his hands.

This is an historic moment. One of the most brutal, evil and anti-American tyrants of our time is facing a massive popular revolt that is threatening to finally remove him from power after more than four decades as absolute ruler of his country. It is not a time for fence-sitting or navel-gazing from the world’s only superpower. President Obama should be openly calling for Muammar Gaddafi to step aside immediately, and if he doesn’t, face complete international isolation – including comprehensive sanctions, travel bans, the freezing of bank accounts, and a halt to Western investment and trade.

The Libyan people don’t need lofty neutrality from Washington. They do however need the president of the most powerful nation on earth to actively back their aspirations for freedom and democracy. And they certainly aren’t waiting for toothless statements from a divided UN Security Council or a morally bankrupt Human Rights Council.

President Obama is already being outflanked by Nicolas Sarkozy, who has taken a far tougher line on Libya than his US counterpart. It is hugely embarrassing when even the French are doing more to confront a murderous dictator than the traditional leader of the free world. Frankly, President Obama makes Jimmy Carter look like General MacArthur by comparison. The US administration needs to wake up from its slumber and start showing some real leadership on the world stage in place of its existing milquetoast foreign policy.

chiefsnorth
02-24-2011, 08:24 AM
He sure has increased our standing in the world, hasn't he?

blaise
02-24-2011, 08:24 AM
I'm no Middle East expert, but I don't know what we're really supposed to do about it. I was under the impression that we had softened some of the sanctions against Lybia over the last 7 years or so, so why would we now make them more strict, because of an uprising? If that's what we wanted why did we soften sanctions to begin with?
Not that I'm a fan of Gadhafi, but the situation seems to be fluid, so I don't know exactly what stance we would want.
I don't keep up to date on Lybia, really. I could be totally off.

chiefsnorth
02-24-2011, 08:33 AM
The point is, he's bombing and firing on civilians, threatening to set oil wells alight, and "we" can't muster anything besides mealymouthed contrivances about calling some meetings. It's beyond their spine's consistency to say a man slaughtering civilians should get out.

The writer used the "milquetoast" adjective and that is who Obama is on foreign policy... Mr Gaddafi, um, excuse us for the interruption, um, we sort of... Maybe have some reservations about your methods.. Terribly sorry if we have offended you.. Could you maybe, I'd it's not too much trouble just cool it a bit? If you want, I mean.. No pressure of course.

If he were in comic books Obamas mutant power would be an uncanny ability to look like a pussy in any situation.

dirk digler
02-24-2011, 08:33 AM
I'm no Middle East expert, but I don't know what we're really supposed to do about it. I was under the impression that we had softened some of the sanctions against Lybia over the last 7 years or so, so why would we now make them more strict, because of an uprising? If that's what we wanted why did we soften sanctions to begin with?
Not that I'm a fan of Gadhafi, but the situation seems to be fluid, so I don't know exactly what stance we would want.
I don't keep up to date on Lybia, really. I could be totally off.

You make an interesting point and I was thinking about starting a thread asking this question.

What is the point of coming out and making statements about events like this? Is it just supposed to make us all feel better or something? I don't get it. If they are working behind the scenes which they are then why do I care what they say in public.

jettio
02-24-2011, 08:36 AM
The article is basically crticizing Obama for not grandstanding.

Why would grandstanding be better than taking the right position using diplomatic channels?

In a situation where it looks like Qadaffi is losing internal support in his military, seems like there are some benefits in not making it look like the takeover depended on the United States backing it.

Seems like a frivilous criticism, it is not as if the Libyans rebellng against Qadaffi are depending on pep talks from Obama or Hillary Clinton, so just because this guy is calling for Obama to be a blowhard with public statements does not mean that being a blowhard is a good idea.

chiefsnorth
02-24-2011, 08:49 AM
I remember when police arrested a guy who appeared to be breaking in to what turned out to be his own house, Obama had no problem putting on his cape and leaping into action, remember, immediately he was strongly covicted that the cops "acted stupidly" and that he should allude that it was racially motivated.

But we cant bring ourselves to and firm conviction on Gaddafi... Maybe he willget together over a beer and patch things up.

LaDairis
02-24-2011, 08:59 AM
This is absolutely amazing...

Once again a Murdoch owned "news" entity suggests that it is the US' duty to police the entire Middle East, that whenever Israel gets nervous, the US should trot out the US military and do whatever Israel wants...

Truth be told, Obama did a very good job with Egypt, despite Murdoch/Israel/GOP saying that Mubarack should stay... (and then folks wonder why 98% of Egyptians don't like the US, since 98% of Egyptians don't like Mubarack... never mind the US armed and funded Israel to steal Gaza from Egypt, and continues to block the UN from "fixing" that...)

While Qadaffi (spelling version #4) is a terrorist and a brutal dictator who has killed Americans as a terrorist, somehow the US should intervene while Qadaffi's own people are busy chucking him out of power, and even the dreaded Muslim Brotherhood (defined by all Murdoch/Israel/GOP entities as "terrorists" themselves, despite never participating in terror against the US) has called for Qadaffi to be offed... at least that is now the official Israeli position...

Indeed, the Murdoch/Telegraph position since 2001 has been as follows:

1. making OBL not a priority = good
2. sending way too few after OBL = good
3. flipping off those at war with OBL and AQ = good
4. lying to sell out US troops in Iraq for precisely no US national interest = good
5. US not invading Iran as W promised AIPAC in 2000 = not good
6. Mubarack = good
7. anyone opposed to Mubarack = bad
8. Muslim Brotherhood = bad
9. now Qadaffi = bad...
10. manipulating the US into the current Libyan mess without UN support = good
11. lies about WMD in Iraq = good
12. outing the lies about WMD in Iraq = bad
13. lying to claim Saddam and Osama were chummy (like MB and Qadaffi cough cough) = good
14. outing the lies tying Saddam to Osama = bad
15. noticing Israel's role in all of this = bad



The US should stay out of Libya. The UN might wish to do something, but the US should not. If the US sent in armed forces to Libya, the US would be accused of trying to take Libya for Libya's oil...

dirk digler
02-24-2011, 09:00 AM
I remember when police arrested a guy who appeared to be breaking in to what turned out to be his own house, Obama had no problem putting on his cape and leaping into action, remember, immediately he was strongly covicted that the cops "acted stupidly" and that he should allude that it was racially motivated.

But we cant bring ourselves to and firm conviction on Gaddafi... Maybe he willget together over a beer and patch things up.

That is a fair point but I think that was due more to his inexperience than anything. If that were to happen today I imagine they wouldn't say a peep about it.

I am just curious why you think it is important to for any POTUS to speak out events like this.

I am not saying there is a right or wrong way I am just generally interested in your opinion.

Iowanian
02-24-2011, 09:03 AM
Wait.....


I thought the United States was supposed to stay out of the affairs of others and let other nations do as they will and not try to impose ours?


I'm no fan of Obama, far from it, but if the world wants us to look the other way when the sun is shining, they can't say anything when we do it when it rains.

I've said for years, in life and on this site that if the world wants us to stay out of their business fine....don't call us for bandaids, food, or anything else if you're not firmly in the corner of the United States.

That means tolerating some inhumane things from afar.

LaDairis
02-24-2011, 09:10 AM
"It is hugely embarrassing when even the French are doing more to confront a murderous dictator than the traditional leader of the free world. "



No, Mr. Murdoch, it is hugely embarrassing that the US is the one and only one country still preventing the UN from packing your country back where it belongs...

The French gave the US

1. help in the Revolutionary War
2. help in the War of 1812
3. the Statue of Liberty


Israel has given the US

absolutely nothing...

mlyonsd
02-24-2011, 09:30 AM
I'll hold my judgement to see what he does after all the Americans are out. I can understand not jeopardizing their lives.

FishingRod
02-24-2011, 09:43 AM
"It is hugely embarrassing when even the French are doing more to confront a murderous dictator than the traditional leader of the free world. "



No, Mr. Murdoch, it is hugely embarrassing that the US is the one and only one country still preventing the UN from packing your country back where it belongs...

The French gave the US

1. help in the Revolutionary War
2. help in the War of 1812
3. the Statue of Liberty


Israel has given the US

absolutely nothing...


Actually it could easily be argued that by being our test bed for weapons systems the Israelis have saved thousands, possibly millions of American lives. If one takes into account their thumping of the Arabs armed and trained by the soviets using Western weapons and their modification of Weston military doctrine. The Soviets might well have thought they could take Western Europe had their proxy States in Egypt, and Syria not consistently had their heads handed to them by the vastly outnumbered Israelis. They also handed over captured complete SAM systems, Migs and Soviet Tanks to the US for Study on how they best could be countered should the two super powers ever come to blows and putting our people in a much better position in both Gulf wars. Just a little food for thought.


Now Regarding the topic,

FWIW

I believe nothing short of military intervention on our part will make much of a difference. I don’t think we have received much appreciation in the past when we have attempted to solve the problems for other countries and don’t have much interest in having our troops trying to run a 3rd Arab country. This would be one of those infrequent occasions that I agree with the POUS and think a strongly worded letter of complaint is about all the effort we should make.

chiefsnorth
02-24-2011, 11:16 AM
"It is hugely embarrassing when even the French are doing more to confront a murderous dictator than the traditional leader of the free world. "



No, Mr. Murdoch, it is hugely embarrassing that the US is the one and only one country still preventing the UN from packing your country back where it belongs...

The French gave the US

1. help in the Revolutionary War
2. help in the War of 1812
3. the Statue of Liberty


Israel has given the US

absolutely nothing...

Murdoch is a Zionist infidel, I forgot.

I am sure he personally ordered this piece to be written.

AndChiefs
02-24-2011, 11:17 AM
Murdoch is a Zionist infidel, I forgot.

I am sure he personally ordered this piece to be written.

Kind of...Israel ordered him to order it.

:)

vailpass
02-24-2011, 11:25 AM
"It is hugely embarrassing when even the French are doing more to confront a murderous dictator than the traditional leader of the free world. "



No, Mr. Murdoch, it is hugely embarrassing that the US is the one and only one country still preventing the UN from packing your country back where it belongs...

The French gave the US

1. help in the Revolutionary War
2. help in the War of 1812
3. the Statue of Liberty


Israel has given the US

absolutely nothing...

The Bear Jew is looking for you.

SNR
02-24-2011, 11:25 AM
Let's invade!

LaDairis
02-24-2011, 11:30 AM
"Actually it could easily be argued that by being our test bed for weapons systems the Israelis have saved thousands, possibly millions of American lives."


LOL!

You mean Chinese lives??


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4101961.stm


"A statement from the Israeli defence ministry said arms exports to China were being clarified with US officials in what it called a good spirit.

The statement followed Israeli reports that the sale of a sensitive weapons system to China had angered Washington.

According to the reports it prompted American calls for the resignation of the defence ministry's director, Amos Yaron.

The head of the Israeli parliament's defence committee, Youval Steinitz, said tensions, hidden from the public, had appeared in the last few years over Israel's weapons sales to China."


I love this. We give Israel our weapons. They sell the weapons to the Chinese behind our backs. And we should be grateful for Israel "testing" them, like on that US plane the Chinese forced down a few years ago...

LaDairis
02-24-2011, 11:32 AM
"If one takes into account their thumping of the Arabs armed and trained by the soviets using Western weapons and their modification of Weston military doctrine. "


Translation: When Israeli stole Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights, they used our weapons, which were better than the older Soviet weapons used by those Israel invaded and occupied... which, oh, by the way, is the STATED REASON OSAMA HIMSELF GAVE FOR HITTING THE US ON 911...

blaise
02-24-2011, 11:34 AM
I can even barely stand reading threads here now.

LaDairis
02-24-2011, 11:34 AM
"The Soviets might well have thought they could take Western Europe had their proxy States in Egypt, and Syria not consistently had their heads handed to them by the vastly outnumbered Israelis."



Oh I get it now... Muslims/Islamists = Soviets and commies


First of all, get this straight.

The United States of America never had any problem with that part of the world before 1948...


All of the conflict in that area of the world has to do with the country "inserted" there in 1948, which has taken our money, and our weapons, and expanded beyond its UN defined borders...

vailpass
02-24-2011, 11:36 AM
I can even barely stand reading threads here now.

You have to wonder how long ladairis can be allowed to post his blatantly racist, hateful remarks.

LaDairis
02-24-2011, 11:36 AM
"They also handed over captured complete SAM systems, Migs and Soviet Tanks to the US for Study on how they best could be countered should the two super powers ever come to blows and putting our people in a much better position in both Gulf wars. Just a little food for thought."


documentation....???


Tell us, FishingRod, was the USS Liberty an "accident?"

LaDairis
02-24-2011, 11:38 AM
You have to wonder how long ladairis can be allowed to post his blatantly racist, hateful remarks.


You are free to take off your little white sheet and actually try to document what is "racist" about the truth I post.

Trouble is, you don't have the courage or the intellect to do that...

vailpass
02-24-2011, 11:41 AM
You are free to take off your little white sheet and actually try to document what is "racist" about the truth I post.

Trouble is, you don't have the courage or the intellect to do that...

And you are free to come pick up your mother after I violate her with a dreidel and wipe my dick off in her hair you anti-semitic nut job.

LaDairis
02-24-2011, 11:43 AM
And you are free to come pick up your mother after I violate her with a dreidel and wipe my dick off in her hair you anti-semitic nut job.



And you are free to tell the survivors of the USS Liberty that the Israeli attack was "just an accident..."

Saul Good
02-24-2011, 11:56 AM
I'm going to defend Obama on this one. As far as I can tell, he's going about this the right way.

chiefsnorth
02-24-2011, 01:01 PM
I can even barely stand reading threads here now.

I was thinking the same thing. Whomever lead Douchibuster here needs to be banned right along side him.

chiefsnorth
02-24-2011, 01:02 PM
You have to wonder how long ladairis can be allowed to post his blatantly racist, hateful remarks.

He should get the miserable user treatment they were talking about in the lounge

LaDairis
02-24-2011, 01:02 PM
Typical sub human socialist response to truth = ban it...

You really aren't a fan of free speech, are you??

vailpass
02-24-2011, 01:17 PM
Typical sub human socialist response to truth = ban it...

You really aren't a fan of free speech, are you??

Big fan of free speech. Also a big fan of freedom to respond. Being free to speak does not mean you are immune to the consequences of your words.
Not a big fan of anti-semitism.

chiefsnorth
02-24-2011, 01:18 PM
Typical sub human socialist response to truth = ban it...

You really aren't a fan of free speech, are you??

Yes I know, I'm a subhuman Abrahamite.

You make a good point though, I should just put you on ignore rather than hope someone will take out the trash, so I will do that. Goodbye, you repugnant anti-Semite.

dirk digler
02-24-2011, 01:21 PM
He should get the miserable user treatment they were talking about in the lounge

I second that

LaDairis
02-24-2011, 01:33 PM
Big fan of free speech. Also a big fan of freedom to respond. Being free to speak does not mean you are immune to the consequences of your words.
Not a big fan of anti-semitism.



Might be a real good time to move to Israel then, because in the US we don't like anti-Americans like you...

LaDairis
02-24-2011, 01:34 PM
I second that


Should there be a law making it illegal to question "Global Warming?"

LaDairis
02-24-2011, 01:35 PM
Yes I know, I'm a subhuman Abrahamite.

You make a good point though, I should just put you on ignore rather than hope someone will take out the trash, so I will do that. Goodbye, you repugnant anti-Semite.



You've had truth on "ignore" your whole life...

dirk digler
02-24-2011, 01:48 PM
Should there be a law making it illegal to question "Global Warming?"

Is Israel and Jews involved?

LaDairis
02-24-2011, 01:49 PM
Is Israel and Jews involved?


Not unless you inject them.

Should AMERICANS, in the UNITED STATES, be legally punished for questioning Global "warming?"

dirk digler
02-24-2011, 01:50 PM
Not unless you inject them.

Should AMERICANS, in the UNITED STATES, be legally punished for questioning Global "warming?"

The only person who would inject them would be you.

The answer to your question is no

Hog Farmer
02-24-2011, 01:50 PM
http://www.stevebridges.com/obamavideos-promo-jan2010-lg.html

LiveSteam
02-24-2011, 01:56 PM
Not unless you inject them.

Should AMERICANS, in the UNITED STATES, be legally punished for questioning Global "warming?"

Go look for a job LaDairis. You are way to smart to sit hear day after day collecting welfare.

vailpass
02-24-2011, 01:57 PM
Not unless you inject them.

Should AMERICANS, in the UNITED STATES, be legally punished for questioning Global "warming?"

Only if they have not yet thrown at least one Jew down the well, amirite?

blaise
02-24-2011, 02:00 PM
Go look for a job LaDairis. You are way to smart to sit hear day after day collecting welfare.

I'm sure he gets fired after a month. He probably bites his tongue for a bit, but then starts spouting a bunch of anti-Zionist stuff and gets fired.

FishingRod
02-24-2011, 03:12 PM
"They also handed over captured complete SAM systems, Migs and Soviet Tanks to the US for Study on how they best could be countered should the two super powers ever come to blows and putting our people in a much better position in both Gulf wars. Just a little food for thought."


documentation....???


Tell us, FishingRod, was the USS Liberty an "accident?"

LADaris … I haven’t spent much time around here lately but what friggin Rock did you crawl out from under? For anyone that has read anything other than the “Jews are bad so that makes me ok handbook” the transfer of captured Soviet weaponry to the US is really common knowledge. We had a Mig 21 and 23 squadron for dissimilar combat training. In a related area the suppliers of Israeli weaponry were mostly the French and British prior to the Yom Kippur War. The lessons learned in that war in combating SAMs and the doctrine of how to deal with them which (proven 1982 against the Syrians) were of great value in protecting American fliers.

Was the USS Liberty and Accident? I don’t really know but, it was certainly an F-up of epic proportions. I have a hard time seeing how the Israelis could have thought attacking a US ship would be a beneficial to them. I should have never happened. And yes the US had few problems in the Middle East prior to 1948 but that might be because the US had no need to import crude oil until sometime in the 1960’s. The countries of Europe and the Soviet Union while somewhat ashamed of the holocaust really didn’t want the Jews either. So they took the time to carve out a tiny place out of the British territories of Palestine and Trans-Jordan to dump them and figured they would all be done with it. President Truman was instrumental in this move as well. Had this place been the Baja Peninsula it probably would have saved a great deal of trouble for the Jews but I suspect the Arabs would have just fought more with one another with no common enemy to unite them.

I acknowledge the Israelis have at times acted with brutality and have not always been nice wonderful people. They have some blame to share for their situation and when the roles were at one time reversed they at times acted not so differently than their Arab brothers. For example Menachem Begin was at one time considered a terrorist by the British for his activities in trying to force the British to create a Jewish State. I really don’t anticipate any further dialog between the two of us in that I’m pretty busy at work and in life and your mind seems to be programmed to search out the Jewish puppet master behind every corner. So consider a little wider number of sources for your reading and beware the Bear Jew.

patteeu
02-24-2011, 03:36 PM
He's a profound embarrassment. To describe his foreign policy as feckless would be to give it too much credit. Whether it's Honduras, eastern Europe, the Middle East, or Northern Africa, you can count on him to either remain silent until the outcome is known, or even worse, take the wrong side. His flip flops on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Gitmo, despite the harmful rhetoric surrounding each one, are the only redeeming qualities of his otherwise horrendous term in office.

LaDairis
02-24-2011, 03:46 PM
"the transfer of captured Soviet weaponry to the US is really common knowledge"


then it should be really easy for you to document it...



Indeed, if the US in 1948 had just carved out southern California, and made it "Israel," the 51st state of the US, none of this stuff would have ever been a problem...


If you love Israel so very much, perhaps you should move there...

We, the United States, have no national interest assisting Israel to re-conquer the PromiseD Land...

ChiefsCountry
02-24-2011, 03:56 PM
The United States of America never had any problem with that part of the world before 1948...


Of course Britan controlling most of the world had nothing to do with it either.

patteeu
02-24-2011, 04:38 PM
The article is basically crticizing Obama for not grandstanding.

Why would grandstanding be better than taking the right position using diplomatic channels?

In a situation where it looks like Qadaffi is losing internal support in his military, seems like there are some benefits in not making it look like the takeover depended on the United States backing it.

Seems like a frivilous criticism, it is not as if the Libyans rebellng against Qadaffi are depending on pep talks from Obama or Hillary Clinton, so just because this guy is calling for Obama to be a blowhard with public statements does not mean that being a blowhard is a good idea.

Letting the people know that we support their efforts to overthrow this tyrant isn't meaningless grandstanding. What would you think about a superpower that watched in silence as your brutal dictator slaughtered your fellow citizens in the streets?

Doesn't it seem odd to you that when you compare Obama's reactions to the protests in Iran, Egypt, and Libya, that the only place he publicly proclaimed that it was time for the dictator to go was also the only place that had a pro-US foreign policy?

patteeu
02-24-2011, 04:45 PM
"If one takes into account their thumping of the Arabs armed and trained by the soviets using Western weapons and their modification of Weston military doctrine. "


Translation: When Israeli stole Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights, they used our weapons, which were better than the older Soviet weapons used by those Israel invaded and occupied... which, oh, by the way, is the STATED REASON OSAMA HIMSELF GAVE FOR HITTING THE US ON 911...

You don't know much about Osama's stated reasons for hitting us on 9/11, apparently. Osama had very little to say about the Israeli/palestinian conflict before 9/11, and it certainly wasn't one of his main reasons for attacking us that day, if it was mentioned by him at all.

jettio
02-24-2011, 05:58 PM
Letting the people know that we support their efforts to overthrow this tyrant isn't meaningless grandstanding. What would you think about a superpower that watched in silence as your brutal dictator slaughtered your fellow citizens in the streets?

Doesn't it seem odd to you that when you compare Obama's reactions to the protests in Iran, Egypt, and Libya, that the only place he publicly proclaimed that it was time for the dictator to go was also the only place that had a pro-US foreign policy?

Why don't you ask the people you are talking about what they think instead of asking people to imagine what they must think?

Ask the people on the streets in Lybia fighting for freedom from Qadaffi what they think about Obama, and then get back to me.

patteeu
02-24-2011, 08:22 PM
Why don't you ask the people you are talking about what they think instead of asking people to imagine what they must think?

Ask the people on the streets in Lybia fighting for freedom from Qadaffi what they think about Obama, and then get back to me.

I don't have any Libyan phone numbers and I don't have a passport. Any Libyans who read this, could you let jettio know what you think of Obama's silence on this issue? Please include a description of your status in Libyan society so we can know whether we're getting a view of someone on the street or someone connected to the Qadaffi regime. Also, jettio would like to know if you're gay. Thanks.

jettio
02-24-2011, 10:56 PM
I don't have any Libyan phone numbers and I don't have a passport. Any Libyans who read this, could you let jettio know what you think of Obama's silence on this issue? Please include a description of your status in Libyan society so we can know whether we're getting a view of someone on the street or someone connected to the Qadaffi regime. Also, jettio would like to know if you're gay. Thanks.

Man you were the conscientious one who never served in the military who objectedly asked:

"What would you think about a superpower that watched in silence as your brutal dictator slaughtered your fellow citizens in the streets?"

I suppose that you intended that hysteria to have some rhetorical import, but do you really think that many of those folks regret Obama being the US President or are hoping for him to give them some kind of ongoing pep-talk.

I remember after Saddam was expelled from Kuwait, the southern Shia in Iraq were encouraged to prepare rebellion against Saddam, and then after Saddam negotiated peace, he was specifically allowed to fly helicopter gunships to slaughter the people that were given false encouragement to rebel.

I do not fault Obama for not grandstanding, if we are not going to fight the war for the Lybian rebellion with our own armaments, Obama should not grandstand.

I think time will tell, but I would reserve judgment until time does tell. At this point, only stupid short-sighted people are trying to find fault over this.

patteeu
02-25-2011, 12:40 AM
Man you were the conscientious one who never served in the military who objectedly asked:

"What would you think about a superpower that watched in silence as your brutal dictator slaughtered your fellow citizens in the streets?"

I suppose that you intended that hysteria to have some rhetorical import, but do you really think that many of those folks regret Obama being the US President or are hoping for him to give them some kind of ongoing pep-talk.

I remember after Saddam was expelled from Kuwait, the southern Shia in Iraq were encouraged to prepare rebellion against Saddam, and then after Saddam negotiated peace, he was specifically allowed to fly helicopter gunships to slaughter the people that were given false encouragement to rebel.

I do not fault Obama for not grandstanding, if we are not going to fight the war for the Lybian rebellion with our own armaments, Obama should not grandstand.

I think time will tell, but I would reserve judgment until time does tell. At this point, only stupid short-sighted people are trying to find fault over this.

I'll count you as one vote in favor of fecklessness and indecision. :thumb:

jettio
02-25-2011, 01:03 AM
I'll count you as one vote in favor of fecklessness and indecision. :thumb:

How do you imagine you would handle this situation?

BucEyedPea
02-25-2011, 01:17 AM
What is the White House’s strategy on the Libyan crisis? Quite simply there isn’t one.
We don't need a strategy because it's not our fight. So this is fine with me that there isn't one. It's NONE of our business. Do we get our oil from Libya? It's one of the top 20 suppliers but not in the top four but it's not like who ever wins or loses means they won't still need customers.

The Libyan people don’t need lofty neutrality from Washington.
Yes they do.
You can also be sure that how things are playing out over there isn't how it will be reported here.

President Obama is already being outflanked by Nicolas Sarkozy, who has taken a far tougher line on Libya than his US counterpart.
That's because Sarkozy is a French NeoCon....ya' know a progressive with a gun aka pesky interventionist and world busy-body. Even the liberal-left CNN is calling for intervention.

Your position on this chiefsnorth is hardly a conservative one which calls for govt restraint....it's left-progressive one. Progressives love to engineer societies into their world view. Of course, the too-easily-tossed around word "genocide" will be used despite how many we killed in our own Civil War and didn't want the British to intervene. Even Huckabee sounded like CNN tonight calling for intervention...but see he's a Christian socialist so it fits. This is the New Right which is really the Left.


It is hugely embarrassing when even the French are doing more to confront a murderous dictator than the traditional leader of the free world. Frankly, President Obama makes Jimmy Carter look like General MacArthur by comparison. The US administration needs to wake up from its slumber and start showing some real leadership on the world stage in place of its existing milquetoast foreign policy.

Carter was a pesky interventionist for human rights though.

patteeu
02-25-2011, 01:30 AM
How do you imagine you would handle this situation?

I don't see any reason not to condemn the actions of the Gaddafi government in clear terms at the very least.

patteeu
02-25-2011, 01:34 AM
We don't need a strategy because it's not our fight. So this is fine with me that there isn't one. It's NONE of our business. Do we get our oil from Libya? It's one of the top 20 suppliers but not in the top four but it's not like who ever wins or loses means they won't still need customers.

I had intended to address you on this subject since there have been reports that Gaddafi has threatened to set his oil fields ablaze. How can you explain this potential interruption of trade despite the fact that there are hungry customers out there waiting in line to buy this oil? You've assured me in the past that this kind of thing wouldn't happen and that we needn't worry about oil supply security.

jettio
02-25-2011, 01:36 AM
I don't see any reason not to condemn the actions of the Gaddafi government in clear terms at the very least.

Would you get the Marine Corps Band to play Hail to the Chief as you came before the teleprompter?

Would you have a nice suit on, or would you have your sleeves rolled up?

Pioli Zombie
02-25-2011, 05:55 AM
Maybe we should invade Libya.

Count Alex's Losses
02-25-2011, 07:12 AM
Obama calls Cameron and Sarkozy to draw up plans for possible international military intervention in Libya

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1360436/Libya-Obama-calls-Cameron-Sarkozy-refuses-rule-military-action.html#ixzz1EyYlLXE7

LaDairis
02-25-2011, 07:19 AM
You don't know much about Osama's stated reasons for hitting us on 9/11, apparently. Osama had very little to say about the Israeli/palestinian conflict before 9/11, and it certainly wasn't one of his main reasons for attacking us that day, if it was mentioned by him at all.



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/16/terror/main4102367.shtml


""The Palestinian cause has been the main factor that, since my early childhood, fueled my desire, and that of the 19 freemen (Sept. 11 bombers), to stand by the oppressed, and punish the oppressive Jews and their allies," the al Qaeda chief said."

LiveSteam
02-25-2011, 08:00 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/16/terror/main4102367.shtml


""The Palestinian cause has been the main factor that, since my early childhood, fueled my desire, and that of the 19 freemen (Sept. 11 bombers), to stand by the oppressed, and punish the oppressive Jews and their allies," the al Qaeda chief said."

JEW HATING NANCY BOY

FishingRod
02-25-2011, 08:33 AM
"the transfer of captured Soviet weaponry to the US is really common knowledge"


then it should be really easy for you to document it...



Indeed, if the US in 1948 had just carved out southern California, and made it "Israel," the 51st state of the US, none of this stuff would have ever been a problem...


If you love Israel so very much, perhaps you should move there...

We, the United States, have no national interest assisting Israel to re-conquer the PromiseD Land...

In most towns and cities there exists a place called a Library. Inside of this mystical place one can find things called maps and globes. They represent a picture of the Earth in a scaled down size so that one might understand where places are. If one were to enter one of these buildings and look at a map or a globe one could discern that the Baja Peninsula is part of Mexico. Mexico is the Country directly south of the United States. South is the opposite of North or put in a manner you might better understand if you are watching the sun go down and facing what is called the “sunset” the hand that does not have your penis in it would be the direction that Mexico is from the United States. Must work now, have a nice day.

LaDairis
02-25-2011, 08:46 AM
Sorry, but if you cannot find a link on the internet, your claim that this is "widely known" is outed as BS...

LiveSteam
02-25-2011, 08:47 AM
Sorry, but if you cannot find a link on the internet, your claim that this is "widely known" is outed as BS...

Jew hating NANCY BOY Hitler wanna be

patteeu
02-25-2011, 10:13 AM
Would you get the Marine Corps Band to play Hail to the Chief as you came before the teleprompter?

Would you have a nice suit on, or would you have your sleeves rolled up?

You still like this failure of a President, don't you?

patteeu
02-25-2011, 10:15 AM
Maybe we should invade Libya.

If a large enough group of Americans ends up trapped and in danger there, we should be prepared to do just that.

LiveSteam
02-25-2011, 10:18 AM
If a large enough group of Americans ends up trapped and in danger there, we should be prepared to do just that.

Never happen under Obama.

patteeu
02-25-2011, 10:24 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/16/terror/main4102367.shtml


""The Palestinian cause has been the main factor that, since my early childhood, fueled my desire, and that of the 19 freemen (Sept. 11 bombers), to stand by the oppressed, and punish the oppressive Jews and their allies," the al Qaeda chief said."

:facepalm: Good grief. Do you realize you're quoting a 2008 article based on a 2008 video? Note that this is after al Qaeda has been flushed to the hills in the frontier country of Pakistan and after AQI has been effectively neutralized in Iraq. He's looking for a new source of inspiration, not reminding us of long held beliefs.

If you read his 10,000 word declaration of war (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html) against the US, written before the 9/11 attacks, he mentions the conflict between the "zionists" and muslims in "palestine" a few times, but it's not a central focus.

jettio
02-25-2011, 10:33 AM
You still like this failure of a President, don't you?

You still think B*sh, Cheney and Rumsfeld invaded Iraq because they feared that Saddam Hussein had a WMD program that represented a imminent threat to the United States when nearly everybody else realizes they were not honest about their true motivations and the fake evidence and fake case that they presented.

You still think that they executed the Iraq invasion and occupation with expertise and skill when nearly everybody else know that B*sh, Cheney and Rumsfeld were incompetent liars whose friends and former companies made billions of dollars from that collosall clusterf*ck in Iraq that is reflected in trillions added to our nation's deficit.

You are determined to be prejudiced against Obama, we will see how the 2012 election goes to see whether the voters think he is the best choice to be President and how his Presidency is graded by people that are more reasonable and less prejudiced than you.

As far as you criticizing Obama for not issuing a strong condemnation of Qadaffi's recent actions why don't you do some research before running your prejudiced fingers across the keyboard. Do a google search for "Obama condemns Lybian" and realize that he has already done what you are criticizng him for not doing.

Go ahead and find some way to parse your nit-picking prejudiced criticism to say that Obama did not exactly say the words that your prejudiced dumbazz would prefer for him to use, but people that are not hateful and prejudiced will be able to tell that you are wasting people's time.

patteeu
02-25-2011, 10:44 AM
You still think B*sh, Cheney and Rumsfeld invaded Iraq because they feared that Saddam Hussein had a WMD program that represented a imminent threat to the United States when nearly everybody else realizes they were not honest about their true motivations and the fake evidence and fake case that they presented.

You still think that they executed the Iraq invasion and occupation with expertise and skill when nearly everybody else know that B*sh, Cheney and Rumsfeld were incompetent liars whose friends and former companies made billions of dollars from that collosall clusterf*ck in Iraq that is reflected in trillions added to our nation's deficit.

You are determined to be prejudiced against Obama, we will see how the 2012 election goes to see whether the voters think he is the best choice to be President and how his Presidency is graded by people that are more reasonable and less prejudiced than you.

As far as you criticizing Obama for not issuing a strong condemnation of Qadaffi's recent actions why don't you do some research before running your prejudiced fingers across the keyboard. Do a google search for "Obama condemns Lybian" and realize that he has already done what you are criticizng him for not doing.

Go ahead and find some way to parse your nit-picking prejudiced criticism to say that Obama did not exactly say the words that your prejudiced dumbazz would prefer for him to use, but people that are not hateful and prejudiced will be able to tell that you are wasting people's time.

1. What is it with you idiots and this imminent threat thing? The Bush administration never said that Iraq was an imminent threat with the single exception of an Ari Fleischer press conference where he responded to a reporter who used that word. Out of thousands of statements about the Iraq threat, "imminent" was only implicated one time. I think it's safe to say that they avoided the use of that word on purpose and Fleischer's response to the reporter was an error.

2. Everyone agreed with the administration when it came to WMD. Even the international weapons inspectors like Hans Blix who said they couldn't find evidence of WMD believed that WMD would be uncovered after the invasion. Nearly every leader in the democrat party was on record accusing Saddam of having WMD. Every western intelligence agency believed he had them. I don't know where you're coming up with your revisionist history here, but I suspect it's just a case of bad memory.

3. Mealy mouthed, generic criticisms of violence are not the same thing as a pointed, clearly articulated condemnation of a specific perpetrator. You'll defend this POTUS no matter how weak he makes his country appear.

jettio
02-25-2011, 10:56 AM
1. What is it with you idiots and this imminent threat thing? The Bush administration never said that Iraq was an imminent threat with the single exception of an Ari Fleischer press conference where he responded to a reporter who used that word. Out of thousands of statements about the Iraq threat, "imminent" was only implicated one time. I think it's safe to say that they avoided the use of that word on purpose and Fleischer's response to the reporter was an error.

2. Everyone agreed with the administration when it came to WMD. Even the international weapons inspectors like Hans Blix who said they couldn't find evidence of WMD believed that WMD would be uncovered after the invasion. Nearly every leader in the democrat party was on record accusing Saddam of having WMD. Every western intelligence agency believed he had them. I don't know where you're coming up with your revisionist history here, but I suspect it's just a case of bad memory.

3. Mealy mouthed, generic criticisms of violence are not the same thing as a pointed, clearly articulated condemnation of a specific perpetrator. You'll defend this POTUS no matter how weak he makes his country appear.

You are praising the B*sh administration precisely worded lying as a way to justify the trillions of dollars they added to our deficit to wage the most incompetently executed foreign policy and in the next breath you are crticizing Obama for not clearly articulating some condemnation.

I guess you are more interested in the words that Presidents use and do not care to evaluate the results of their actions.

Most Americans realize that B*sh tarnished our nation's prestige and that Obama has done a lot to restore our Nation's standing.

You are just not an objective evaluator of Presidents and the results of their foregin policy actions. You are a prejudiced small minded person who judges B*sh, Cheney and Rumsfeld to be honest and successful executors of brilliant policies.

The plain fact that you can't see the truths about the B*sh presidency makes you someone not to be trusted when evaluating Obama and our country's standing in the world.

You are not credible because you are not able to figure out simple things.

patteeu
02-25-2011, 10:59 AM
You are praising the B*sh administration precisely worded lying as a way to justify the trillions of dollars they added to our deficit to wage the most incompetently executed foreign policy and in the next breath you are crticizing Obama for not clearly articulating some condemnation.

I guess you are more interested in the words that Presidents use and do not care to evaluate the results of their actions.

Most Americans realize that B*sh tarnished our nation's prestige and that Obama has done a lot to restore our Nation's standing.

You are just not an objective evaluator of Presidents and the results of their foregin policy actions. You are a prejudiced small minded person who judges B*sh, Cheney and Rumsfeld to be honest and successful executors of brilliant policies.

The plain fact that you can't see the truths about the B*sh presidency makes you someone not to be trusted when evaluating Obama and our country's standing in the world.

You are not credible because you are not able to figure out simple things.

Why did you lie about the word "imminent"? If they were such failures, surely you could have made the case honestly.

FishingRod
02-25-2011, 11:02 AM
This is an article Dr. Steve Carol, a retired professor of history with a specialty in the Modern Middle East.



Throughout the six decades since the re-establishment of Israel, an often repeated claim in made that “Israel is a draining liability on the United States.” This claim is bogus and an examination of the facts hopefully will consign this charge to the trash-heap where it belongs.

Further adding to the problem are statements made by and the conduct of Israel's leftist leaders since 1993 create the false impression that Israeli-American ties constitute a one-way relationship. The impression is given that the U.S. gives and Israel merely receives and thus must constantly bow to “American pressure” as personified by the U.S. State Department.

The truth is that the relationship is a two-way partnership. For example:

• In 1952, as the Cold War got underway, U.S. Army Chief-of-Staff Omar Bradley called for the integration of Israel into the Mediterranean Basin area, in light of the country's location and unique capabilities.

• In 1967, Israel defeated a radical Arab, pro-Soviet offensive, which threatened to bring about the collapse of pro-American Arab regimes and disrupt oil supply, thus severely undermining the American standard of living. The U.S. gained valuable military information from analysis of captured Soviet equipment, including SAM-2, SAM-12, Mig-21 aircraft, and Soviet T-54 battle tanks. In fact, Israel gave an entire squadron of MiG-21s to the U.S. which was dubbed the “Top Gun” squadron and used by the U.S. Air and Naval forces for training purposes. Since 1967, Israel transferred captured Soviet weapons systems to the U.S. Pentagon after every conflict: 1967, 1967-70, 1973, 1982, 1990 (Scud remnants from the Gulf War), and 2006 (remnants of Iranian supplied missiles.

• In the 1967-1970 1000 Day War of Attrition, the IDF, armed with American aircraft successfully defeated a Soviet-supplied air defense system, pointing out the deficiencies in Soviet air-defense doctrine to US defense planners. Israel shared captured military equipment include P-2 radar and Soviet tanks with the U.S. military.

• In 1970, Israel brought about the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Jordan, at a time when the U.S. was tied up by wars in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, thus preventing the fall of the pro-American Hashemite regime and the installation of a pro-Soviet radical Palestinian terrorist regime.

• In 1973 – thanks to U.S. re-supply, but without U.S. forces, Israel defeated Soviet-trained and equipped Egyptian and Syrian forces. Israel again shared captured Soviet equipment, including T-62 battle tanks with the U.S. Israel emerged as the only reliable ally where U.S. troops could land, where U.S. equipment can be pre-positioned, where the U.S. has friendly port facilities (in Haifa and Ashdod) in the entire Middle East region. This too has saved the U.S. billions of dollars.

• 1970s - Joseph Sisco, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, assistant to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger during the latter’s shuttle diplomacy, told the Israeli author and military expert, Shmuel Katz: “I want to assure you, Mr. Katz, that if we were not getting full value for our money, you would not get a cent from us.”

• In 1981, Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak, delaying Saddam Hussein’s quest for nuclear weapons. It thus provided the U.S. with the option of engaging in conventional wars with Iraq in 1991 and 2003.

• The vice president General Dynamics which produces the F16 fighter jets has stated that Israel is responsible for 600 improvements in the plane's systems, modifications estimated to be worth billions of dollars, which spared dozens of research and development years.

• In 1982, Israel destroyed Soviet anti-aircraft batteries in Lebanon that were considered immune to American weapons. Israel promptly shared the operation's lessons, estimated to be worth billions of dollars.

• Former Secretary of State and NATO forces commander Alexander Haig has stated that he is pro-Israeli because Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one American soldier, and is located in a critical region for American national security.

• During the first Gulf War 1991, Israel provided invaluable intelligence, an umbrella of air cover for military cargo, and had personnel planted in the Iraqi desert to pick up downed American pilots.

• General George Keegan, former head of U.S. Air Force Intelligence has publicly declared that “Israel is worth five CIA’s.” He further stated that between 1974 and 1990, Israel received $18.3 billion in U.S. military grants. During the same period Israel provided the U.S. with $50-80 billion in intelligence, research and development savings, and Soviet weapons systems captured and transferred to the U.S.

• In 2005, Israel provided America with the world's most extensive experience in homeland defense and warfare against suicide bombers and car bombs. American soldiers train in IDF facilities and Israeli-made drones fly above the "Sunni Triangle" in Iraq, as well as in Afghanistan, providing U.S. Marines with vital intelligence.

• In September 2007, the IAF destroyed a Syrian-North Korean nuclear plant, extending the US’s strategic arm. It provided the US with vital information on Russian air defense systems, which are also employed by Iran. It bolstered the US posture of deterrence and refuted the claim that US-Israel relations have been shaped by political expediency.

• In 2009, Israel shares with the US its battle-tested experience in combating Palestinian and Hizbullah terrorism, which are the role model of anti-US Islamic terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. US GIs benefit from Israel’s battle tactics against car bombs, improvised explosive devices and homicide bombing. An Israel-like ally in the Persian Gulf would have spared the need to dispatch US troops to Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

• Israel has relayed to the U.S. lessons of battle (during the Cold War – Soviet military doctrine) and counter-terrorism (including aircraft security, homicide-suicide bombings) which reduce American losses in Iraq and Afghanistan, prevent attacks on U.S. soil, upgrade American weapons, and contribute to the U.S. economy. Without Israel, the U.S. would have been forced to deploy tens of thousands of American troops in the eastern Mediterranean Basin, at a cost of billions of dollars a year.

• Senator Daniel Inouye has recently (2005) argued Israeli information regarding Soviet arms saved the U.S. billions of dollars. The contribution made by Israeli intelligence to America is greater than that provided by all NATO countries combined, he said.

• Israel's utilization of American arms guarantees its existence, but at the same time gives U.S. military industries, such as Boeing and General Dynamics, a competitive edge compared to European industries, while also boosting American military production, producing American jobs, and improving America's national security. Japan and South Korea, for example, preferred the "Hawkeye" spy plane and the MD-500 chopper, both purchased and upgraded by Israel, over comparable British and French aircraft.

• The American industries want U.S. aid to Israel to continue. The bulk of the $1.8 billion in annual U.S. military aid to Israel must be spent in the United States. That provides jobs for some 50,000 U.S. workers. Virtually all of the $1.2 billion in annual economic aid goes for repayment of debt to the United States, incurred from military purchases dating back many years. This debt is now close to being liquidated.

• Innovative Israeli technologies have a similar effect on American civilian, including computer-related industries and agricultural industries, which view Israel as a successful research and development site.

• Members of the U.S. Congress leaders, then Vice President Dick Cheney, and then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld are aware of Israel's unique contribution to U.S. interests. But, in fact, they all wonder why the post-1993 Israel does not use its impressive contribution as leverage, in sharp contrast to the pre-1993 Israel.

• In contrast to our commitments to Korea, Japan, Germany and other parts of the world, not a single American serviceperson needs to be stationed in Israel. Considering that the cost of one serviceperson per year – including backup and infrastructure – is estimated to be about $200,000 per year, and assuming a minimum contingent of 25,000 troops, the cost savings to the United States on that score alone are on the order of $5 billion a year.

jettio
02-25-2011, 11:11 AM
Why did you lie about the word "imminent"? If they were such failures, surely you could have made the case honestly.

They should change the tax code so that people like you pay extra federal income tax to make up the trillions of dollars spent by B*sh, Rumsfeld and Cheney in Iraq.

They lied to the people to get support for that trillions of dollars of poorly executed foreign policy and you guys that want to continue to lie about it ought to pay back the money.

patteeu
02-25-2011, 11:17 AM
They should change the tax code so that people like you pay extra federal income tax to make up the trillions of dollars spent by B*sh, Rumsfeld and Cheney in Iraq.

They lied to the people to get support for that trillions of dollars of poorly executed foreign policy and you guys that want to continue to lie about it ought to pay back the money.

That's not an answer to my question.

jettio
02-25-2011, 11:24 AM
That's not an answer to my question.

The results matter.

You judge Presidents and their foreign policy based on how the Presidents
and others in the administration artfully twist words at the podium.

You judge the B*sh, Cheney Rumsfeld team to be the greatest because they artfully manipulated you and others with their words.

You ignore the results.

You should care about the results. The Results matter.

patteeu
02-25-2011, 11:27 AM
The results matter.

You judge Presidents and their foreign policy based on how the Presidents
and others in the administration artfully twist words at the podium.

You judge the B*sh, Cheney Rumsfeld team to be the greatest because they artfully manipulated you and others with their words.

You ignore the results.

You should care about the results. The Results matter.

I'm concerned that my question hasn't resulted in an answer.

Chief Faithful
02-25-2011, 01:09 PM
Obama has a strategy on the Libyan crisis, shift the public discourse to Gay Marriage.

vailpass
02-25-2011, 01:30 PM
They should change the tax code so that people like you pay extra federal income tax to make up the trillions of dollars spent by B*sh, Rumsfeld and Cheney in Iraq.

They lied to the people to get support for that trillions of dollars of poorly executed foreign policy and you guys that want to continue to lie about it ought to pay back the money.

:LOL: Over two years into it and the few remaining obama supporters still have to talk about Bush instead of referencing any accomplishments of obama's. Better than halfway through his term and this is still all they have.

Pretty sad state of affairs. One thing I can agree with Jettio on: I also can't wait until the 2012 elections.

chiefsnorth
02-25-2011, 01:50 PM
How do you imagine you would handle this situation?

Question: What is the maximum acceptable level of human casualties before you think action would be warranted?

patteeu
02-25-2011, 01:52 PM
Question: What is the maximum acceptable level of human casualties before you think action would be warranted?

He'll get back to you after he knows Obama's answer.

chiefsnorth
02-25-2011, 02:07 PM
He'll get back to you after he knows Obama's answer.

Well that doesn't help. Obama is going to hide under his desk until it's all over, then let us know he was on the winning side all along, like with Egypt.

patteeu
02-25-2011, 02:22 PM
Well that doesn't help. Obama is going to hide under his desk until it's all over, then let us know he was on the winning side all along, like with Egypt.

Yes. Like Obama, like jettio.

BucEyedPea
02-25-2011, 02:24 PM
Question: What is the maximum acceptable level of human casualties before you think action would be warranted?

How do we know how their opposition* will rule? Not all revolutions result in a better govt—more often they're worse.
The French Revolution lead to the Jacobins and then Napoleon, The Bolsheviks Revolution to Lenin and then Stalin, need I mention the earlier Iranian Revolution?

Besides, it's a civil war. Civil wars are usually the bloodiest and nastiest of all wars because it's in the family...'er country. Still, I'd say these uprisings in the ME are the result of global quantative easing and rising food prices and everything that is wrong with global banking mechanisms to deal with the financial crisis. Coming soon to America.

* or if you prefer the Marxist term "the people"

jettio
02-25-2011, 02:31 PM
Question: What is the maximum acceptable level of human casualties before you think action would be warranted?

Are you saying that we should already be engaging our military resources there.

I think Obama is right to make sure that the American civilians are getting out safely as a first step. If our military is necessary for that, they should be there.

As far as the Libyan rebellion, whether we should trade live bullets on that or use air power to impose no-fly zones should depend on whatever intelligence we have about the military assets that the different players have.

I would like to have some idea about the extent of military defections, and one would expect that the French and the Italians have more assets that could find that out.

If these Lybian rebels used the results of the peaceful protests in Egypt to get all happy and jump into a bullet trading rebellion that they may or may not win, I do not think we have any automatic obligation to limit their casualties.

I say it all depends on the facts. If we do anything it should be based on a reasonable assessment of the situation and the likely outcomes of our intervention and the aftermath.

If the rebellion needs our intervention in order to win, then they better pay up, or at least not object, when we build a pipeline from Libya to the old refinery in Sugar Creek so that the folks in Kansas City get gas at 1930 prices.

That is another problem with patteeu's hero, B*sh was a lying sack of Raiduhs on everything related to Iraq with the notable exception of getting all honest and sh*t when it was time to steal the oil.

What is your answer to the question you asked?

chiefsnorth
02-25-2011, 02:32 PM
How do we know how their opposition* will rule? Not all revolutions result in a better govt—more often they're worse.
The French Revolution lead to the Jacobins and then Napoleon, The Bolsheviks Revolution to Lenin and then Stalin, need I mention the earlier Iranian Revolution?

Besides, it's a civil war. Civil wars are usually the bloodiest and nastiest of all wars because it's in the family...'er country. Still, I'd say these uprisings in the ME are the result of global quantative easing and rising food prices and everything that is wrong with global banking mechanisms to deal with the financial crisis. Coming soon to America.

* or if you prefer the Marxist term "the people"
Well, you then.

How many civilians would he have to kill before you'd feel intervention was warranted?

jettio
02-25-2011, 02:34 PM
Yes. Like Obama, like jettio.

So apparently you have changed your position from making a strong condemnation from a podium to the immediate deployment of military forces.

What changed your mind?

jettio
02-25-2011, 02:35 PM
Well that doesn't help. Obama is going to hide under his desk until it's all over, then let us know he was on the winning side all along, like with Egypt.

So what would you have done differently in Egypt?

chiefsnorth
02-25-2011, 02:46 PM
So what would you have done differently in Egypt?

Told Mubarack through back channels to get out or face direct opposition if he were threatening this kind of thing. If he declined then a deadline around sanctions and other formal steps would be put in place.

In Libya, since we have civilians being slaughtered and a stated determination by the leader to fight to the death, we give the same ultimatum. If declined then we have all options on the table. Backing the resistance directly, assassination, etc.

You'd think the human casualties would make us more apt to act, but instead they make president milquetoast less likely to act. The world has accurately sized him up as being weak and this is an example.

BucEyedPea
02-25-2011, 03:09 PM
Well, you then.

How many civilians would he have to kill before you'd feel intervention was warranted?

I don't feel intervention is warranted. Let them kill one another. Once we take a side, we'll just make a new enemy. We don't need that we have enough as it is.

BucEyedPea
02-25-2011, 03:13 PM
Told Mubarack through back channels to get out or face direct opposition if he were threatening this kind of thing. If he declined then a deadline around sanctions and other formal steps would be put in place.

How do you know back channels weren't used? I saw reports that the Saudis pleaded with our govt to allow Mubarak a way out with dignity. Looks like that happened. Mubarak is now safely at his seaside villa and his replacement, who is really just another Mubarack is in his place. LOL!

But sanctions? You've got to be kidding me. You claim to want to save lives, yet our sanctions in Iraq killed millions of innocent children. Sanctions only hurt the people you're trying to help as the leadership digs in and they don't suffer that much from them.

In Libya, since we have civilians being slaughtered and a stated determination by the leader to fight to the death, we give the same ultimatum. If declined then we have all options on the table. Backing the resistance directly, assassination, etc.

You'd think the human casualties would make us more apt to act, but instead they make president milquetoast less likely to act. The world has accurately sized him up as being weak and this is an example.

Again, it is NONE of our BUSINESS. Our men and women should not die in another country's civil war. If we do anything we'd should be more like the Swiss and act as mediators without taking sides BUT we'd have be allowed to do it there too. Quit being a busy body, we have enough of our own problems than to act like we run the world like we're emperors even if covered up under the banner of progressivism. Even our Framers argued for staying out of the French Revolution which was wise.

jettio
02-25-2011, 03:25 PM
Told Mubarack through back channels to get out or face direct opposition if he were threatening this kind of thing. If he declined then a deadline around sanctions and other formal steps would be put in place.

In Libya, since we have civilians being slaughtered and a stated determination by the leader to fight to the death, we give the same ultimatum. If declined then we have all options on the table. Backing the resistance directly, assassination, etc.

You'd think the human casualties would make us more apt to act, but instead they make president milquetoast less likely to act. The world has accurately sized him up as being weak and this is an example.

So your criticism of Obama regarding Egypt is based on what evidence. The truth could be that he did exactly what you wrote. What makes you think that he did not do that? Seems like you are just badmouthing him based on no facts.

Same can be said regards Libya. Truth is, you do not know what is being communicated through diplomatic channels. What is being communicated could be exactly what you are recommending. but then you go ahead and assume some nonsense based on no facts.

Obama brings direct strikes to terrorists living in Pakistan, just like he said he would do in the primaries. when he said it in the primaries, Hillary Clinton and B*sh and all the GOP supporters criticized him as naive and undiplomatic for saying it because you had bought into the idea that Musharraf was the only acceptable ruler in Pakistan.

Obama gets in office and there have been exponentially more direct strikes on terrorists in Pakistan. And you somehow think you know what people living in other parts of the world think about Obama as being weak. People in that part of the world see that Obama will kill terrorists in Pakistan without worrying that much about how it apparently weakens Pakistan's sovreignty.

You are just prejudiced and criticizing Obama for what your made up mind assumes from miles away with no information.

You should come up with some proof that Obama has disappointed leaders and citizens of other countries before proclaiming it based on your prejudiced assumptions.

You should not presume to speak for the "world," especially when you make no effort to find out what the people you presume to speak for really think.

chiefsnorth
02-25-2011, 03:26 PM
Of course sanctions have unintended consequences, but I find it remarkable that you bring the "but Libyan civilians could get hurt if there are sanctions" when they are already being killed.

But I agree that it would be unfortunate for it to come to that. Strong encouragement to leave, exile, or assassination would be cleaner and have a better outcome, allowing us to moderate from afar.

BucEyedPea
02-25-2011, 03:51 PM
Of course sanctions have unintended consequences, but I find it remarkable that you bring the "but Libyan civilians could get hurt if there are sanctions" when they are already being killed.
Exactly my point. It's a no-gain/no-win situation is all. So let's not do it at all.

But I agree that it would be unfortunate for it to come to that. Strong encouragement to leave, exile, or assassination would be cleaner and have a better outcome, allowing us to moderate from afar.

By what authority do we have to moderate here at all? You might as well establish a One World Government if you think this is necessary. I assure you we are NOT an Empire either, with progressive authority to engineer outcomes in other countries. It creates more problems for us more often than not.

chiefsnorth
02-25-2011, 05:01 PM
Exactly my point. It's a no-gain/no-win situation is all. So let's not do it at all.



By what authority do we have to moderate here at all? You might as well establish a One World Government if you think this is necessary. I assure you we are NOT an Empire either, with progressive authority to engineer outcomes in other countries. It creates more problems for us more often than not.

Well the moral authority would derive from his ordering soldiers to fire into crowds of civilians. That doesn't necessarily mean it's good public policy but trying to stop that would pass a moral test if we reasonably could.

Making these decisions would require a depth of intel that I dont have. But if we could facilitate his exit one way or another through an intermediary, if we had an easy way to get to him, then the government changes over, he doesn't take thousands of civilians with him, Libya isn't significantly damaged by the conflict, he doesn't disrupt the global economy.. Really nobody loses here.

jettio
02-25-2011, 05:16 PM
How do you know back channels weren't used? I saw reports that the Saudis pleaded with our govt to allow Mubarak a way out with dignity. Looks like that happened. Mubarak is now safely at his seaside villa and his replacement, who is really just another Mubarack is in his place. LOL!

But sanctions? You've got to be kidding me. You claim to want to save lives, yet our sanctions in Iraq killed millions of innocent children. Sanctions only hurt the people you're trying to help as the leadership digs in and they don't suffer that much from them.



Again, it is NONE of our BUSINESS. Our men and women should not die in another country's civil war. If we do anything we'd should be more like the Swiss and act as mediators without taking sides BUT we'd have be allowed to do it there too. Quit being a busy body, we have enough of our own problems than to act like we run the world like we're emperors even if covered up under the banner of progressivism. Even our Framers argued for staying out of the French Revolution which was wise.

You are the busy body, if the market decides to launch an interventionist war, who are you to interfere with what the market decides?

If you keep popping off, the market might have to keep its invisible hand strong straightening you out.

BucEyedPea
02-25-2011, 07:03 PM
You are the busy body, if the market decides to launch an interventionist war, who are you to interfere with what the market decides?
So are you projecting now? You're using that out of context. Plus markets don't launch wars. It's when goods won't pass that armies will. This is a fundamental concept of free-marketers. It comes from Bastiat.

I am not into interfering in the affairs of other nations generally speaking. I am not absolutist about it though.

If you keep popping off, the market might have to keep its invisible hand strong straightening you out.

This makes no sense. Are you sure you understand non-intervention in FP as well as markets? I don't think so.

BucEyedPea
02-25-2011, 07:06 PM
Well the moral authority would derive from his ordering soldiers to fire into crowds of civilians. That doesn't necessarily mean it's good public policy but trying to stop that would pass a moral test if we reasonably could.
No, it creates more problems for us since you don't know how these people will govern. Already there's been firing on a monastery in Egypt by their army.

Making these decisions would require a depth of intel that I dont have. But if we could facilitate his exit one way or another through an intermediary, if we had an easy way to get to him, then the government changes over, he doesn't take thousands of civilians with him, Libya isn't significantly damaged by the conflict, he doesn't disrupt the global economy.. Really nobody loses here.
Nobody necessarily wins either. It's none of our business. It's not our fight. Intervention can make it worse and even last longer. These countries have tribes who hate each other. It makes no sense to get involved and pick up a new enemy as we will if we take a side. Besides, how thinly do you want to spread the US military before we go into decline completely? That will surely follow at some point. In fact we're broke now.

orange
02-25-2011, 07:59 PM
Obama breaks silence, condemns Libya crackdown

By Alister Bull and Arshad Mohammed

WASHINGTON | Wed Feb 23, 2011 6:55pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama condemned the "outrageous" crackdown by Libyan security forces on protesters and said Washington would work with international partners to hold Muammar Gaddafi's government accountable.

"The suffering and bloodshed is outrageous and it is unacceptable. So are threats and orders to shoot peaceful protesters," Obama said in his first public comments on the violence in Libya.

He did not directly criticize Gaddafi and he stopped short of backing sanctions against the oil-producing North African country.

Obama, the first U.S. president to meet Gaddafi, has faced criticism in some quarters for not speaking out sooner, but U.S. officials say they have tempered their response to ensure thousands of Americans in Libya can be safely evacuated.

"We are doing everything we can to protect American citizens. It is my highest priority," Obama said at the White House.

Obama spoke as a U.S.-government chartered ferry prepared to evacuate Americans and other foreigners to the island of Malta in the Mediterranean. The U.S. government estimates there are several thousand Americans living in Libya. Most hold dual citizenship with about 600 carrying U.S. passports only.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said high seas were delaying the ferry's departure. "Citizens are safe on board. It will leave when the weather permits," he tweeted.

After days of cautious statements on the turmoil in Libya, U.S. officials steadily ratcheted up their rhetoric on Wednesday.

Crowley said sanctions and freezing Libyan assets, including those belonging to Gaddafi, were among the options being considered by the United States.

Sanctions alone would not have much impact -- U.S. exports to Libya were only $665 million in 2010, while U.S. aid amounted to less than $1 million. Analysts say getting international agreement on such measures will likely be difficult and take time.

Obama said he had ordered his national security team to prepare the full range of options for dealing with the crisis.

"It is imperative that the nations and peoples of the world speak with one voice," he said.

(Additional reporting by Caren Bohan, Phil Stewart, Matt Spetalnick, Jeff Mason, Paul Eckert, Andrew Quinn and Patricia Zengerle; Writing by Ross Colvin; Editing by Philip Barbara)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/23/us-libya-usa-idUSTRE71K6D520110223

orange
02-25-2011, 08:01 PM
WTF are you people arguing about, again?

orange
02-25-2011, 08:05 PM
Do the Brits know about this, though?

Barack Obama tells Gaddafi: Libya violence must stop

US president finally breaks silence on Libya to condemn ruling regime and make threat of sanctions

Ewen MacAskill in Washington and agencies The Guardian, Thursday 24 February 2011

Barack Obama has warned the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi that he faces the prospect of international sanctions over violence against demonstrators, and condemned Gaddafi's actions as outrageous and unacceptable.

Obama is sending secretary of state Hillary Clinton to Europe to discuss what actions can be taken to stop the violence, and to take part in a meeting of the Human Rights Council in Geneva.

The US president took care to maintain balance in his pronouncements over the uprisings in Egypt. By contrast, this statement was unequivocal in its criticism of Gaddafi's actions. Obama promised that the Libyan leader would be held accountable.

"The suffering and bloodshed is outrageous and it is unacceptable. So are threats and orders to shoot peaceful protesters and further punish the people of Libya. These actions violate international norms and every standard of common decency. This violence must stop," Obama said.

He broke his silence on Libya as US citizens in the country are preparing to be evacuated.

Signalling he is considering sanctions, Obama said he has asked his administration for a list of options on how to respond to the crisis. "This includes those actions we may take and those we will coordinate with our allies and partners, or those that we will carry out through multilateral institutions," he said.

Gaddafi has had sanctions imposed on him before when he was regarded as a pariah by the US, Britain and others before voluntarily surrendering his weapons of mass destruction. At this stage, the threat of sanctions is mainly symbolic and would not have any immediate impact, though in the long term they could damage the Libyan economy.

Obama, at the start of his statement, stressed his priority was to protect US citizens in Libya. But turning to the Libyans, he extended condolences to the families who have seen members injured or killed.

Aligning the US with the protesters, Obama said: "The United States also strongly supports the universal rights of the Libyan people. That includes the rights of peaceful assembly, free speech, and the ability of the Libyan people to determine their own destiny. These are human rights. They are not negotiable. They must be respected in every country. And they cannot be denied through violence or suppression."

He added: "Like all governments, the Libyan government has a responsibility to refrain from violence, to allow humanitarian assistance to reach those in need, and to respect the rights of its people. It must be held accountable for its failure to meet those responsibilities, and face the cost of continued violations of human rights."

Meanwhile in Libya, Gaddafi's control seems to be eroding as major cities and towns closer to the capital fall to the rebellion against his rule. In the east, now all but broken away, the opposition has vowed to "liberate" Tripoli, where the Libyan leader is holed up with a force of militiamen and tanks.

His supporters, a mix of Libyans and foreign African fighters bused in, roam the capital's main streets, called up by the leader's speech on Tuesday night in which he vowed to fight to the death.

Gaddafi's residence at Tripoli's Aziziya Gates is guarded by loyalists along with a line of armed militiamen in vehicles, some masked, an activist reported. The radio station building downtown is also heavily fortified.

In one western neighborhood, security forces have stormed several homes and arrested three or four people, witnesses said, while tanks are deployed on the eastern outskirts.

With a steady rain, Tripoli's streets are largely empty. But in many neighborhoods, residents have set up watch groups to keep out militiamen, barricading streets with concrete blocks, metal and rocks, and searching those trying to enter.

"Mercenaries are everywhere with weapons," said a resident who spent the night awake in her home hearing gunfire outside. "You can't open a window or door. Snipers hunt people. We are under siege, at the mercy of a man who is not a Muslim."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/24/obama-gaddafi-libya-violence-speech


Hmmm, I guess they do. That leaves only ChiefsPlanet and the Telegraph* in the dark.

* in truth, probably ALL the Murdoch "news" sources

orange
02-25-2011, 08:12 PM
That leaves only ChiefsPlanet and the Telegraph* in the dark.


Well, not entirely I suppose. Some Tories have even heard about it, if they read far enough down in related articles:


Responding to questions posed on the internet, Mr Cameron (British PM Conservative David Cameron) was asked whether the international community should not intervene to prevent the bloodshed in the same way it did in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

''I completely back what Barack Obama said last night about this, and these actions, yes, they must have consequences - consequences in the UN Security Council, consequences for those responsible for them and we should, as Barack Obama said, look at the full range of options in doing that,'' Mr Cameron responded.

''I would condemn human rights abuses and the repression by governments against their people wherever they happen, Libya included, and all our minds at the moment are focused on that country and quite rightly so.

''What we have been seeing on our television screen and is happening on the streets of Tripoli and elsewhere is completely unacceptable and it must stop and, as I am absolutely clear, if it does not stop there will be consequences.''

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8344782/Libya-David-Cameron-incredibly-sorry-for-rescue-debacle.html

BucEyedPea
02-25-2011, 09:58 PM
As if Obama saying anything will make the violence stop.:facepalm:

HonestChieffan
02-25-2011, 10:09 PM
As if Obama saying anything will make the violence stop.:facepalm:

Y'all get off his back. The guy is busy doing the peoples work.

Lets see whats happening in the real world...

He was working on the party with Gladys Knight singin at the big house. No word if the Pips are comin. This on the heels of the Big Motown night this week...http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/02/25/obama_first_lady_get_their_groove_on_to_motown_hits.html

White House press secretary Jay Carney announced today that Gladys Knight will perform for President Obama Sunday at the 2011 Governors’ Dinner.

In a C-Span video of the press briefing posted on RealClearPolitics.com, Carney’s announcement drew some good-natured laughter when a reporter asked, “Are the Pips coming?”

Carney rolled with the lighthearted question: “I will ask about the Pips.”


And they have a new social secretary in a gender bias breakthrough:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/02/jeremy_bernard_a_historic_choi.html

The White House is set to make news and history this afternoon when it announces the new social secretary.

Jeremy Bernard, currently the chief of staff to the U.S. ambassador to France, will become the third person to hold the job in the Obama administration.

But he will be the first man and the first openly gay person to be the first family’s and the executive mansion’s chief event planner and host.

Desiree Rogers was the first social secretary under President Obama and the first African American in the position. But one state dinner and three party crashers later, the exquisitely grand Rogers was gone. “She is a star,” as one friend aptly put it at the height of the Salahi controversy, “who has taken a gig in the chorus.”

Julianna Smoot swooped in at the behest of the Obamas last March. She was the engineer behind the president’s 2008 fundraising machine and a known Washington hand who focused the social secretary’s office on the fundamentals. But she resigned last month to join the reelection campaign taking shape in Chicago.

And now comes Jeremy Bernard.

Bernard and his then-partner Rufus Gifford were early supporters of Obama in California. And they raised a ton of money for him through their company, B&G Associates. Gifford went on to become finance director of the Democratic National Committee. Bernard was the White House liaison at the National Endowment for the Humanities before dashing off to his Paris post in November.

patteeu
02-27-2011, 07:45 AM
Obama breaks silence, condemns Libya crackdown

Always a day late and a dollar short. Obama's America.

At least he's on the right side for a change.