PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Why Obama screwed up in regards to Libya...


AustinChief
03-19-2011, 06:21 PM
I personally don't think we have ANY cause to intervene in the internal affairs of Libya .. Obama staying out of the fray was the right decision... but he was doing it wrong... which has now been proven by today's actions.

Obama needed to make a strong and clear statement of what America's policy was.. instead he waffled until the UN took the lead on things and now he is following along.

He has officially set America up as a nation that follows instead of leads.

I was never a fan of his but today I am DISGUSTED by what he has done to America. We are now officially the UN's bitch.

Donger
03-19-2011, 06:24 PM
I was never under the impression that Obama believes/d that we should lead. Didn't he say that he was a "citizen of the world" at one point?

ClevelandBronco
03-19-2011, 06:34 PM
"Any world order that elevates one nation or any group of people will not prevail."

— Barack Obama

Count Zarth
03-19-2011, 06:34 PM
Libya is part of the UN....so I don't see why the UN shouldn't take the lead in these matters.

We're damned either way...if we charge in guns blazing without the UN's consent Obama would be criticized....if we wait for the UN to take the lead Obama gets criticized.

I don't really care if we're viewed as the UN's bitch...we're working together to make the world a better place. Everything else is meaningless.

And I don't even like Obama....

Chocolate Hog
03-19-2011, 06:37 PM
I'm more concerned with Libya becoming the next Samolia and North Africa being ruled by radicals. Thats what's going to happen with todays events.

AustinChief
03-19-2011, 06:45 PM
Libya is part of the UN....so I don't see why the UN shouldn't take the lead in these matters.

We're damned either way...if we charge in guns blazing without the UN's consent Obama would be criticized....if we wait for the UN to take the lead Obama gets criticized.

I don't really care if we're viewed as the UN's bitch...we're working together to make the world a better place. Everything else is meaningless.

And I don't even like Obama....

You're incredibly naive on world diplomacy. How other nation's view us is of vital importance to how effective we are on the world stage.

There was a proper course of action... FIRMLY STATE America's stance and then follow that regardless of what the rest of the world does/thinks... instead we didn't take any clear stance and let the UN decide for us. Effectively taking the power over our foreign policy and outsourcing it.

In a perfect world Obama would have stated our firm stance to stay out unless Libya represents a threat to us or a neighboring ally of ours... in a not so perfect but acceptable world.. he would have stated our intent to intervene and done so... in an abysmally wretched world, we get what we have now...

banyon
03-19-2011, 06:52 PM
We're in 2 wars.

I have no problem with someone else cleaning up the trash for once.

AustinChief
03-19-2011, 06:54 PM
We're in 2 wars.

I have no problem with someone else cleaning up the trash for once.

Fine, same here... then STATE THAT POSITION AND STAY OUT.. Don't waffle and then FOLLOW behind the UN like a fucking lapdog. It's disgusting.

It very clearly says to the world that we have no clear policy and we're willing to follow along.

Chocolate Hog
03-19-2011, 06:55 PM
Fine, same here... then STATE THAT POSITION AND STAY OUT.. Don't waffle and then FOLLOW behind the UN like a ****ing lapdog. It's disgusting.

It very clearly says to the world that we have no clear policy and we're willing to follow along.

I think you are worried about something that doesn't really matter. Theres much more pressing ramifications that could become of this.

ClevelandBronco
03-19-2011, 06:56 PM
We're in 2 wars.

I have no problem with someone else cleaning up the trash for once.

Is Iraq still a war? To be dead honest with you, I haven't heard much lately, and I haven't gone looking for news of it.

banyon
03-19-2011, 07:03 PM
Is Iraq still a war? To be dead honest with you, I haven't heard much lately, and I haven't gone looking for news of it.

Approximately 47000 troops remain:

Under a deal agreed upon in 2008, the approximately 47,000 American troops still in the country must leave by the end of 2011.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/01/13/sadr-return-complicates-troop-presence-iraq/#ixzz1H65yi0T0

Then it will probably descend back into the civil war critics predicted back in 2003 when Bush/Cheney were trying to peddle this stuff.

BigRichard
03-19-2011, 07:03 PM
Fine, same here... then STATE THAT POSITION AND STAY OUT.. Don't waffle and then FOLLOW behind the UN like a ****ing lapdog. It's disgusting.

It very clearly says to the world that we have no clear policy and we're willing to follow along.

We are a member of the UN right?

Count Zarth
03-19-2011, 07:03 PM
You're incredibly naive on world diplomacy. How other nation's view us is of vital importance to how effective we are on the world stage.

In any case Obama's not going to be in power for much longer so I don't see why this is such a big deal.

dirk digler
03-19-2011, 07:07 PM
Fine, same here... then STATE THAT POSITION AND STAY OUT.. Don't waffle and then FOLLOW behind the UN like a fucking lapdog. It's disgusting.

It very clearly says to the world that we have no clear policy and we're willing to follow along.

Here is good article to describe what happened. Obama didn't believe the UN plan would work and either did SecDef Gates. So the US pushed for a different plan.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/obama-s-first-new-war-20110319

ClevelandBronco
03-19-2011, 07:08 PM
Approximately 47000 troops remain:


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/01/13/sadr-return-complicates-troop-presence-iraq/#ixzz1H65yi0T0

Then it will probably descend back into the civil war critics predicted back in 2003 when Bush/Cheney were trying to peddle this stuff.

Well, I know they're there. It just doesn't seem that we're fighting much of a war in Iraq these days.

banyon
03-19-2011, 07:13 PM
Well, I know they're there. It just doesn't seem that we're fighting much of a war in Iraq these days.

Friday 18 March: 8 killed

Baiji: 3 shepherds, IED.
Kirkuk: 1 by gunfire.
Jurf al-Sakhar: 2 Sahwa by gunfire.
Ahziniya: 1 policeman by gunfire.
Sulaimaniya: 1 body.
Thursday 17 March: 5 killed

Baghdad: 2 by IEDs.
Tikrit: 2 by cluster bomb.
Mosul: 1 by gunfire.
Wednesday 16 March: 5 killed

Baghdad: 1 by gunfire.
Kirkuk: 2 by car bomb.
Baquba: 1 by gunfire, 1 by AED.
Tuesday 15 March: 3 killed

Baghdad: 1 policeman by gunfire.
Mosul: 1 by gunfire.
Anbar: 1 policeman.
Monday 14 March: 9 killed

Baghdad: 1 by IED.
Tal Afar: 1 by gunfire.
Abu Ghraib: 1 by gunfire.
Falluja: 1 policeman by gunfire.
Kirkuk: 1 body.
Ratba: 4 policemen by gunfire.
Sunday 13 March: 7 killed

Mosul: 1 by gunfire, 1 by AED.
Baghdad: 2 by IED.
Ramadi: 1 policeman by gunfire.
Baquba: 1 body.
Wassit: 1 body.
Saturday 12 March: 4 killed

Baghdad: 1 by IED.
Zenjlie: 2 policemen by IED.
Sheikh Saad: 1 body.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/recent/

AustinChief
03-19-2011, 07:13 PM
Here is good article to describe what happened. Obama didn't believe the UN plan would work and either did SecDef Gates. So the US pushed for a different plan.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/obama-s-first-new-war-20110319

oh wow... if that article is accurate ... that is fucking pathetic. It screams one thing... Obama is more worried about what the world and Arab countries think about our actions than he is about having a cohesive US policy.

ClevelandBronco
03-19-2011, 07:15 PM
Friday 18 March: 8 killed

Baiji: 3 shepherds, IED.
Kirkuk: 1 by gunfire.
Jurf al-Sakhar: 2 Sahwa by gunfire.
Ahziniya: 1 policeman by gunfire.
Sulaimaniya: 1 body.
Thursday 17 March: 5 killed

Baghdad: 2 by IEDs.
Tikrit: 2 by cluster bomb.
Mosul: 1 by gunfire.
Wednesday 16 March: 5 killed

Baghdad: 1 by gunfire.
Kirkuk: 2 by car bomb.
Baquba: 1 by gunfire, 1 by AED.
Tuesday 15 March: 3 killed

Baghdad: 1 policeman by gunfire.
Mosul: 1 by gunfire.
Anbar: 1 policeman.
Monday 14 March: 9 killed

Baghdad: 1 by IED.
Tal Afar: 1 by gunfire.
Abu Ghraib: 1 by gunfire.
Falluja: 1 policeman by gunfire.
Kirkuk: 1 body.
Ratba: 4 policemen by gunfire.
Sunday 13 March: 7 killed

Mosul: 1 by gunfire, 1 by AED.
Baghdad: 2 by IED.
Ramadi: 1 policeman by gunfire.
Baquba: 1 body.
Wassit: 1 body.
Saturday 12 March: 4 killed

Baghdad: 1 by IED.
Zenjlie: 2 policemen by IED.
Sheikh Saad: 1 body.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/recent/

Looks like mostly dead Iraqis and not many of them.

Shit, there was a cop shot here Thursday night.

banyon
03-19-2011, 07:17 PM
Looks like mostly dead Iraqis and not many of them.

Shit, there was a cop shot here Thursday night.

Like I said, we are pulling back and letting it descend into the civil war that was inevitable.

And please, you didn't have 11 police killed in the span of a few days (which happens every week in Iraq).

ClevelandBronco
03-19-2011, 07:19 PM
Like I said, we are pulling back and letting it descend into the civil war that was inevitable.

And please, you didn't have 11 police killed in the span of a few days (which happens every week in Iraq).

Look, I get your point, and I agree that something's going on in Iraq. I just wonder when it will reach the stage when we can say that it's no longer a war in which we're involved.

dirk digler
03-19-2011, 07:23 PM
oh wow... if that article is accurate ... that is fucking pathetic. It screams one thing... Obama is more worried about what the world and Arab countries think about our actions than he is about having a cohesive US policy.

It is interesting how different people can read the exact same article and come to different conclusions

Direckshun
03-19-2011, 07:33 PM
I personally don't think we have ANY cause to intervene in the internal affairs of Libya .. Obama staying out of the fray was the right decision... but he was doing it wrong... which has now been proven by today's actions.

Obama needed to make a strong and clear statement of what America's policy was.. instead he waffled until the UN took the lead on things and now he is following along.

He has officially set America up as a nation that follows instead of leads.

I was never a fan of his but today I am DISGUSTED by what he has done to America. We are now officially the UN's bitch.

So... my reading of this post is...

Obama shouldn't have done anything. But if he was going to do something, he should have been the one to do it first.

Yeah. You're not grasping for straws at all.

Direckshun
03-19-2011, 07:35 PM
oh wow... if that article is accurate ... that is ****ing pathetic. It screams one thing... Obama is more worried about what the world and Arab countries think about our actions than he is about having a cohesive US policy.

And then, when it turns out Obama did take the lead, he did it wrong.

ROFL

Gold.

AustinChief
03-19-2011, 07:39 PM
So... my reading of this post is...

Obama shouldn't have done anything. But if he was going to do something, he should have been the one to do it first.

Yeah. You're not grasping for straws at all.

so, my reading of your post tells me... your reading comprehension skills are shot.

No, if doing nothing was policy.. then STATE it (didn't happen) and then follow through.. (also didn't happen)

HonestChieffan
03-19-2011, 07:41 PM
STRATFOR is pretty in depth and may challenge some folks with its depth. Good read regardless of your political bent if interested in informed positions.

The Libyan War of 2011
March 19, 2011



By George Friedman

The Libyan war has now begun. It pits a coalition of European powers plus the United States, a handful of Arab states and rebels in Libya against the Libyan government. The long-term goal, unspoken but well understood, is regime change — displacing the government of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi and replacing it with a new regime built around the rebels.

The mission is clearer than the strategy, and that strategy can’t be figured out from the first moves. The strategy might be the imposition of a no-fly zone, the imposition of a no-fly zone and attacks against Libya’s command-and-control centers, or these two plus direct ground attacks on Gadhafi’s forces. These could also be combined with an invasion and occupation of Libya.

The question, therefore, is not the mission but the strategy to be pursued. How far is the coalition, or at least some of its members, prepared to go to effect regime change and manage the consequences following regime change? How many resources are they prepared to provide and how long are they prepared to fight? It should be remembered that in Iraq and Afghanistan the occupation became the heart of the war, and regime change was merely the opening act. It is possible that the coalition partners haven’t decided on the strategy yet, or may not be in agreement. Let’s therefore consider the first phases of the war, regardless of how far they are prepared to go in pursuit of the mission.

Like previous wars since 1991, this war began with a very public buildup in which the coalition partners negotiated the basic framework, sought international support and authorization from multinational organizations and mobilized forces. This was done quite publicly because the cost of secrecy (time and possible failure) was not worth what was to be gained: surprise. Surprise matters when the enemy can mobilize resistance. Gadhafi was trapped and has limited military capabilities, so secrecy was unnecessary.

While all this was going on and before final decisions were made, special operations forces were inserted in Libya on two missions. First, to make contact with insurgent forces to prepare them for coming events, create channels of communications and logistics and create a post-war political framework. The second purpose was to identify targets for attack and conduct reconnaissance of those targets that provided as up-to-date information as possible. This, combined with air and space reconnaissance, served as the foundations of the war. We know British SAS operators were in Libya and suspect other countries’ special operations forces and intelligence services were also operating there.

War commences with two sets of attacks. The first attacks are decapitation attacks designed to destroy or isolate the national command structure. These may also include strikes designed to kill leaders such as Gadhafi and his sons or other senior leaders. These attacks depend on specific intelligence on facilities, including communications, planning and so on along with detailed information on the location of the leadership. Attacks on buildings are carried out from the air but not particularly with cruise missile because they are especially accurate if the targets are slow, and buildings aren’t going anywhere. At the same time, aircraft are orbiting out of range of air defenses awaiting information on more mobile targets and if such is forthcoming, they come into range and fire appropriate munitions at the target. The type of aircraft used depends on the robustness of the air defenses, the time available prior to attack and the munitions needed. They can range from conventional fighters or stealth strategic aircraft like the U.S. B-2 bomber (if the United States authorized its use). Special operations forces might be on the ground painting the target for laser-guided munitions, which are highly accurate but require illumination.


At the same time these attacks are under way, attacks on airfields, fuel storage depots and the like are being targeted to ground the Libyan air force. Air or cruise missile attacks are also being carried out on radars of large and immobile surface-to-air (SAM) missile sites. Simultaneously, “wild weasel” aircraft — aircraft configured for the suppression of enemy air defenses — will be on patrol for more mobile SAM systems to locate and destroy. This becomes a critical part of the conflict. Being mobile, detecting these weapons systems on the ground is complex. They engage when they want to, depending on visual perception of opportunities. Therefore the total elimination of anti-missile systems is in part up to the Libyans. Between mobile systems and man-portable air-defense missiles, the threat to allied aircraft can persist for quite a while even if Gadhafi’s forces might have difficulty shooting anything down.

This is the part that the United States in particular and the West in general is extremely good at. But it is the beginning of the war. Gadhafi’s primary capabilities are conventional armor and particularly artillery. Destroying his air force and isolating his forces will not by itself win the war. The war is on the ground. The question is the motivation of his troops: If they perceive that surrender is unacceptable or personally catastrophic, they may continue to fight. At that point the coalition must decide if it intends to engage and destroy Gadhafi’s ground forces from the air. This can be done, but it is never a foregone conclusion that it will work. Moreover, this is the phase at which civilian casualties begin to mount. It is a paradox of warfare instigated to end human suffering that the means of achieving this can sometimes impose substantial human suffering itself. This is not merely a theoretical statement. It is at this point at which supporters of the war who want to end suffering may turn on the political leaders for not ending suffering without cost. It should be remembered that Saddam Hussein was loathed universally but those who loathed him were frequently not willing to impose the price of overthrowing him. The Europeans in particular are sensitive to this issue.

The question then becomes the extent to which this remains an air operation, as Kosovo was, or becomes a ground operation. Kosovo is the ideal, but Gadhafi is not Slobodan Milosevic and he may not feel he has anywhere to go if he surrenders. For him the fight may be existential, whereas for Milosevic it was not. He and his followers may resist. This is the great unknown. The choice here is to maintain air operations for an extended period of time without clear results, or invade. This raises the question of whose troops would invade. Egypt appears ready but there is long animosity between the two countries, and its actions might not be viewed as liberation. The Europeans could do so. It is difficult to imagine Obama adopting a third war in Muslim world as his own. This is where the coalition is really tested.

If there is an invasion, it is likely to succeed. The question then becomes whether Gadhafi’s forces move into opposition and insurgency. This again depends on morale but also on behavior. The Americans forced an insurgency in Iraq by putting the Baathists into an untenable position. In Afghanistan the Taliban gave up formal power without having been decisively defeated. They regrouped, reformed and returned. It is not known to us what Gadhafi can do or not do. It is clear that it is the major unknown.

The problem in Iraq was not the special operations forces. It was not in the decapitation strikes or suppression of enemy air defenses. It was not in the defeat of the Iraqi army on the ground. It was in the occupation, when the enemy reformed and imposed an insurgency on the United States that it found extraordinarily difficult to deal with.

Therefore the successes of the coming day will tell us nothing. Even if Gadhafi surrenders or is killed, even if no invasion is necessary save a small occupation force to aid the insurgents, the possibility of an insurgency is there. We will not know if there will be an insurgency until after it begins. Therefore, the only thing that would be surprising about this phase of the operation is if it failed.

The decision has been made that the mission is regime change in Libya. The strategic sequence is the routine buildup to war since 1991, this time with a heavier European component. The early days will go extremely well but will not define whether or not the war is successful. The test will come if a war designed to stop human suffering begins to inflict human suffering. That is when the difficult political decisions have to be made and when we will find out whether the strategy, the mission and the political will fully match up.



Read more: The Libyan War of 2011 | STRATFOR

AustinChief
03-19-2011, 07:41 PM
And then, when it turns out Obama did take the lead, he did it wrong.

ROFL

Gold.

Where in God's name do you get that he took the lead.. ever? The article clearly shows that he was more concerned with appearances over an ACTUAL policy...

So you are ok with American policy being... "whatever makes us look ok to the rest of the world and doesn't piss anyone off too much"

That's not much of a policy.

dirk digler
03-19-2011, 07:48 PM
First, that was a good read hcf.

Second, Austin I don't see anywhere in that article where he is more worried about appearances.

The reason for getting involved is stated pretty clearly:

A destabilizing force would jeopardize progress in Tunisia and Egypt; a humanitarian disaster was imminent unless prevented; Qaddafi could not flout international law without consequences. The fourth: there’s a line now, and one that others countries had better not cross.

LiveSteam
03-19-2011, 07:49 PM
Well, I know they're there. It just doesn't seem that we're fighting much of a war in Iraq these days.

I would not call it a war anymore in Iraq. Its more of about training Iraq police & solders & help to stabilize a infant democracy at the moment.

AustinChief
03-19-2011, 07:58 PM
First, that was a good read hcf.

Second, Austin I don't see anywhere in that article where he is more worried about appearances.

The reason for getting involved is stated pretty clearly:

Seriously? That is what Clinton stated as our position AFTER THE FACT... if that was our position(one I don't agree on but is still understandable), why didn't we state it a week ago? 3 days ago? the fact is, we didn't state it because we were more concerned with appearances over actual policy.

How about these lines...

Obama administration is trying to strike an incredibly delicate balance between a strong disinclination to invade a Muslim country and their determined desire to avoid looking like they’re walking away from the indiscriminate slaughter of innocents.

And Rice has made the reinvigoration of the United Nations one of her prime goals as ambassador. The legitimacy of that body was at stake too, she argued.

Obama hopes that a short, surgical, non-US-led campaign with no ground troops will satisfy Americans skeptical about military intervention and will not arouse the suspicions of Arabs and Muslims that the U.S. is attempting to influence indigenously growing democracies.

Nothing about our actions today speaks to the rest of the world about what we believe.. except that right now we are willing to waffle until we get a UN consensus.

Direckshun
03-19-2011, 08:00 PM
No, if doing nothing was policy.. then STATE it (didn't happen) and then follow through.. (also didn't happen)

You open with a strong run game. But for some reason or another, the run game doesn't get going, so you can either continue running the ball, so you open up the passing game.

Christ, this post is the same bullshit Bush followers have spewed since the 2004 election: "at least Bush makes a decision in the 1st minute of the 1st quarter -- then never deviates from it ever, no matter what happens."

Direckshun
03-19-2011, 08:02 PM
Seriously? That is what Clinton stated as our position AFTER THE FACT... if that was our position(one I don't agree on but is still understandable), why didn't we state it a week ago? 3 days ago? the fact is, we didn't state it because we were more concerned with appearances over actual policy.

How about these lines...

Nothing about our actions today speaks to the rest of the world about what we believe.. except that right now we are willing to waffle until we get a UN consensus.

I take it the notion of "soft power" is completely lost on you.

What are you complaining about in the article? To maintain the legitimacy of the UN, as well as protect the impression that America is overanxious to bomb brown people?

Both of those are serious concerns, and we see the damage to our soft power casting both of them aside did during the Bush years.

Direckshun
03-19-2011, 08:04 PM
AustinChief,

It is very clear that you believe that our foreign policy should continue to be guided by the exact same philosophy as it was under the Bush administration.

It almosts suggests that you've learned next to nothing thus far in the 21st century as regards to international warfare.

AustinChief
03-19-2011, 08:07 PM
AustinChief,

It is very clear that you believe that our foreign policy should continue to be guided by the exact same philosophy as it was under the Bush administration.

It almosts suggests that you've learned next to nothing thus far in the 21st century as regards to international warfare.

HAHAHA, you obviously no ZERO about my political leanings... I believe in a strong, clearly stated foreign policy... it can be flexible, but that should depend on legitimate factors... not what the UN or anyone else's opinions may be.

Strong policy does NOT mean bombing brown people btw... I stated clearly, I am against intervention in Libya.

Direckshun
03-19-2011, 08:24 PM
I believe in a strong, clearly stated foreign policy... it can be flexible, but that should depend on legitimate factors...

Alright, well then let's break that down. Let's get past the ideology and posturing to actually understand what we're really talking about here.

We're talking, so far, about a humanitarian intervention. I assume you are not opposed to humanitarian interventions, and would embrace them occasionally, on a case by case basis.

Now, we're not talking about ground troops. We're not even talking nationwide strikes. We're talking about targeted strikes to defend, basically, one city in Libya. We're not arming the rebels (in direct ways, I suppose, because we do arm Egypt and now Egypt is arming the rebels). We're allowing them to fight their own war. We're just clearing their most important city from aerial attacks, and possibly crippling the Qaddafi's air capability.

Now, we're not even talking about expending much in terms of our own reputation. The planning was American led, but the UN and other Arab states led the charge on the issue. That's a huuuuuge deal. Unless you believe the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq didn't bear disasterous results for our interests in the region.

So we're talking about a humanitarian intervention that is truly multi-lateral and multi-continental, and on a very limited scope.

Now, I think there's plenty of room for disagreement on the wiseness of the Obama administration on this issue -- but to say Obama's Totally Screwed America Symbolically, Somehow for purely cosmetic reasons is a pretty silly argument to make.

dirk digler
03-19-2011, 08:24 PM
Seriously? That is what Clinton stated as our position AFTER THE FACT... if that was our position(one I don't agree on but is still understandable), why didn't we state it a week ago? 3 days ago? the fact is, we didn't state it because we were more concerned with appearances over actual policy.

How about these lines...







Nothing about our actions today speaks to the rest of the world about what we believe.. except that right now we are willing to waffle until we get a UN consensus.

It states right there in the article why we didn't say anything. They were "hoping tough sanctions and material support to the opposition would be enough to force the dictator from power."

Basically they were not wanting to use military power to remove him but it became clear he wasn't leaving and was going to up the ante. So they decided to go the military route.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2011, 08:55 PM
I personally don't think we have ANY cause to intervene in the internal affairs of Libya .. Obama staying out of the fray was the right decision... but he was doing it wrong... which has now been proven by today's actions.

Obama needed to make a strong and clear statement of what America's policy was.. instead he waffled until the UN took the lead on things and now he is following along.

He has officially set America up as a nation that follows instead of leads.

I was never a fan of his but today I am DISGUSTED by what he has done to America. We are now officially the UN's bitch.

Yep! I have to agree. His NeoCon Secretary of State, lately admired by the Republicans, had something to do with this too. This also, btw, violates the UN's Charter as well. He should be tossed out. I'd be fine with that.

He should be impeached for violating the Constitution though. As well, he should be giving back his Nobel Peace prize for starting a war.

Not to mention that some 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Libya is spending another 50 million dollars when we're bankrupt and the economy is in the shitter here at home.
I wouldn't put a world war past this guy...since it's been Progressives Democrats that have led us into more wars.

Direckshun
03-20-2011, 04:23 PM
Alright, well then let's break that down. Let's get past the ideology and posturing to actually understand what we're really talking about here.

We're talking, so far, about a humanitarian intervention. I assume you are not opposed to humanitarian interventions, and would embrace them occasionally, on a case by case basis.

Now, we're not talking about ground troops. We're not even talking nationwide strikes. We're talking about targeted strikes to defend, basically, one city in Libya. We're not arming the rebels (in direct ways, I suppose, because we do arm Egypt and now Egypt is arming the rebels). We're allowing them to fight their own war. We're just clearing their most important city from aerial attacks, and possibly crippling the Qaddafi's air capability.

Now, we're not even talking about expending much in terms of our own reputation. The planning was American led, but the UN and other Arab states led the charge on the issue. That's a huuuuuge deal. Unless you believe the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq didn't bear disasterous results for our interests in the region.

So we're talking about a humanitarian intervention that is truly multi-lateral and multi-continental, and on a very limited scope.

Now, I think there's plenty of room for disagreement on the wiseness of the Obama administration on this issue -- but to say Obama's Totally Screwed America Symbolically, Somehow for purely cosmetic reasons is a pretty silly argument to make.

C'mon, AC. This is a reasonable point of view.

The Mad Crapper
03-20-2011, 05:00 PM
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" -Barry Soetero

AustinChief
03-20-2011, 05:04 PM
Alright, well then let's break that down. Let's get past the ideology and posturing to actually understand what we're really talking about here.

We're talking, so far, about a humanitarian intervention. I assume you are not opposed to humanitarian interventions, and would embrace them occasionally, on a case by case basis.

Now, we're not talking about ground troops. We're not even talking nationwide strikes. We're talking about targeted strikes to defend, basically, one city in Libya. We're not arming the rebels (in direct ways, I suppose, because we do arm Egypt and now Egypt is arming the rebels). We're allowing them to fight their own war. We're just clearing their most important city from aerial attacks, and possibly crippling the Qaddafi's air capability.

Now, we're not even talking about expending much in terms of our own reputation. The planning was American led, but the UN and other Arab states led the charge on the issue. That's a huuuuuge deal. Unless you believe the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq didn't bear disasterous results for our interests in the region.

So we're talking about a humanitarian intervention that is truly multi-lateral and multi-continental, and on a very limited scope.

Now, I think there's plenty of room for disagreement on the wiseness of the Obama administration on this issue -- but to say Obama's Totally Screwed America Symbolically, Somehow for purely cosmetic reasons is a pretty silly argument to make.

You aren't catching what I am saying here... I am not terribly upset with our actions in this case... I AM terribly upset with the lack of cohesive policy BEFORE the fact... it's weak and dangerous.

Obama took an indecisive and weak stance that shows a distinct lack of leadership regarding foreign policy. Though I don't agree with Clinton.. at least she was pushing for a firm stance one way or another. Obama needs to stop ignoring her if he hopes to salvage our reputation on the world stage.

And please don't say.. "he took a stand! he hoped sanctions and strong words would get Qadaffi out!" ... It was clear that he wasn't taking any firm stance at the time... and even if you can prove that he was ... NO ONE and I mean NO ONE saw it that way at the time and that is what matters.

Direckshun
03-20-2011, 05:06 PM
You aren't catching what I am saying here... I am not terribly upset with our actions in this case... I AM terribly upset with the lack of cohesive policy BEFORE the fact... it's weak and dangerous.

Obama took an indecisive and weak stance that shows a distinct lack of leadership regarding foreign policy. Though I don't agree with Clinton.. at least she was pushing for a firm stance one way or another. Obama needs to stop ignoring her if he hopes to salvage our reputation on the world stage.

And please don't say.. "he took a stand! he hoped sanctions and strong words would get Qadaffi out!" ... It was clear that he wasn't taking any firm stance at the time... and even if you can prove that he was ... NO ONE and I mean NO ONE saw it that way at the time and that is what matters.

Your first two posts orbit around purely symbolic gestures. "Lack of cohesion." "Indecisiveness."

I'm trying to figure out in what practical way these things matter, other than in your mind.

I don't think the lead up to this intervention was less than sterling. As opposed to Obama's carefully crafted responses to Egypt, Israel, and Iran, this seems very hurried and messy. But I fail to see what actual consequences you're fearing.

AustinChief
03-20-2011, 05:07 PM
oh, and here is a twist on this for ya...

ANYONE who defends this action by Obama and calls the Iraq war an "illegal" war is a hypocrite. You can say Iraq was a mistake or whatever... but it was even more "legal" than this action.. according to the UN.

Who here has called the Iraq war illegal and is willing to do the same regarding this "war"? Or are we stuck with the typical partisan bullshit.

AustinChief
03-20-2011, 05:12 PM
Your first two posts orbit around purely symbolic gestures. "Lack of cohesion." "Indecisiveness."

I'm trying to figure out in what practical way these things matter, other than in your mind.

I don't think the lead up to this intervention was less than sterling. As opposed to Obama's carefully crafted responses to Egypt, Israel, and Iran, this seems very hurried and messy. But I fail to see what actual consequences you're fearing.

Seriously? You really don't see how important it is for us to project a strong foreign policy? By strong, I do not mean that we attack other nations.. I mean that we have a clear well set policy that we stick to regardless of what the UN or other countries may think. This pandering to the UN and France has hurt our reputation immensely.. and reputation MATTERS when it comes to diplomacy.

Direckshun
03-20-2011, 05:14 PM
oh, and here is a twist on this for ya...

ANYONE who defends this action by Obama and calls the Iraq war an "illegal" war is a hypocrite. You can say Iraq was a mistake or whatever... but it was even more "legal" than this action.. according to the UN.

I wouldn't call either war illegal, though both certainly flirt with being unconstitutional.

1. This was authorized by a 10-0 vote in the UN's security council. This is 100% approved by the UN. 2. This is also intiated by two other continents and almost unanimously internationally supported. 3. It is also intended, at least, to be a truly multilateral intervention, rather than an intervention in which America sacrifices over 100% of the treasure and blood to make it happen. (Whether this remains the case is to be seen...) 4. To say nothing that the Iraq War is an invasion and occupation of a country, this is an intervention to defend one city and ground Qaddafi's forces. 5. There was virtually no popular movement in motion against Saddam. There was a thriving movement here.

So I'm not saying this is better or worse yet, although it doesn't get much worse than Iraq, but in all five of those ways, this is a fundamentally different situation.

Direckshun
03-20-2011, 05:15 PM
Seriously? You really don't see how important it is for us to project a strong foreign policy? By strong, I do not mean that we attack other nations.. I mean that we have a clear well set policy that we stick to regardless of what the UN or other countries may think. This pandering to the UN and France has hurt our reputation immensely.. and reputation MATTERS when it comes to diplomacy.

You have not answered my question.

Chocolate Hog
03-20-2011, 05:16 PM
Lol @ dickshunt trying to be Dr.Phil.

AustinChief
03-20-2011, 05:17 PM
You have not answered my question.

yes I have.

Direckshun
03-20-2011, 05:20 PM
yes I have.

I missed the actual consequences you're concerned about, here.

patteeu
03-20-2011, 05:22 PM
You open with a strong run game. But for some reason or another, the run game doesn't get going, so you can either continue running the ball, so you open up the passing game.

Christ, this post is the same bullshit Bush followers have spewed since the 2004 election: "at least Bush makes a decision in the 1st minute of the 1st quarter -- then never deviates from it ever, no matter what happens."

The Bush administration was constantly modifying it's approach to meet the ever changing needs of the mission. As just one of the most obvious examples, you may have heard of something called "The Surge"?

AustinChief
03-20-2011, 05:24 PM
I wouldn't call either war illegal, though both certainly flirt with being unconstitutional.

1. This was authorized by a 10-0 vote in the UN's security council. This is 100% approved by the UN. 2. This is also intiated by two other continents and almost unanimously internationally supported. 3. It is also intended, at least, to be a truly multilateral intervention, rather than an intervention in which America sacrifices over 100% of the treasure and blood to make it happen. (Whether this remains the case is to be seen...) 4. To say nothing that the Iraq War is an invasion and occupation of a country, this is an intervention to defend one city and ground Qaddafi's forces. 5. There was virtually no popular movement in motion against Saddam. There was a thriving movement here.

So I'm not saying this is better or worse yet, although it doesn't get much worse than Iraq, but in all five of those ways, this is a fundamentally different situation.
I'm not saying it isn't different.. I am just waiting for those same people who called the Iraq war "illegal" to stand up and decry this action as well... it won't happen because most of them are partisan shills who are more concerned with their "side" then with the truth.

Direckshun
03-20-2011, 05:25 PM
The Bush administration was constantly modifying it's approach to meet the ever changing needs of the mission. As just one of the most obvious examples, you may have heard of something called "The Surge"?

Not that I necessarily agree, but quibbling over that point is irrelevent.

"Decisiveness" is overrated if/when the original decision needs to be modified.

AustinChief
03-20-2011, 05:26 PM
I missed the actual consequences you're concerned about, here.

apparently you don't understand how MASSIVELY important our reputation is when it comes to future foreign policy ... Obama is eroding that reputation at an alarming rate.

That is a pretty huge consequence.

Direckshun
03-20-2011, 05:27 PM
I'm not saying it isn't different.. I am just waiting for those same people who called the Iraq war "illegal" to stand up and decry this action as well... it won't happen because most of them are partisan shills who are more concerned with their "side" then with the truth.

Well in the meantime, I'll be waiting for the applause from many of the people who derided Obama for failing to institute a "no sail zone" off the coast of Somalia after the pirate attack to applaud him for taking a step in what they'd consider to be the right direction.

But I don't expect that, because they're nuts. And I don't post about it, because I'm not a diva with a grudge.

Direckshun
03-20-2011, 05:27 PM
apparently you don't understand how MASSIVELY important our reputation is when it comes to future foreign policy ... Obama is eroding that reputation at an alarming rate.

That is a pretty huge consequence.

ooooooook

The Mad Crapper
03-20-2011, 05:31 PM
Well in the meantime, I'll be waiting for the applause from many of the people who derided Obama for failing to institute a "no sail zone" off the coast of Somalia after the pirate attack to applaud him for taking a step in what they'd consider to be the right direction.

But I don't expect that, because they're nuts. And I don't post about it, because I'm not a diva with a grudge.

ROFL

WV
03-20-2011, 05:32 PM
I don't think we should have gotten involved at all. Screw the Middle East and their eternal in fighting.

The Mad Crapper
03-20-2011, 05:34 PM
I don't think we should have gotten involved at all. Screw the Middle East and their eternal in fighting.

I'm with you, man.

The USA has plenty of natural resources, just like Brazil. They provide their own energy, why the hell can't we? Because of a bunch of enviro wack job moonbats?

AustinChief
03-20-2011, 05:37 PM
ooooooook

wow... you really don't see it do you? The three best (peacetime) foreign policy presidents of the last 100 years were Truman, Reagan and Clinton. You know why? Because they had very CLEAR policies that they were willing to back up. They were respected around the world because of it. Hated in some cases, but respected.

France may be the one country left that respects Obama... yay us. :(

I'm sure you disagree... but try to realize... we are not in a popularity contest here.. being LIKED doesn't make you any more credible when it comes to diplomacy.

mlyonsd
03-20-2011, 05:38 PM
So we're talking about a humanitarian intervention that is truly multi-lateral and multi-continental, and on a very limited scope.



Unless you're willing to throw all in on a "humanitarian intervention" failure is an option. In which case this exercise was a waste of resources and put our people at too much risk.

I'm still standing on the sidelines on this one in hopes Qaddafi is over thrown. If not Obama looks like a fool.

WV
03-20-2011, 05:41 PM
I'm with you, man.

The USA has plenty of natural resources, just like Brazil. They provide their own energy, why the hell can't we? Because of a bunch of enviro wack job moonbats?

That's the worst part...we have soo much invested in the hell hole that is the middle east and we don't get shit for it.

Direckshun
03-20-2011, 09:13 PM
wow... you really don't see it do you? The three best (peacetime) foreign policy presidents of the last 100 years were Truman, Reagan and Clinton. You know why? Because they had very CLEAR policies that they were willing to back up. They were respected around the world because of it. Hated in some cases, but respected.

France may be the one country left that respects Obama... yay us. :(

I'm sure you disagree... but try to realize... we are not in a popularity contest here.. being LIKED doesn't make you any more credible when it comes to diplomacy.

There's so many strands of thought loosely connected here, it's easy to see why the initial posts of yours in this thread are sending such a bizarre message. (Truman, a peacetime president? Harry Truman?)

Your whole point seems to be that how we've handled the intervention is bad for our reputation. Here's the thing. This move by the United States was begged for by the Libyan people, the Arab states, Europe, and the UN. Getting involved, even to this limited extent (assuming it stays limited...) improves our reputation. We did not push for this. Two other continents did.

But it doesn't matter anyway. Every post you've made on foreign policy screams that it is better to be feared by a handful of "bad countries" than to be liked by a couple hundred. The problem with that logic is that it's based entirely on a false dilemma.

(I'm not going to touch the bullshit on "best peacetime FP presidents" -- Truman!?! -- because all three of them routinely violated their "clear" policies whenever the situation see fit. Create whatever alternate universe you want.)

Direckshun
03-20-2011, 09:19 PM
Unless you're willing to throw all in on a "humanitarian intervention" failure is an option. In which case this exercise was a waste of resources and put our people at too much risk.

I'm still standing on the sidelines on this one in hopes Qaddafi is over thrown. If not Obama looks like a fool.

If you're throwing "all in," it's not a humanitarian intervention, anymore. It's a war. So...

Failure isn't really an option. I mean, it is, in the Mogadishu, "Black Hawk Down" debacle, but that's fairly remote. We're not fighting Qaddafi. We're not pledged to his defeat. That's a war.

We're grounding his forces and pledging support to one city in Libya. So long as that's accomplished, that's what we set out to do. If Qaddafi remains in power, that's the jurisdiction of the rebellion.

AustinChief
03-20-2011, 09:52 PM
There's so many strands of thought loosely connected here, it's easy to see why the initial posts of yours in this thread are sending such a bizarre message. (Truman, a peacetime president? Harry Truman?)

Your whole point seems to be that how we've handled the intervention is bad for our reputation. Here's the thing. This move by the United States was begged for by the Libyan people, the Arab states, Europe, and the UN. Getting involved, even to this limited extent (assuming it stays limited...) improves our reputation. We did not push for this. Two other continents did.

But it doesn't matter anyway. Every post you've made on foreign policy screams that it is better to be feared by a handful of "bad countries" than to be liked by a couple hundred. The problem with that logic is that it's based entirely on a false dilemma.

(I'm not going to touch the bullshit on "best peacetime FP presidents" -- Truman!?! -- because all three of them routinely violated their "clear" policies whenever the situation see fit. Create whatever alternate universe you want.)

Obviously I am referring to Truman POST WWII ... so yes, he was a peacetime President.. but that really isn't the point.. the point which you failed to address was that the three I mentioned were effective because they were respected worldwide. Obama is not. Liked maybe, respected not at all.

And once again your reading comprehension is called into question... you seem to fixate on what you THINK my position is and argue a point I am not trying to make.

I don't give a rat's ass about us taking action... I think it was a mistake but that isn't what bothers me.

Let me make this clear... PLEASE REREAD THE NEXT BIT UNTIL YOU GET IT... The problem is not what obama did or did not do... it is HOW HE DID IT. If he had made a clear statement that US policy was to remove Qaddafi or some humanitarian bullshit (which it is) reason or WHATEVER... then followed through on said policy.. I would have little to no issue. If I could go back in time just 3 days and ask you what Obama's policy in regard to a situation like Libya's or even specifically JUST in regards to Libya... what would you have told me? If you had said anything other than "I don't know" than you'd have been lying. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. Regardless of REALITY, it appears to the world that he is taking his cues on foreign policy from France and/or the UN. AND THAT hurts our reputation immensely.

There is nothing bizarre about my message... you just can't seem to get what I am saying.

Direckshun
03-20-2011, 10:14 PM
Obviously I am referring to Truman POST WWII ... so yes, he was a peacetime President..

I guess there's a reason the Korean War is called the Forgotten War.

the point which you failed to address was that the three I mentioned were effective because they were respected worldwide. Obama is not. Liked maybe, respected not at all.

And once again your reading comprehension is called into question... you seem to fixate on what you THINK my position is and argue a point I am not trying to make.

I don't give a rat's ass about us taking action... I think it was a mistake but that isn't what bothers me.

Let me make this clear... PLEASE REREAD THE NEXT BIT UNTIL YOU GET IT... The problem is not what obama did or did not do... it is HOW HE DID IT. If he had made a clear statement that US policy was to remove Qaddafi or some humanitarian bullshit (which it is) reason or WHATEVER... then followed through on said policy.. I would have little to no issue. If I could go back in time just 3 days and ask you what Obama's policy in regard to a situation like Libya's or even specifically JUST in regards to Libya... what would you have told me? If you had said anything other than "I don't know" than you'd have been lying. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. Regardless of REALITY, it appears to the world that he is taking his cues on foreign policy from France and/or the UN. AND THAT hurts our reputation immensely.

There is nothing bizarre about my message... you just can't seem to get what I am saying.

I've already responded to this in post #30:

You open with a strong run game. But for some reason or another, the run game doesn't get going, so you can either continue running the ball, so you open up the passing game.

Christ, this post is the same bullshit Bush followers have spewed since the 2004 election: "at least Bush makes a decision in the 1st minute of the 1st quarter -- then never deviates from it ever, no matter what happens."

AustinChief
03-20-2011, 10:58 PM
I guess there's a reason the Korean War is called the Forgotten War.



I've already responded to this in post #30:

ok, the Korean Conflict wasn't a declared war... and even if you want to count it (which is fine) my point remains the same regardless... it really doesn't apply I was just trying to eliminate Wilson and FDR from the discussion.. although both were fine on foreign policy and fit the same mold as the three I mentioned.. so just remove "peacetime" and add those two to my list ... now can you address the content of what I was saying and not the peacetime label?

No, you did NOT address anything in that post... I am not talking about changing policy if situations dictate it.. I am talking about HAVING a clear policy to begin with. ...and "let's just do whatever we can to pander to France, the UN and the Arab world" is not a feasible policy.

IF Obama had a clear policy on Libya... it must have been a super secret policy! Great leadership there...

Bush embarrassed America with ignorance, Obama is embarrassing us with weakness. It's sad.

Direckshun
03-20-2011, 11:09 PM
No, you did NOT address anything in that post... I am not talking about changing policy if situations dictate it.. I am talking about HAVING a clear policy to begin with. ...and "let's just do whatever we can to pander to France, the UN and the Arab world" is not a feasible policy.

IF Obama had a clear policy on Libya... it must have been a super secret policy! Great leadership there...

This is what I'm talking about. You're talking about these abstract principles like "having a clear policy to begin with" and all this garbage... without outlining any specific consequences that either have come or actually could come from how Obama's strayed from it.

Here's my key question: What disadvantage are we suffering now in the Libya intervention that could have been prevented if only Obama had made his policy crystal clear on YouTube three weeks ago?

I'm giving you a chance to make that case. You chime in with vague, dire warnings of Things To Come. But I'm really lacking for specific examples here of how things are unraveling because of that specific problem you're perceiving.

AustinChief
03-20-2011, 11:23 PM
This is what I'm talking about. You're talking about these abstract principles like "having a clear policy to begin with" and all this garbage... without outlining any specific consequences that either have come or actually could come from how Obama's strayed from it.

Here's my key question: What disadvantage are we suffering now in the Libya intervention that could have been prevented if only Obama had made his policy crystal clear on YouTube three days ago?

I'm giving you a chance to make that case. You chime in with vague, dire warnings of Things To Come. But I'm really lacking for specific examples here of how things are unraveling because of that specific problem you're perceiving.

Wow... ok.. you really don't see how being perceived as weak hurts your ability to enact effective foreign policy? You can disagree that other countries will see him as weak... and THAT can be the argument... but IF they do.. it is bad for America. end of story.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-20-2011, 11:24 PM
wow... you really don't see it do you? The three best (peacetime) foreign policy presidents of the last 100 years were Truman, Reagan and Clinton. You know why? Because they had very CLEAR policies that they were willing to back up. They were respected around the world because of it. Hated in some cases, but respected.

France may be the one country left that respects Obama... yay us. :(

I'm sure you disagree... but try to realize... we are not in a popularity contest here.. being LIKED doesn't make you any more credible when it comes to diplomacy.

Explain to me what is clear about a policy where you won't negotiate with terrorists, but you'll sell weapons to them in order to fund other terrorists that kill democratically elected people, as well as your own citizens (Reagan).

Chocolate Hog
03-20-2011, 11:31 PM
Explain to me what is clear about a policy where you won't negotiate with terrorists, but you'll sell weapons to them in order to fund other terrorists that kill democratically elected people, as well as your own citizens (Reagan).

Carter did some of that too from my understanding.

AustinChief
03-20-2011, 11:32 PM
Explain to me what is clear about a policy where you won't negotiate with terrorists, but you'll sell weapons to them in order to fund other terrorists that kill democratically elected people, as well as your own citizens (Reagan).

I'm not going to get into a Reagan debate in this thread... if you want.. drop him from my list and replace him with Wilson. Wilson's actually a great example of a leader who focused on cooperation among nations and honoring treaties... yet did so from a position of leadership without appearing weak.

Direckshun
03-20-2011, 11:34 PM
Wow... ok.. you really don't see how being perceived as weak hurts your ability to enact effective foreign policy? You can disagree that other countries will see him as weak... and THAT can be the argument... but IF they do.. it is bad for America. end of story.

So, basically, you can't name any tangible consequences. Just that Bad Things Will Come, and they are just on the other side of the horizon.

Fact is, no matter how Obama's conducted himself up to this point, it has little adverse bearing on the effectiveness of our plans in Libya.

AustinChief
03-20-2011, 11:41 PM
So, basically, you can't name any tangible consequences. Just that Bad Things Will Come, and they are just on the other side of the horizon.

Fact is, no matter how Obama's conducted himself up to this point, it has little adverse bearing on the effectiveness of our plans in Libya.

I never said it would have any effect regarding Libya. That's not not the point. Clearly you don't care about the bigger picture here.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-20-2011, 11:45 PM
Carter did some of that too from my understanding.

I wasn't speaking of Operation Cyclone, but that's yet another example of hypocrisy, and yes, Carter had a hand in that.

Chocolate Hog
03-21-2011, 12:05 AM
I don't get the point of Austins thread anyway. Don't you think any credibility Amerika had went out the window post 9-11? When you occupy 2 nations you don't really have the option of leading another the country into another war.

Direckshun
03-21-2011, 12:19 AM
I never said it would have any effect regarding Libya. That's not not the point. Clearly you don't care about the bigger picture here.

The great thing about making a thread about how Obama is betraying Principle X and how it will cause vague, dire consequences that we may never see is fantastic. Until you realize that I could easily make the case that Obama is committing to Principle Y, and that it will create vague, beneficial victories that we may never see.

We could both make those arguments, and neither one of us could be proven wrong. Because you have introduced nothing material, and nothing evidential, into the conversation.

Which is why you made a bad thread.

AustinChief
03-21-2011, 12:22 AM
I don't get the point of Austins thread anyway. Don't you think any credibility Amerika had went out the window post 9-11? When you occupy 2 nations you don't really have the option of leading another the country into another war.

OK, you have made that clear. Why is this concept so hard for people to understand?

Chocolate Hog
03-21-2011, 12:57 AM
OK, you have made that clear. Why is this concept so hard for people to understand?

Because as I pointed out America is no longer in a position to be the so called leader at the moment

alanm
03-21-2011, 04:11 AM
apparently you don't understand how MASSIVELY important our reputation is when it comes to future foreign policy ... Obama is eroding that reputation at an alarming rate.

That is a pretty huge consequence.I think most nations read Obama for what he is. A community organizer in over his head.

Our reputation on foreign policy will most likely do a 180 when the next occupant of the White House actually has some experience and cohesiveness in formulating a foreign policy.

HonestChieffan
03-21-2011, 06:27 AM
I think most nations read Obama for what he is. A community organizer in over his head.

Our reputation on foreign policy will most likely do a 180 when the next occupant of the White House actually has some experience and cohesiveness in formulating a foreign policy.

AustinChief is correct in his assessment. You are right that we will need an administration with a lot of skills and ability to rebuild our reputation and to try to repair damage done to our relationships with key allies. The tough part is how rapidly damage is done and how long it will take to rebuild.

mlyonsd
03-21-2011, 07:30 AM
If you're throwing "all in," it's not a humanitarian intervention, anymore. It's a war. So...

Failure isn't really an option. I mean, it is, in the Mogadishu, "Black Hawk Down" debacle, but that's fairly remote. We're not fighting Qaddafi. We're not pledged to his defeat. That's a war.

We're grounding his forces and pledging support to one city in Libya. So long as that's accomplished, that's what we set out to do. If Qaddafi remains in power, that's the jurisdiction of the rebellion.

I think you're out of touch.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/blog-post/2011/03/gaddafis_forces_continue_strik.html

Gaddafi has lost legitimacy to lead and he must leave."

You can pretend all you want this effort is humanitarian but when you're launching over a hundred cruise missiles and shooting down planes that is war.

And now that Obama stepped off the sideline anything short of Gaddafi leaving is a failure. Not just on him, but the UN.

Amnorix
03-21-2011, 07:55 AM
HAHAHA, you obviously no ZERO about my political leanings... I believe in a strong, clearly stated foreign policy... it can be flexible, but that should depend on legitimate factors... not what the UN or anyone else's opinions may be.

Strong policy does NOT mean bombing brown people btw... I stated clearly, I am against intervention in Libya.

Why can't foreign policy be strongly persuaded by acting in concert with other nations who are our traditional allies (and who provide international cover when things go bad) and workign with the international agencies THAT WE HELP SET UP to deal with precisely these types of things.

You seem to think that if we aren't independent operators, we aren't showing decisive leadership. Being an independent operator is great when it works, but when it doesn't go so well (see Bush, George W.) it means you're standing in the middle of a press conference getting shoes thrown at you, and earning the focused hatred of millions. That's not necessarily great policy.

Decisive is great, but sometimes the situation is complex, and working with allies and within a framework is the right way to go. Why is that so difficult to understand?

(side note: I'm amazed at the absolute reverence given to Cowboy Diplomacy around here. WE'RE AMERICA DAMMIT! AMERICA!!! WE DO WHAT WE WANT, WHEN WE WANT, AND PEOPLE LEAD BECAUSE WHAT WE DO IS ALWAYS THE RIGHT THING TO DO AS LONG AS WE'RE DECISIVE ABOUT IT1!!11!! Giggidity Giggidy.

That seems to be the ideal foreign policy to many, and I have no idea why as it seems flat out absurd on its face to me).

Amnorix
03-21-2011, 07:57 AM
I think most nations read Obama for what he is. A community organizer in over his head.

Our reputation on foreign policy will most likely do a 180 when the next occupant of the White House actually has some experience and cohesiveness in formulating a foreign policy.

As if GWB didn't piss away the most international goodwill in the shortest period of time in American history...

He used some of htat goodwill to good effect, but he overstepped and cost America incalculably.

But at least he was decisive!

The Mad Crapper
03-21-2011, 08:05 AM
As if GWB didn't piss away the most international goodwill in the shortest period of time in American history...


He did?

Can you quantify this assertion?

Brock
03-21-2011, 08:07 AM
As if GWB didn't piss away the most international goodwill in the shortest period of time in American history...

He used some of htat goodwill to good effect, but he overstepped and cost America incalculably.

But at least he was decisive!

That's all bullshit.

stevieray
03-21-2011, 08:11 AM
(side note: I'm amazed at the absolute reverence given to Cowboy Diplomacy around here. WE'RE AMERICA DAMMIT! AMERICA!!! WE DO WHAT WE WANT, WHEN WE WANT, AND PEOPLE LEAD BECAUSE WHAT WE DO IS ALWAYS THE RIGHT THING TO DO AS LONG AS WE'RE DECISIVE ABOUT IT1!!11!! Giggidity Giggidy.



the self loathing is pathetic.

HonestChieffan
03-21-2011, 08:11 AM
Big difference between respect/Trust and goodwill.

The Mad Crapper
03-21-2011, 08:49 AM
B.O. claims this is a mission to “protect civilians,” then how can the UN protect civilians from Gah-daffy if regime change is not specifically spelled out in its instructions?

Chief Faithful
03-21-2011, 09:09 AM
As if GWB didn't piss away the most international goodwill in the shortest period of time in American history...

He used some of htat goodwill to good effect, but he overstepped and cost America incalculably.

But at least he was decisive!

So, did Obama win that Nobel Peace Prize because he rebuilt that good will, or is it all bullshit?

patteeu
03-21-2011, 09:25 AM
apparently you don't understand how MASSIVELY important our reputation is when it comes to future foreign policy ... Obama is eroding that reputation at an alarming rate.

That is a pretty huge consequence.

Huge.

Jaric
03-21-2011, 09:29 AM
Anyone claiming that lauching hundreds of cruise missles at a soverign nation is NOT an act of war needs their head examined.

patteeu
03-21-2011, 09:34 AM
So, basically, you can't name any tangible consequences. Just that Bad Things Will Come, and they are just on the other side of the horizon.

Fact is, no matter how Obama's conducted himself up to this point, it has little adverse bearing on the effectiveness of our plans in Libya.

The Libyan turmoil itself might be a result of perceived Obama weakness. If Khaddafi believed that Obama was going to come down on him with both feet if he stepped out of line, he may never have launched his offensive against the Libyan rebels in the first place. After Obama's weak response to Iran and his overall weakness in most foreign policy dealings, Khaddafi reasonably assumed that Obama would dither. And in fact, he did. Khaddafi may not have counted on the French and British pulling Obama along.

patteeu
03-21-2011, 09:39 AM
Why can't foreign policy be strongly persuaded by acting in concert with other nations who are our traditional allies (and who provide international cover when things go bad) and workign with the international agencies THAT WE HELP SET UP to deal with precisely these types of things.

You seem to think that if we aren't independent operators, we aren't showing decisive leadership. Being an independent operator is great when it works, but when it doesn't go so well (see Bush, George W.) it means you're standing in the middle of a press conference getting shoes thrown at you, and earning the focused hatred of millions. That's not necessarily great policy.

Decisive is great, but sometimes the situation is complex, and working with allies and within a framework is the right way to go. Why is that so difficult to understand?

(side note: I'm amazed at the absolute reverence given to Cowboy Diplomacy around here. WE'RE AMERICA DAMMIT! AMERICA!!! WE DO WHAT WE WANT, WHEN WE WANT, AND PEOPLE LEAD BECAUSE WHAT WE DO IS ALWAYS THE RIGHT THING TO DO AS LONG AS WE'RE DECISIVE ABOUT IT1!!11!! Giggidity Giggidy.

That seems to be the ideal foreign policy to many, and I have no idea why as it seems flat out absurd on its face to me).

So now it's cowboy diplomacy to have a coherent foreign policy and to have a set of independent national interests that you seek to defend, whether you do it solo or through collective action? Really? Come on, that's nonsense.

Radar Chief
03-21-2011, 09:50 AM
He did?

Can you quantify this assertion?

Yea but after 9-11 foreign people, like, left flowers at our embassy steps and stuff, which is a clear indication they were all willing to fall on their own sword at our request until that demon spawn Bush ****ed it up.

Amnorix
03-21-2011, 09:50 AM
the self loathing is pathetic.

I love America, but I'm neither blind nor stupid. It's possible to be patriotic without thinking your country perfect.

Nor, actually, is acting like your country is perfect on the world stage necessarily the best move toward furthering your goals.

All I care about is a foreign policy which does the best job of furthering America's interests. Being occassionally arrogant may serve that purpose. Always being arrogant almost certianly does not.

Amnorix
03-21-2011, 09:52 AM
So, did Obama win that Nobel Peace Prize because he rebuilt that good will, or is it all bullshit?

The peace prize was not deserved. There's not much else to say about that except, perhaps, that his getting it was a reflection of just how much the rest of the world had grown disgusted with foreign "diplomacy" under GWB.

Amnorix
03-21-2011, 09:54 AM
The Libyan turmoil itself might be a result of perceived Obama weakness. If Khaddafi believed that Obama was going to come down on him with both feet if he stepped out of line, he may never have launched his offensive against the Libyan rebels in the first place. After Obama's weak response to Iran and his overall weakness in most foreign policy dealings, Khaddafi reasonably assumed that Obama would dither. And in fact, he did. Khaddafi may not have counted on the French and British pulling Obama along.

Comical. Seriously, that's comical.

How many totalitarian governments were overthrown just because someone was AFRAID that the US *might* intervene during the testosterone-laden Bush years, without actually firing a shot in self-defense? Yeah, that'd be zero.

Amnorix
03-21-2011, 09:59 AM
So now it's cowboy diplomacy to have a coherent foreign policy and to have a set of independent national interests that you seek to defend, whether you do it solo or through collective action? Really? Come on, that's nonsense.

No, that is not what cowboy diplomacy is. I think coherent foreign policy and independent national interests that you seek to defend are basically the most obvious building blocks of conducting foreign policy. Errors in such judgments can have dramatic and unforeseen consequences, as exemplified by the possibility that Secretary of State Acheson helped cause the Korean War by failing to refer to South Korea as being within America's national security interests in a critical speech.

Cowboy diplomacy is shooting first and asking questions later, or making decisions based on trying to keep your military-industrial complex supporters happy at the expense of rational policy, or believing that just because you HAVE the biggest gun, that it can solve all your problems or that using it is the best way to solve your problems.

Amnorix
03-21-2011, 10:02 AM
He did?

Can you quantify this assertion?

It's hardly a mathematical proposition is it? But Obama's Nobel Peace Prize does sort of exemplify it, doesn't it?

Brock
03-21-2011, 10:10 AM
It's hardly a mathematical proposition is it? But Obama's Nobel Peace Prize does sort of exemplify it, doesn't it?

How worthless a Nobel Peace Prize is? Why yes, yes it does.

Amnorix
03-21-2011, 10:14 AM
How worthless a Nobel Peace Prize is? Why yes, yes it does.


I agree that it did a substantial amount of that as well.

patteeu
03-21-2011, 10:35 AM
Comical. Seriously, that's comical.

How many totalitarian governments were overthrown just because someone was AFRAID that the US *might* intervene during the testosterone-laden Bush years, without actually firing a shot in self-defense? Yeah, that'd be zero.

That analogy is stupid. The correct analogy would be how many roguish dictatorships moderated their behavior during the Bush administration when they thought there was a chance that the weight of America might come down on their heads. I'm not sure I could list them all, but Pakistan, Libya, and Iran are certainly on that list.

patteeu
03-21-2011, 10:38 AM
No, that is not what cowboy diplomacy is. I think coherent foreign policy and independent national interests that you seek to defend are basically the most obvious building blocks of conducting foreign policy. Errors in such judgments can have dramatic and unforeseen consequences, as exemplified by the possibility that Secretary of State Acheson helped cause the Korean War by failing to refer to South Korea as being within America's national security interests in a critical speech.

Cowboy diplomacy is shooting first and asking questions later, or making decisions based on trying to keep your military-industrial complex supporters happy at the expense of rational policy, or believing that just because you HAVE the biggest gun, that it can solve all your problems or that using it is the best way to solve your problems.

In that case, your side note about "cowboy diplomacy" had no legitimate place in this argument or, for that matter, on this message board. The number of people here who support what you say you mean by cowboy diplomacy is pretty close to zero.

Jaric
03-21-2011, 10:40 AM
Wait... Obama won a nobel peace prize?

What the fuck for?

patteeu
03-21-2011, 10:47 AM
Wait... Obama won a nobel peace prize?

What the **** for?

Lifetime achievement award. In all of his years of organizing communities and voting present in legislatures, it turns out he never started, served in, or supported a war.

Jaric
03-21-2011, 10:51 AM
Lifetime achievement award. In all of his years of organizing communities and voting present in legislatures, it turns out he never started, served in, or supported a war.

In other words, he recieved the peace prize because he is not George Bush?

patteeu
03-21-2011, 10:54 AM
In other words, he recieved the peace prize because he is not George Bush?

Yes.

Jaric
03-21-2011, 11:04 AM
Yes.

Well where the fuck is my peace prize?

patteeu
03-21-2011, 11:11 AM
Well where the **** is my peace prize?

How do I know you're not Bush?

Jaric
03-21-2011, 11:34 AM
How do I know you're not Bush?

Well I....

Ok you got me there. Can we at least agree that I am "probably" not George Bush?

patteeu
03-21-2011, 11:39 AM
Well I....

Ok you got me there. Can we at least agree that I am "probably" not George Bush?

Fair enough.

BucEyedPea
03-21-2011, 11:39 AM
AustinChief is correct in his assessment. You are right that we will need an administration with a lot of skills and ability to rebuild our reputation and to try to repair damage done to our relationships with key allies. The tough part is how rapidly damage is done and how long it will take to rebuild.

Who is gonna rebuild our reputation from Bush? You guys on the right think another cowboy is the way to improve are reputation still? Have you learned anything?

BucEyedPea
03-21-2011, 11:39 AM
Anyone claiming that lauching hundreds of cruise missles at a soverign nation is NOT an act of war needs their head examined.

:thumb:

BucEyedPea
03-21-2011, 11:41 AM
B.O. claims this is a mission to “protect civilians,” then how can the UN protect civilians from Gah-daffy if regime change is not specifically spelled out in its instructions?

That's just the rhetorical cover for the teeming masses like you and I to garner support. We never get the whole story or real reasons.

Jaric
03-21-2011, 11:46 AM
Fair enough.

Excellent. For a minute there I was concerned that I probably was George Bush. But it's good to know that I probably am not.

BucEyedPea
03-21-2011, 11:50 AM
NeoCON Bill Kristolnacht calls for ground forces in Libya now!

Leading us into a third war creating more debt and more dangerous blowback for this country while dividing us all at home.


http://www.thelibertyvoice.com/bill-kristol-calls-for-u-s-ground-forces-in-libya?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheLibertyVoice+%28The+Liberty+Voice%29

Radar Chief
03-21-2011, 11:55 AM
Wait... Obama won a nobel peace prize?

What the **** for?

Basically for running a successful presidential campaign against a guy that wasn’t even running. I know I found it stunning also. Not giving out NPP stunning but stunning in its own way.

Jaric
03-21-2011, 11:57 AM
Basically for running a successful presidential campaign against a guy that wasn’t even running. I know I found it stunning also. Not giving out NPP stunning but stunning in its own way.

They've really lowered the bar.

Amnorix
03-21-2011, 12:07 PM
That analogy is stupid. The correct analogy would be how many roguish dictatorships moderated their behavior during the Bush administration when they thought there was a chance that the weight of America might come down on their heads. I'm not sure I could list them all, but Pakistan, Libya, and Iran are certainly on that list.


Libya....hrmm....not sure. They had been moderating their position for a fair while prior to GWB becoming President. They had handed over the Lockerbie bombers, for example, during the Clinton administration. The trend continued, I would say, under GWB, but motives were most likely mixed. Keep in mind that Khadafy had been in power since the late 60s and had thumbed his nose at every President since Nixon.

After the 1986 bombing of Libya (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/1986_bombing_of_Libya) and the 1993 imposition of UN sanctions (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_748), Gaddafi gradually sought more benign relations with the west, resulting in the lifting of UN sanctions in 2003.

Pakistan -- I'd agree there that the US's very aggressive response to the Taliban and Afghanistan resulted in a shift in demeanor, keeping in mind that they had always tried to play both sides of every equation they were involved in. Of course, our attitude only shifted the position of the very top of the leadership, and has failed to stop lower level cooperation between the Pakistani's, and especially their intelilgence services, with the Taliban/AQ.

But honestly, what President wouldn't have gone into AFghanistan hard and then done a carrot/stick move with the Pakistanis? Pretty obvious strategy really.

Iran? They moderated their behavior? What do you cite for that? Their constant involvement (interference, in our view) with events in Iraq? Their continued efforts to develop nuclear weapons? In fact, I think that one of the reasons behind Bush's muscular foreign policy was the hope that it would scare Iran and North Korea into line for a long time. In fact, neither happened.

Amnorix
03-21-2011, 12:08 PM
Wait... Obama won a nobel peace prize?

What the fuck for?

Not being Bush, apparently. And in all seriousness, that's about all he had going for him. It was stupid and embarrassing.

Amnorix
03-21-2011, 12:10 PM
Basically for running a successful presidential campaign against a guy that wasn’t even running. I know I found it stunning also. Not giving out NPP stunning but stunning in its own way.

At least Obama had the good sense not to accept it in person. Seriously, though, WTF. :shake:

The Mad Crapper
03-21-2011, 12:11 PM
I'm trying to understand the Left (I know, it's impossible since I'm not a moonbat but)...

For 8 years we were bombarded with Gitmo, invasion of Iraq, Patriot Act were all war crimes committed by Bushitler, but now that Obama is dictator, those things are cool.

Do I have this right?

Jaric
03-21-2011, 12:12 PM
I'm trying to understand the Left (I know, it's impossible since I'm not a moonbat but)...

For 8 years we were bombarded with Gitmo, invasion of Iraq, Patriot Act were all war crimes committed by Bushitler, but now that Obama is dictator, those things are cool.

Do I have this right?

Not so much "cool." More like "different."

The Mad Crapper
03-21-2011, 12:17 PM
Not so much "cool." More like "different."

But in a good way. :drool:

patteeu
03-21-2011, 12:18 PM
Libya....hrmm....not sure. They had been moderating their position for a fair while prior to GWB becoming President. They had handed over the Lockerbie bombers, for example, during the Clinton administration. The trend continued, I would say, under GWB, but motives were most likely mixed. Keep in mind that Khadafy had been in power since the late 60s and had thumbed his nose at every President since Nixon.



Pakistan -- I'd agree there that the US's very aggressive response to the Taliban and Afghanistan resulted in a shift in demeanor, keeping in mind that they had always tried to play both sides of every equation they were involved in. Of course, our attitude only shifted the position of the very top of the leadership, and has failed to stop lower level cooperation between the Pakistani's, and especially their intelilgence services, with the Taliban/AQ.

But honestly, what President wouldn't have gone into AFghanistan hard and then done a carrot/stick move with the Pakistanis? Pretty obvious strategy really.

Iran? They moderated their behavior? What do you cite for that? Their constant involvement (interference, in our view) with events in Iraq? Their continued efforts to develop nuclear weapons? In fact, I think that one of the reasons behind Bush's muscular foreign policy was the hope that it would scare Iran and North Korea into line for a long time. In fact, neither happened.

I'll stand by the Libyan example. I agree that they had been moderating before Bush took office, but the events after 9/11 certainly didn't work against Libya's ultimate decision to give up it's WMD program in late 2003.

As for Iran, they were cooperative with us in Afghanistan initially after our invasion. They took offense to being included in the Axis of Evil speech, but even so, they sought an accommodation with us after we invaded Iraq in impressive fashion. I have no illusion about the presence of Iranian troublemakers in Iraq early on, but their boldness increased as the insurgency picked up and American will began to wane. It was really only after Iraq started going downhill that they returned to their openly belligerent ways. Here's just a little bit (http://www.cfr.org/iran/timeline-us-iran-contacts/p12806#p8) about their efforts to reach out to the US after our successful invasions on both sides of them.

And in answer to your question, Al Gore is the president who wouldn't have responded with anything more serious than an ineffectual tomahawk missile attack against Afghanistan if he had been in office on Sept. 12, 2001.

Amnorix
03-21-2011, 12:30 PM
I'm trying to understand the Left (I know, it's impossible since I'm not a moonbat but)...

For 8 years we were bombarded with Gitmo, invasion of Iraq, Patriot Act were all war crimes committed by Bushitler, but now that Obama is dictator, those things are cool.

Do I have this right?

I suppose I'm the "Left", at least in your mind. I'm certainly Left of most on here at least. It may surprise you to know, however, that the Left isn't a hive mind.

1. Gitmo -- there was no easy solution to this, so I never really complained about it under GWB. My preference would be to hold sealed military tribunals and wrap up Gitmo, but I'm uncertain if the necessary evidence is there for conviction etc. Sometimes, it's too bad we're as civilized as we are. 50+ years ago, these guys get handed over to the Egyptians or whoever and they get dumped in a pit... (note, the last sentence is what makes me not exactly a far-left kind of guy)

2. Iraq -- we're steadily drawing down. Unfortunately, this probably means anarchy will result in Iraq. No easy solution to the mess GWB got us into. I would agree to stay to help keep the peace if the Iraqi government would pay for all of our costs, and indemnify us from any damages. That won't happen, so...

3. Patriot Act -- I don't think I objected too much about this at the time, but honestly I don't even remember the issues now. I certainly wasn't anti-Bush because of the Patriot Act.

Amnorix
03-21-2011, 01:02 PM
I'll stand by the Libyan example. I agree that they had been moderating before Bush took office, but the events after 9/11 certainly didn't work against Libya's ultimate decision to give up it's WMD program in late 2003.

I agree our efforts didn't hurt Libya's moderation, but when it was moving that way already, it's hard to say to what degree our acts post-9/11 influenced matters, except perhaps to hasten what was likely inevitable.

As for Iran, they were cooperative with us in Afghanistan initially after our invasion. They took offense to being included in the Axis of Evil speech, but even so, they sought an accommodation with us after we invaded Iraq in impressive fashion. I have no illusion about the presence of Iranian troublemakers in Iraq early on, but their boldness increased as the insurgency picked up and American will began to wane. It was really only after Iraq started going downhill that they returned to their openly belligerent ways. Here's just a little bit (http://www.cfr.org/iran/timeline-us-iran-contacts/p12806#p8) about their efforts to reach out to the US after our successful invasions on both sides of them.

The article you cited doesn't help you case any, since it seems BushCo fumbled some potentially golden opportunities after creating the atmosphere of fear/respect that their muscular moves created.

And in answer to your question, Al Gore is the president who wouldn't have responded with anything more serious than an ineffectual tomahawk missile attack against Afghanistan if he had been in office on Sept. 12, 2001.

Possibly, in light of the opinion of many that Afghanistan has proven a graveyard for foreign invaders for hundreds of years. You may remember, however, that many on the left supported Afghanistan as vehemently as it opposed Iraq.

Direckshun
03-21-2011, 01:04 PM
I think most nations read Obama for what he is. A community organizer in over his head.

Our reputation on foreign policy will most likely do a 180 when the next occupant of the White House actually has some experience and cohesiveness in formulating a foreign policy.

I'm dying to know what a "more experienced hand" would be doing in regards to our foreign policy from the past three years.

Surge in Afghanistan? Draw down in Iraq? Put Pattreus in charge of Afghanistan? Maintained Gitmo? Let the CIA get away scott-free with murder of POWs? Defend the Patriot Act at every turn? Step up our bombing campaign in Pakistan? Adding Libya and Yemen to the list? If somehow this more experienced guy receives a Nobel Peace Prize, would he fly to Denmark and give a 30 minute speech on the occasional necessity of war?

Obama's foreign policy is probably the one area above all others that proves that his opponents stick to a script above any and all facts.

The Mad Crapper
03-21-2011, 01:07 PM
Obama's foreign policy is probably the one area above all others that proves that his opponents stick to a script above any and all facts.

LMAO

patteeu
03-21-2011, 01:14 PM
I agree our efforts didn't hurt Libya's moderation, but when it was moving that way already, it's hard to say to what degree our acts post-9/11 influenced matters, except perhaps to hasten what was likely inevitable.



The article you cited doesn't help you case any, since it seems BushCo fumbled some potentially golden opportunities after creating the atmosphere of fear/respect that their muscular moves created.

My case doesn't have anything to do with what Bush may or may not have done with any opportunities. It has to do with the presence of those opportunities.

And the fact remains that Libya went further in it's moderation after our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq than it had shown any willingness to go prior. The cumulative evidence of all the actions of rogue regimes in the immediate wake of our demonstration of force and will speaks for itself regardless of whether Libya was moved greatly or only nominally.

patteeu
03-21-2011, 01:17 PM
I'm dying to know what a "more experienced hand" would be doing in regards to our foreign policy from the past three years.

Surge in Afghanistan? Draw down in Iraq? Put Pattreus in charge of Afghanistan? Maintained Gitmo? Let the CIA get away scott-free with murder of POWs? Defend the Patriot Act at every turn? Step up our bombing campaign in Pakistan? Adding Libya and Yemen to the list? If somehow this more experienced guy receives a Nobel Peace Prize, would he fly to Denmark and give a 30 minute speech on the occasional necessity of war?

Obama's foreign policy is probably the one area above all others that proves that his opponents stick to a script above any and all facts.

For one thing, a "more experienced hand" probably wouldn't appear to be dragged into each of those decisions after either endless dithering or unmistakeable statements against those policies.

Direckshun
03-21-2011, 01:20 PM
For one thing, a "more experienced hand" probably wouldn't appear to be dragged into each of those decisions after either endless dithering or unmistakeable statements against those policies.

See this is exactly what I'm talking about with Austin Chief.

You guys have next to zero complaints about his foreign policy, you mainly just want to complain that he's not smiling while he's doing it.

mlyonsd
03-21-2011, 01:24 PM
See this is exactly what I'm talking about with Austin Chief.

You guys have next to zero complaints about his foreign policy, you mainly just want to complain that he's not smiling while he's doing it.

I think some of us have our feelings hurt because Obama has vindicated about 95% of Bush's foreign policy and you lefties haven't slapped us war mongering righties on the butt and said "good job, you were right".

patteeu
03-21-2011, 01:26 PM
See this is exactly what I'm talking about with Austin Chief.

You guys have next to zero complaints about his foreign policy, you mainly just want to complain that he's not smiling while he's doing it.

AustinChief was pretty clear about being upset with the appearance rather than the final policy. I agree with him that appearance is an important part of foreign policy. If you don't then I don't think you have a full appreciation for the topic.

As for me, I'm not on board with the Libyan intervention, although now that Obama has dug us this hole, I'm on board with making it successful because failure gives the world the wrong impression. The last thing I want to see is Obama giving this a try for a few weeks and then walking away from it to let Khaddafi win in the end.

Oh, and btw, I think Obama ought to get an authorization from Congress.

AustinChief
03-21-2011, 01:35 PM
Why can't foreign policy be strongly persuaded by acting in concert with other nations who are our traditional allies (and who provide international cover when things go bad) and workign with the international agencies THAT WE HELP SET UP to deal with precisely these types of things.

You seem to think that if we aren't independent operators, we aren't showing decisive leadership. Being an independent operator is great when it works, but when it doesn't go so well (see Bush, George W.) it means you're standing in the middle of a press conference getting shoes thrown at you, and earning the focused hatred of millions. That's not necessarily great policy.

Decisive is great, but sometimes the situation is complex, and working with allies and within a framework is the right way to go. Why is that so difficult to understand?

(side note: I'm amazed at the absolute reverence given to Cowboy Diplomacy around here. WE'RE AMERICA DAMMIT! AMERICA!!! WE DO WHAT WE WANT, WHEN WE WANT, AND PEOPLE LEAD BECAUSE WHAT WE DO IS ALWAYS THE RIGHT THING TO DO AS LONG AS WE'RE DECISIVE ABOUT IT1!!11!! Giggidity Giggidy.

That seems to be the ideal foreign policy to many, and I have no idea why as it seems flat out absurd on its face to me).

Your post here has merit.. it just has no bearing on anything I am trying to say. Let's look at President Wilson. He was the ULTIMATE proponent of international cooperation. There is nothing wrong with that... as long as you do it from a leadership position like he did. LEADING a coalition of nations is fine. FOLLOWING France's lead is not. (Funny that France is one of the biggest buyers of Libyan oil..)

There is simply no denying that Obama looked weak in regard to the Libya situation. If you think otherwise, you weren't paying attention.

Direckshun
03-21-2011, 01:35 PM
AustinChief was pretty clear about being upset with the appearance rather than the final policy.

Exactly. That's why this is such a joke.

There are a hundred ways you could criticize this, except that this move won't play well internationally.

By every measure, this is a great PR move with the Middle East and our allies in the UN.

That doesn't justify it, but that's probably the dumbest angle you could take against it.

patteeu
03-21-2011, 01:41 PM
Exactly. That's why this is such a joke.

There are a hundred ways you could criticize this, except that this move won't play well internationally.

By every measure, this is a great PR move with the Middle East and our allies in the UN.

That doesn't justify it, but that's probably the dumbest angle you could take against it.

I think this must be a blind spot of yours.

AustinChief
03-21-2011, 01:42 PM
Exactly. That's why this is such a joke.

There are a hundred ways you could criticize this, except that this move won't play well internationally.

By every measure, this is a great PR move with the Middle East and our allies in the UN.

That doesn't justify it, but that's probably the dumbest angle you could take against it.

Wow. It's sad that you actually believe that. Do you HONESTLY think this will make the Arab world hate us any less?

In the end we will be hated just the same and LESS respected.

Your view of foreign policy is either incredibly partisan or incredibly naive.

scott free
03-21-2011, 01:44 PM
Bush embarrassed America with ignorance, Obama is embarrassing us with weakness. It's sad.

Summed up rather nicely, and like you said, Obama may be liked but he is not respected.

mlyonsd
03-21-2011, 01:44 PM
Exactly. That's why this is such a joke.

There are a hundred ways you could criticize this, except that this move won't play well internationally.

By every measure, this is a great PR move with the Middle East and our allies in the UN.

That doesn't justify it, but that's probably the dumbest angle you could take against it.

There is a LOT of stuff that has to play out before you can boldly consider those statements facts.

Direckshun
03-21-2011, 01:45 PM
There is a LOT of stuff that has to play out before you can consider those statements facts.

How much stuff has to play out before I say Obama screwed up in regards to Libya?

Direckshun
03-21-2011, 01:45 PM
I think this must be a blind spot of yours.

k

patteeu
03-21-2011, 01:46 PM
Wow. It's sad that you actually believe that. Do you HONESTLY think this will make the Arab world hate us any less?

In the end we will be hated just the same and LESS respected.

Your view of foreign policy is either incredibly partisan or incredibly naive.

This is correct in it's entirety.

Direckshun
03-21-2011, 01:47 PM
oh wow...

wow...

Wow...

Wow.

And I mean, wow.

It's sad that you actually believe that. Do you HONESTLY think this will make the Arab world hate us any less?

In the end we will be hated just the same and LESS respected.

Non sequitor.

Edit: wow.

Direckshun
03-21-2011, 01:48 PM
This is correct in it's entirety.

wow

HonestChieffan
03-21-2011, 01:57 PM
PR Seems to be in the crapper....First is Iran, second Russia. The kicker is Arab League...so who was this supposed to make feel better about Obama?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jG67zzodChPrO2HIoaDCTNzHFVIA?docId=CNG.a807bd69f3debaa7a6b4ca2383f9500b.271

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/putin-no-fly-zone-enforcement-libya-remi


http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=213007

mlyonsd
03-21-2011, 01:58 PM
How much stuff has to play out before I say Obama screwed up in regards to Libya?

Just pointing out you're playing the same game. :thumb:

Direckshun
03-21-2011, 01:59 PM
Just pointing out you're playing the same game. :thumb:

So, everybody's comments are too soon, or just mine?

If everybody's, I'll wait for you to correct the OP in good time. I hold you to your intellectual integrity.

mlyonsd
03-21-2011, 02:08 PM
So, everybody's comments are too soon, or just mine?

If everybody's, I'll wait for you to correct the OP in good time. I hold you to your intellectual integrity.

K. Although I should disclose I've considered us the UN's bit*h for a long time.

RNR
03-21-2011, 02:18 PM
Wait... Obama won a nobel peace prize?

What the **** for?

His worthless ass is a prize compared to some who have been given the award

Yasser Arafat the father of modern terrorism

Al Gore a shameless shitbag who has and still lies about our climate for no other reason than personal financial gain

Wangari Maathai supported the theory that HIV was invented by white scientists to destroy black people

Menachem Begin had also previously been head of the militant Zionist group Irgun, which is often regarded as a terrorist organization and had been responsible for the King David Hotel bombing in 1946

Needless to say it is a sketchy award and his lack of doing anything to deserve it still ranks him higher than some who have won it~

Jaric
03-21-2011, 02:21 PM
His worthless ass is a prize compared to some who have been given the award

Yasser Arafat the father of modern terrorism

Al Gore a shameless shitbag who has and still lies about our climate for no other reason than personal financial gain

Wangari Maathai supported the theory that HIV was invented by white scientists to destroy black people

Menachem Begin had also previously been head of the militant Zionist group Irgun, which is often regarded as a terrorist organization and had been responsible for the King David Hotel bombing in 1946

Needless to say it is a sketchy award and his lack of doing anything to deserve it still ranks him higher than some who have won it~
Oh shit I completely forgot that Arafat won that. That list does put the whole thing in perspective.

Direckshun
03-21-2011, 02:48 PM
K. Although I should disclose I've considered us the UN's bit*h for a long time.

Can't help but notice you've only found time to correct me for being premature in my assessment of Libya.

Any reason for this?

mlyonsd
03-21-2011, 04:42 PM
Can't help but notice you've only found time to correct me for being premature in my assessment of Libya.

Any reason for this?

Probably because in our earlier exchange you tried to gloss over Obama's real intentions by considering them a "humanitarian intervention" when even he stated again today Gaddafi must go.

Don't take it personal. I never miss any of your posts and agree with you sometimes.

Direckshun
03-21-2011, 09:26 PM
Probably because in our earlier exchange you tried to gloss over Obama's real intentions by considering them a "humanitarian intervention" when even he stated again today Gaddafi must go.

You lost me.

AC starts a thread where he bemoans that "Obama really screwed the pooch on Libya."

You say nothing.

I respond by saying that it doesn't seem that he has screwed the pooch.

You say too soon.

I'm trying to figure out how, by your standards, I was premature and AC is not.

Unless, and I know this is unthinkable, you're exercising a double standard against people with whom you disagree.

Otter
03-21-2011, 09:55 PM
Bum **** Barry isn't a leader, he's a follower. He's a pawn that's about as much of a leader as the Pillsberry Doe Boy is in charge of you morning bagel.

He's a disgrace. And he's there when our country needed him most.

patteeu
03-22-2011, 03:47 AM
You lost me.

AC starts a thread where he bemoans that "Obama really screwed the pooch on Libya."

You say nothing.

I respond by saying that it doesn't seem that he has screwed the pooch.

You say too soon.

I'm trying to figure out how, by your standards, I was premature and AC is not.

Unless, and I know this is unthinkable, you're exercising a double standard against people with whom you disagree.

AustinChief's criticism is about behavior that has already occurred. Your praise is about the policy and is based on an expectation of results that have yet to be determined. Don't you see the difference?

AustinChief
03-22-2011, 04:33 AM
AustinChief's criticism is about behavior that has already occurred. Your praise is about the policy and is based on an expectation of results that have yet to be determined. Don't you see the difference?

Don't waste proper logical constructs on someone who is obviously too partisan to look at reality. Sorry... but I don't think Direckshun is an idiot.. I just think he is too partisan to admit the truth. Which is sad... I'm dead serious when I say that I pity him for that. I wish that more intelligent people like him would stop and THINK for a minute.

RNR
03-22-2011, 05:48 AM
Don't waste proper logical constructs on someone who is obviously too partisan to look at reality. Sorry... but I don't think Direckshun is an idiot.. I just think he is too partisan to admit the truth. Which is sad... I'm dead serious when I say that I pity him for that. I wish that more intelligent people like him would stop and THINK for a minute.


I came to that same conclusion when I tried to talk with the guy. He is myopic in his views~

mlyonsd
03-22-2011, 07:17 AM
You lost me.

AC starts a thread where he bemoans that "Obama really screwed the pooch on Libya."

You say nothing.

I respond by saying that it doesn't seem that he has screwed the pooch.

You say too soon.

I'm trying to figure out how, by your standards, I was premature and AC is not.

Unless, and I know this is unthinkable, you're exercising a double standard against people with whom you disagree.
No, it went like this.

AC starts a thread giving his opinion of how he's disgusted with Obama's handling of Libya because it gives the appearance we have given up our leadership role in the world. That's his opinion, not a projection of how others will perceive us.

Blah, blah, blah.....lots of posts with people going round and round.

I decide to pipe in on one of your posts where you're attempting to differentiate between a human intervention and war, and how we're not pledged to Gaddafi's defeat.

I point out that even Obama says he must go, so that pretty much throws human intervention out the window since we're using war to overthrow a regime. Funny how that nation building stuff comes back to bite you in the a$$ sometimes. At this point Gaddafi staying will be a failure.

You completely ignore all that and boldly state Obama's handling could be a great PR move for us in the ME and the rest of the world.

Since you were willing to avoid the facts on why we're attacking Libya I decided to point out a lot of stuff had to happen before your rainbow prophecy came true.

Sorry if you think I'm picking on you. Keep up the good fight. Your guy is going to need people to keep watching his back if he doesn't want someone like Palin kicking his a$$ in 2012.

BucEyedPea
03-22-2011, 07:44 AM
I was never under the impression that Obama believes/d that we should lead. Didn't he say that he was a "citizen of the world" at one point?

Well then, who is Obama supposed to be leading—the world? That's what your post implies to me. So that means he is also a citizen of the world. I swear you guys on the right confuse the idea of the American Presidency with that of World Emperor. He's supposed to lead America—not the world, the UN or the Europeans.

Direckshun
03-22-2011, 09:53 AM
AC starts a thread giving his opinion of how he's disgusted with Obama's handling of Libya because it gives the appearance we have given up our leadership role in the world. That's his opinion, not a projection of how others will perceive us.

Swing and a miss, right out of the gate.

Yes, AC is projecting how others (particularly enemies) will perceive us. That's his primary complaint in this thread.

So, I'm still waiting for you to say "too soon."

I just know it's not coming because the two of you voted for Palin in 2008, and I dared to vote Obama. Therefore I must be subject to the Mlyonsd Police, and he gets a pass.

I decide to pipe in on one of your posts where you're attempting to differentiate between a human intervention and war, and how we're not pledged to Gaddafi's defeat.

I point out that even Obama says he must go, so that pretty much throws human intervention out the window since we're using war to overthrow a regime. Funny how that nation building stuff comes back to bite you in the a$$ sometimes. At this point Gaddafi staying will be a failure.

You completely ignore all that and boldly state Obama's handling could be a great PR move for us in the ME and the rest of the world.

Since you were willing to avoid the facts on why we're attacking Libya I decided to point out a lot of stuff had to happen before your rainbow prophecy came true.

Saying "someone must go" does not bring with it any legal or militaristic requirement.

The only mission he's signed onto is Operation Something Whatever, or whatever it's called, which is specifically twofold: enforce a no-fly zone over Libya (we're on the way to achieving that objective), and protect Benghazi from outright slaughter (check).

I'm as concerned as anybody else of "mission creep," but until that happens, our military objective is not to overthrow Qaddafi. Qaddafi remaining in power ultimately bears no reflection on the objectives of our current intervention.

mlyonsd
03-22-2011, 10:02 AM
Swing and a miss, right out of the gate.

Yes, AC is projecting how others (particularly enemies) will perceive us. That's his primary complaint in this thread.

So, I'm still waiting for you to say "too soon."

I just know it's not coming because the two of you voted for Palin in 2008, and I dared to vote Obama. Therefore I must be subject to the Mlyonsd Police, and he gets a pass.



Saying "someone must go" does not bring with it any legal or militaristic requirement.

The only mission he's signed onto is Operation Something Whatever, or whatever it's called, which is specifically twofold: enforce a no-fly zone over Libya (we're on the way to achieving that objective), and protect Benghazi from outright slaughter (check).

I'm as concerned as anybody else of "mission creep," but until that happens, our military objective is not to overthrow Qaddafi. Qaddafi remaining in power ultimately bears no reflection on the objectives of our current intervention.
Wow.

Direckshun
03-22-2011, 10:04 AM
Wow.

FYP :D

patteeu
03-22-2011, 10:06 AM
Swing and a miss, right out of the gate.

Yes, AC is projecting how others (particularly enemies) will perceive us. That's his primary complaint in this thread.

So, I'm still waiting for you to say "too soon."

I just know it's not coming because the two of you voted for Palin in 2008, and I dared to vote Obama. Therefore I must be subject to the Mlyonsd Police, and he gets a pass.



Saying "someone must go" does not bring with it any legal or militaristic requirement.

The only mission he's signed onto is Operation Something Whatever, or whatever it's called, which is specifically twofold: enforce a no-fly zone over Libya (we're on the way to achieving that objective), and protect Benghazi from outright slaughter (check).

I'm as concerned as anybody else of "mission creep," but until that happens, our military objective is not to overthrow Qaddafi. Qaddafi remaining in power ultimately bears no reflection on the objectives of our current intervention.

Wow.

Jaric
03-22-2011, 10:07 AM
Wow.

Wow?

Direckshun
03-22-2011, 10:10 AM
AC starts a thread giving his opinion of how he's disgusted with Obama's handling of Libya because it gives the appearance we have given up our leadership role in the world. That's his opinion, not a projection of how others will perceive us.

Just to underscore the point of how badly you missed on this:

How other nation's view us is of vital importance to how effective we are on the world stage.

It very clearly says to the world that we have no clear policy and we're willing to follow along.

Nothing about our actions today speaks to the rest of the world about what we believe.. except that right now we are willing to waffle until we get a UN consensus.

Seriously? You really don't see how important it is for us to project a strong foreign policy?

[...]

and reputation MATTERS when it comes to diplomacy.

The problem is not what obama did or did not do... it is HOW HE DID IT. If he had made a clear statement that US policy was to remove Qaddafi or some humanitarian bullshit (which it is) reason or WHATEVER... then followed through on said policy.. I would have little to no issue. If I could go back in time just 3 days and ask you what Obama's policy in regard to a situation like Libya's or even specifically JUST in regards to Libya... what would you have told me? If you had said anything other than "I don't know" than you'd have been lying. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. Regardless of REALITY, it appears to the world that he is taking his cues on foreign policy from France and/or the UN. AND THAT hurts our reputation immensely.

Obama is embarrassing us with weakness.

Wow... ok.. you really don't see how being perceived as weak hurts your ability to enact effective foreign policy? You can disagree that other countries will see him as weak... and THAT can be the argument... but IF they do.. it is bad for America. end of story.

All of the above are specific declarations of how America WILL BE perceived by others. In direct contradiction to your claim.

Too soon, mlyonsd? Or does AC get a pass?

Direckshun
03-22-2011, 10:12 AM
Wow.

Wow?

Wow.

patteeu
03-22-2011, 10:16 AM
Wow?

I just wanted to get on the wow train. Everyone is doing it these days.

patteeu
03-22-2011, 10:20 AM
Just to underscore the point of how badly you missed on this:











All of the above are specific declarations of how America WILL BE perceived by others. In direct contradiction to your claim.

Too soon, mlyonsd? Or does AC get a pass?

Again, the damage has been done in terms of the appearance of weakness that Obama presented while dithering on Libya. Whether he ultimately made the right decision in terms of the policy remains to be seen.

I will say that if the policy turns out to be successful, it can mitigate some of the damage that was done by his pre-decision fecklessness. But it doesn't wipe it from our memory completely.

The Mad Crapper
03-22-2011, 10:30 AM
http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Obama_Lord_of_the_Flies.gif

mlyonsd
03-22-2011, 12:09 PM
This.......
By every measure, this is a great PR move with the Middle East and our allies in the UN.

...is hardly the same as this


I personally don't think we have ANY cause to intervene in the internal affairs of Libya .. Obama staying out of the fray was the right decision... but he was doing it wrong... which has now been proven by today's actions.

Obama needed to make a strong and clear statement of what America's policy was.. instead he waffled until the UN took the lead on things and now he is following along.

He has officially set America up as a nation that follows instead of leads.

I was never a fan of his but today I am DISGUSTED by what he has done to America. We are now officially the UN's bitch.
<!-- / message --><!-- / Jeff Removed Sig -->

...which is what I was using as a reference. The former is a broadly painted statement of how the rest of the world will come to view Obama's actions....which by the way have already been debunked. The latter is a clear statement of how AC himself perceives what Obama's actions have already done. So in that case he's correct in posting it, unless of course he's lying to himself which is a whole 'nuther can of worms.

As for the other posts from AC you listed, yes, there is one or two that has yet to play out on the world stage.

If it makes you feel better I'll scold AC the same way I did you.

AC, there is a LOT of stuff that has to play out before you can consider some of your statements as facts.

There, I hope everyone is happy now. I never envisioned my pointing out the obvious would ever cause such grief and shame. I should be more careful on how hard I come down on people.

mlyonsd
03-22-2011, 12:14 PM
Saying "someone must go" does not bring with it any legal or militaristic requirement.

The only mission he's signed onto is Operation Something Whatever, or whatever it's called, which is specifically twofold: enforce a no-fly zone over Libya (we're on the way to achieving that objective), and protect Benghazi from outright slaughter (check).

I'm as concerned as anybody else of "mission creep," but until that happens, our military objective is not to overthrow Qaddafi. Qaddafi remaining in power ultimately bears no reflection on the objectives of our current intervention.

"Saying someone must go" while at the same time lobbing missiles and bombs at them is quite simply war.

You might find this hard to believe but I'm not criticizing Obama for doing it, just pointing out what is really happening instead of letting you pretend it isn't what it really is.

This is just another variation of Iraq 2003 even if you choose to ignore it.

Amnorix
03-22-2011, 12:39 PM
I briefly skimmed this thread and let me start by saying "Wow".

Now that we have that out of the way...


It seems to me that Obama didn't "lead" on Libya, but I'm very confused about why he needed to. I've said before and I will say again -- the US has no need to "lead" on every issue everywhere in the world every time. While there can be benefits that flow from being the leader every time, there are certainly also drawbacks.

And since I seem to remember more than one instance of people on here -- on the right and otherwise -- being annoyed at the failure of our purported allies to "step up", it hardly seems logical to criticize the Administration for letting allies WHO HAVE MORE OF A FUNDAMENTAL INTEREST IN A GIVEN SITUATION THAN WE DO from taking the lead on an issue that does not strike at the heart of OUR fundamental interests when we are already engaged in two hot wars.

Leadership is great, right up until everyone else steps back and leaves you holding the bag, and taking the blame, if/when things don't go all hunky-dory.

Amnorix
03-22-2011, 12:40 PM
"Saying someone must go" while at the same time lobbing missiles and bombs at them is quite simply war.

You might find this hard to believe but I'm not criticizing Obama for doing it, just pointing out what is really happening instead of letting you pretend it isn't what it really is.

This is just another variation of Iraq 2003 even if you choose to ignore it.

While war is war, and I think lobbying missiles at someone is war, there is a difference between standoff strikes and boots on the ground invasion.

patteeu
03-22-2011, 12:43 PM
I briefly skimmed this thread and let me start by saying "Wow".

Now that we have that out of the way...


It seems to me that Obama didn't "lead" on Libya, but I'm very confused about why he needed to. I've said before and I will say again -- the US has no need to "lead" on every issue everywhere in the world every time. While there can be benefits that flow from being the leader every time, there are certainly also drawbacks.

And since I seem to remember more than one instance of people on here -- on the right and otherwise -- being annoyed at the failure of our purported allies to "step up", it hardly seems logical to criticize the Administration for letting allies WHO HAVE MORE OF A FUNDAMENTAL INTEREST IN A GIVEN SITUATION THAN WE DO from taking the lead on an issue that does not strike at the heart of OUR fundamental interests when we are already engaged in two hot wars.

Leadership is great, right up until everyone else steps back and leaves you holding the bag, and taking the blame, if/when things don't go all hunky-dory.

He not only didn't lead, he and his administration were all over the place and it's not clear that they've figured out what they're doing even now. They have yet to give a coherent answer about why we're doing what we're doing and exactly what we're doing in the first place. What outcome are we aiming for?

mlyonsd
03-22-2011, 12:56 PM
While war is war, and I think lobbying missiles at someone is war, there is a difference between standoff strikes and boots on the ground invasion.Well that's obvious. But the end game being regime change, unless I am reading more into "Gaddafi must go", is the same.

And if that isn't the end game Obama's statements would make me believe the administration is even more screwed up than I originally thought.

go bowe
03-22-2011, 01:00 PM
Wow.wow...

er... i meant to say "this"...

go bowe
03-22-2011, 01:05 PM
I should be more careful on how hard I come down on people.you better be, you skinny bully...

or you might meet a fat kid...

go bowe
03-22-2011, 01:08 PM
Well that's obvious. But the end game being regime change, unless I am reading more into "Gaddafi must go", is the same.

And if that isn't the end game Obama's statements would make me believe the administration is even more screwed up than I originally thought.is that even possible? :Poke:

go bowe
03-22-2011, 01:17 PM
Well that's obvious. But the end game being regime change, unless I am reading more into "Gaddafi must go", is the same.

And if that isn't the end game Obama's statements would make me believe the administration is even more screwed up than I originally thought.it sure looks like the administration is confused, as well as the big o himself...

the only possible goal of the military action, politically speaking with regards to world opinion, is a no-fly zone (which requires the attacks we've seen on aid defense installations) and "protection" of civilians...

while regime change may be a goal that many share with the big o, and would no doubt applaud it, it is not the stated mission under the u.n. security resolution and the arab league's position...

and i don't believe that the big o will do anything too overt to effect regime change unless some pilot happens to drop a big beautiful bomb right into his bunker by mistake...

i'm voting for a mistake,,, :D :D :D

mlyonsd
03-22-2011, 01:26 PM
it sure looks like the administration is confused, as well as the big o himself...

the only possible goal of the military action, politically speaking with regards to world opinion, is a no-fly zone (which requires the attacks we've seen on aid defense installations) and "protection" of civilians...

while regime change may be a goal that many share with the big o, and would no doubt applaud it, it is not the stated mission under the u.n. security resolution and the arab league's position...

and i don't believe that the big o will do anything too overt to effect regime change unless some pilot happens to drop a big beautiful bomb right into his bunker by mistake...

i'm voting for a mistake,,, :D :D :D

If regime change is the name of the game we should have taken care of him last year when he had his tent camped out in NYC.

go bowe
03-22-2011, 01:30 PM
If regime change is the name of the game we should have taken care of him last year when he had his tent camped out in NYC.yeah, we could have made it look like a drug deal gone bad...

durtyrute
03-22-2011, 03:08 PM
I personally don't think we have ANY cause to intervene in the internal affairs of Libya .. Obama staying out of the fray was the right decision... but he was doing it wrong... which has now been proven by today's actions.

Obama needed to make a strong and clear statement of what America's policy was.. instead he waffled until the UN took the lead on things and now he is following along.

He has officially set America up as a nation that follows instead of leads.

I was never a fan of his but today I am DISGUSTED by what he has done to America. We are now officially the UN's bitch.

This oh this

BucEyedPea
03-22-2011, 06:43 PM
If regime change is the name of the game we should have taken care of him last year when he had his tent camped out in NYC.

From what I heard on the tv news the UN resolution doesn't call for regime change. So that was outside of the plan. As much as I disagree with going in, if he was to go in, he had to go all the way.
This just may result in another one of those stalemated wars that never end now.

Taco John
03-22-2011, 09:36 PM
I was never a fan of his but today I am DISGUSTED by what he has done to America. We are now officially the UN's bitch.

I have long believed that this the point of his presidency. Obama is just using this post as a stepping stone. His game has always been to chage American foriegn policy to be subservient to the UN. And someday, I believe that he's going to run for Secretary General.

Direckshun
03-22-2011, 10:32 PM
If it makes you feel better I'll scold AC the same way I did you.

AC, there is a LOT of stuff that has to play out before you can consider some of your statements as facts.

There, I hope everyone is happy now. I never envisioned my pointing out the obvious would ever cause such grief and shame. I should be more careful on how hard I come down on people.

I just dragged you bitching and screaming out of your own double standard.

Kudos for the follow through. Rep on the way.

patteeu
03-22-2011, 10:34 PM
I just dragged you bitching and screaming out of your own double standard.

Kudos for the follow through. Rep on the way.

:shake:

Direckshun
03-22-2011, 10:35 PM
"Saying someone must go" while at the same time lobbing missiles and bombs at them is quite simply war.

Not in any legal or official way is that true, that I know of.

This is just another variation of Iraq 2003 even if you choose to ignore it.

How do you figure.

Direckshun
03-22-2011, 10:41 PM
It should be noted that there is a difference between our common language and legal language.

A war to you and me can probably be defined by military violence. But that's not how it's defined legally. Legally, there are distinctions between acts of war and war, crazy as it sounds.

I don't know if you've seen "Hotel Rwanda," but that movie makes a very similar point in regards to genocide. There's what you and I clearly regard as genocide, and how it's legally defined by countries and the UN. The movie highlights diplomats parsing the difference between "acts of genocide" and "genocide."

It's an incredibly fine line, one imagines, but that's how law works.

Direckshun
03-22-2011, 10:46 PM
They have yet to give a coherent answer about why we're doing what we're doing and exactly what we're doing in the first place. What outcome are we aiming for?

I was under the impression that it's common knowledge at this point that we're (a.) preventing a massacre in Benghazi, and (b.) enforcing a no fly zone.

So the desired outcome would be both of those things occurring.

Since that was our authorization from the UN.

AustinChief
03-23-2011, 12:11 AM
“We began a military action at the same time that we don’t have a clear diplomatic policy, or a clear foreign policy when it comes to what’s going on in Libya,’’ said Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia...

orange
03-23-2011, 01:20 AM
...

You know, my impression is that Congress would have a lot more input into this matter if they were actually in session. Apparently, Libya's just not important enough to interrupt their schedule.

March 21 - 27 Senate Recess
March 21 - 27 House Recess

patteeu
03-23-2011, 06:42 AM
I was under the impression that it's common knowledge at this point that we're (a.) preventing a massacre in Benghazi, and (b.) enforcing a no fly zone.

So the desired outcome would be both of those things occurring.

Since that was our authorization from the UN.

That's certainly one of the conflicting inputs.

mlyonsd
03-23-2011, 06:45 AM
:shake:

Let him have a victory or he'll just end up running away like the rest of them.

mlyonsd
03-23-2011, 06:51 AM
How do you figure.

This won't end until Gaddafi (or however you spell his stupid name) is removed. Just like in 2003 where the UN and Bush strategized to remove Saddam. The variation is of course Bush didn't blink.

HonestChieffan
03-23-2011, 07:25 AM
Let him have a victory or he'll just end up running away like the rest of them.

He will claim victory regardless. Any short fallwill be (fill in the blank)'s fault. I can hear it now, the stammering presentation, we have achieved our overiding stategic objective blah blah....Un and Nato....blah blah..alliances...freedom and democracy for oppressed people blah blah. Our efforts now will be to support (whoever seems like a good pick)....

RNR
03-23-2011, 07:34 AM
He will claim victory regardless. Any short fallwill be (fill in the blank)'s fault. I can hear it now, the stammering presentation, we have achieved our overiding stategic objective blah blah....Un and Nato....blah blah..alliances...freedom and democracy for oppressed people blah blah. Our efforts now will be to support (whoever seems like a good pick)....

We agree on much, I accidently gave you rep for mlyonsd’s post. I was going to give you some rep also… for your avatar if nothing else :)

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 08:46 AM
He will claim victory regardless. Any short fallwill be (fill in the blank)'s fault. I can hear it now, the stammering presentation, we have achieved our overiding stategic objective blah blah....Un and Nato....blah blah..alliances...freedom and democracy for oppressed people blah blah. Our efforts now will be to support (whoever seems like a good pick)....

"Mission Accomplished!"

Keep talking guys———————> Third Party Candidate? You just may put one in the Oval Office. :drool:

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 08:48 AM
It should be noted that there is a difference between our common language and legal language.

A war to you and me can probably be defined by military violence. But that's not how it's defined legally. Legally, there are distinctions between acts of war and war, crazy as it sounds.

I don't know if you've seen "Hotel Rwanda," but that movie makes a very similar point in regards to genocide. There's what you and I clearly regard as genocide, and how it's legally defined by countries and the UN. The movie highlights diplomats parsing the difference between "acts of genocide" and "genocide."

It's an incredibly fine line, one imagines, but that's how law works.

Another people that would round-robin in killing one another—violence which stemmed from previous colonial intervention.

BucEyedPea
03-23-2011, 08:50 AM
“We began a military action at the same time that we don’t have a clear diplomatic policy, or a clear foreign policy when it comes to what’s going on in Libya,’’ said Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia

Something a Declaration of War does well for us. The UN stuff is just too murky.

Direckshun
03-23-2011, 01:00 PM
This won't end until Gaddafi (or however you spell his stupid name) is removed.

It's too soon to say that. ROFL

mlyonsd
03-23-2011, 01:07 PM
It's too soon to say that. ROFL

Ok that was pretty good.

go bowe
03-23-2011, 01:08 PM
It's too soon to say that. ROFLouch...
LMAO LMAO LMAO

The Mad Crapper
03-23-2011, 02:03 PM
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GJH5Pzi8spg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>