|
Post by NYR on Mar 19, 2011 16:52:20 GMT -5
International coalition targets Libya’s air defense systemsintro: "An international coalition launched its first strikes on Libya on Saturday to destroy the country’s air and missile defense systems and prevent further attacks by the Libyan government on its citizens and rebels in and around the rebel-held city of Benghazi, a senior U.S. military official said." what do you guys think?
|
|
|
Post by Rifles on Mar 19, 2011 20:15:13 GMT -5
I was wondering if there was a sub-section for "serious" conversation.
I understand the reasoning behind the whole attack, but is anyone else getting tired of all the military action? We've really got to come up with some fuel alternatives so we're not so invested in these other countries. Obviously, at least on the surface, this is all about keeping Ghadafi from attacking his own citizens, but we've got to start minding our own business in the grand scheme of things.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Mar 19, 2011 20:50:42 GMT -5
i don't think the united states should have gone to war with libya. we should have supported the coalition, but we're already in two wars. we don't need a third. it'll increase our deficit and heaven knows how long we'll be there.
i really was hoping for the european union to take the lead on this one. a huge reason for anti-american sentiment across the world is because the united states tends to be seen as the world police. that may be somewhat true, but that's because no one else wants to take action. it's like they're waiting for the americans to do their dirty work for them (and then complain).
thing is, it was inevitable for the usa to join the coalition. libya broke a ceasefire and the united nations signed off on the consequences. i must admit that it was nice to see president obama talk the talk and then walk the walk.
|
|
|
Post by Rifles on Mar 19, 2011 21:03:25 GMT -5
Yeah, I don't know too many details about this particular conflict, but I share your same sentiments. I wouldn't be bothered with our perception in the rest of the world if I actually agreed with what we're doing, but that's not usually the case. We're really doing a lot of things wrong these days and I had hoped Obama would turn some things around but the only thing that's apparently improved is the economy. Education is in the toilet and I read the other day they're looking to tweak No Child Left Behind. They need to get rid of that shit completely and really revamp the education system.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Mar 22, 2011 14:50:24 GMT -5
My thoughts are jumbled because this whole situation is so confusing - no thanks to the White House. I'll probably write something more organized later, but here are some scattered thoughts -- This administration has no idea what it's doing. Yet another example of incompetent leadership. Weeks of dithering after Obama announces Ghadafi has to go. Then the British bomb his compound and Obama says he's not the target, and the bombing will only last a few days as they only try to protect civilians. Now it's seemingly about nation building and installing democracy?: thehill.com/homenews/campaign/151191-white-house-suggests-regime-change-is-goal-of-libya-mission?page=1Which, if this is the case, it proves Obama to be a hypocrite, and even more of an example of Obama being nothing more than an empty suit. Then there's the issue of not understanding who the rebels are, and what they support. This could prove to be a very costly missing piece of information. I'm all for helping out if we can, and if it makes sense. In fact, at the time Iraq and Afghanistan made more sense then this current war with Libya. This administration simply has no idea what it's doing. If Ghadafi remains in power, the US looks weak, and is humiliated, and it would only embolden Ghadffi. If we remove Ghadafi, we could easily have another Iraq quagmire. What a stupid thing for Obama to do. Obama has boxed himself in on this one. We're also into uncharted territory as the US has no interest in Libya. Frankly, Libya isn't our concern (other than any moral obligations, of course). Again, Obama lacks any sort of foreign policy strategy.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Mar 22, 2011 16:36:35 GMT -5
he just can't win with you, can he?
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Mar 22, 2011 16:36:55 GMT -5
In the end Obama is doing what his foreign policy advisers are telling him to do. Such as Hillary Clinton. She is the secretary of state, and there for sets the foreign policy goals for the US. Presidents do not lead foreign policy. To think otherwise is to be terribly mis-informed.
The US has an interest in Libya. Just because you don't know it, does not mean it doesn't. The oval office is just not willing to share it, and that probably is the main problem. But there is always an interest, whether its up front or hidden. There is always an interest.
The US really did not want to go into Libya. The main problem with Libya is the fact that the Middle Eastern Council did not know what to do. The Middle Eastern Council sat on what was happening in Libya for 2 weeks and did not do their job. That's the main reason France, The UK, and the US had to go in and why it looks like they're playing hop scotch with their foreign policy. They couldn't go into Libya until they saw what the Middle Eastern Council would do, they didn't do their job, and then they went to France to ask for help.
If The Middle Eastern Council had done their job to police their part of the world, then Western Powers wouldn't have had to come in. It was the same thing with Egypt.
I don't think that Obama has necessarily boxed himself in. As long as the US does not take a true direct role and they really haven't, then he can still look like a mediator. As for Ghadffi, he'll be out of power. The only people who still support him in Libya is the army and he's not too far away from losing them either. Once he loses the army, then he loses his power. This has happened plenty of times in other countries and the story is all the same.
The guy who is in power will be taken out, this will happen because he loses the trust of the military. One of his generals will betray him. Then an outside power will take over the country and transition to a new government. As long as the US aren't the country that takes power for a transition, then I don't care. Now if the US is the country that takes power for a transition, then Obama has boxed himself in and you have another Iraq. The problem is never taking the leader out of power (unless its Castro), its always the after. When you have to set up a new government. That's the problem.
In terms of foreign policy in general the Obama administration has not been that bad. The first foreign policy crisis that happened was in Iran back in 2010. Obama did the right thing not getting into it and not sending the army in. There were hawks telling him that this was their chance to take over Ian and he didn't do it. The other one was Egypt which he handled probably the best that he could. He couldn't and didn't go in. And he couldn't support the protest their because a lot of Middle East allies told him that if he did, then he can just forget about them still being allies. The other was when North Korea was going after South Korea. Obama showed a bit of force and avoided a war between the two countries by doing so. So when you say NL4E that the administration has been bad with foreign policy, its hard for me to agree with you when one looks at the major foreign policy battles of this administration and the outcomes that became of those battles, it is hard to say that they have done a bad job.
There has always been a mis-conception with the American people that the foreign policy of the U.S. changes from President to President, when it really doesn't. The things that America has done in foreign policy has been the things that its been doing in foreign policy for the the last 130 years (which is the time that foreign policy in the US has existed). The only thing that changes is to what degree these foreign policy "traditions" are carried out with.
The best way to judge Obama and "his" foreign policy is to judge him against his predecessors: George W. Bush=complete shit (Iraq, Iran, Korea, Pakistan, and Afghanistan were all big mistakes) Bill Clinton=decent. (Heightened animosity between the U.S. and Cuba, let Genocide happen in Rwanda, but did have good negotiations between Egypt and Israel) George H.W. Bush=just a bit better than his son (let Genocide happen in Bosnia, took us to war with Iraq, made deals with the Contras) Ronald Reagan=should I even explain how bad he was...the Iran Contra scandal, credited with ending the Cold War, but really prolonged it because he kept trying to do an arms race with Russia, sold guns to Iran (terrorists) for money.
I think if you compare him to his predecessors, I think he's actually doing pretty well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2011 6:25:03 GMT -5
it's not about obama
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Mar 23, 2011 16:50:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Mar 23, 2011 17:04:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Rifles on Mar 24, 2011 12:44:21 GMT -5
I voted for Obama. I still like him as a person but so far I'm pretty disappointed with his presidency. We need to fire everyone and start over. The entire system is totally fucked. I think i'll be sitting out the next election.
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Mar 24, 2011 13:08:35 GMT -5
How many people really know if they are for or against it? How do you judge something that you barely know anything about? That's the problem with polls. Everyone is judging on pieces of the puzzle without knowing what the puzzle actually is.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Mar 24, 2011 13:58:15 GMT -5
How many people really know if they are for or against it? How do you judge something that you barely know anything about? That's the problem with polls. Everyone is judging on pieces of the puzzle without knowing what the puzzle actually is. reminds me of the old letterman joke: “usa today has come out with a new survey - apparently, three out of every four people make up 75% of the population.”
|
|
|
Post by halftheworld on Mar 25, 2011 18:16:58 GMT -5
i don't think the united states should have gone to war with libya. we should have supported the coalition, but we're already in two wars. we don't need a third. it'll increase our deficit and heaven knows how long we'll be there. i really was hoping for the european union to take the lead on this one. a huge reason for anti-american sentiment across the world is because the united states tends to be seen as the world police. that may be somewhat true, but that's because no one else wants to take action. it's like they're waiting for the americans to do their dirty work for them (and then complain). thing is, it was inevitable for the usa to join the coalition. libya broke a ceasefire and the united nations signed off on the consequences. i must admit that it was nice to see president obama talk the talk and then walk the walk. especially the german government was a sad joke in this story. in 2003 mrs merkel was supporting the war in iraq - despite the poor performance of powell in the un. And now? The people of Lybia is actually crying for support! the middle east is in, russia and china are in (they are cause their not-no is a political yes while our not-yes is a political no), entire europe is in, the us is in... but we say no for whatever reasons. the government says they don't want to send in troops, yet noone ever asked for that!
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jun 3, 2011 14:30:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Jun 4, 2011 10:27:44 GMT -5
l4e, what you're saying is that it's okay for a president to go to war without the approval of congress, except if you're a democrat. president obama more or less did the same thing as president bush did in iraq and afghanistan, and we all know that you would have supported this libyan invasion if bush was the one doing it.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jun 4, 2011 10:44:18 GMT -5
No. Check your facts. Bush got Congressional approval.
Also, I supported Iraq at the time because I believed, along with most, that it posed a threat. Libya had nothing to do with us, and you very well know that.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Jun 4, 2011 11:17:24 GMT -5
No. Check your facts. Bush got Congressional approval. Also, I supported Iraq at the time because I believed, along with most, that it posed a threat. Libya had nothing to do with us, and you very well know that. libya didn't pose a threat to the united states' interests? a crazed dictator who broke united nations resolutions and had weapons just not too far away from our allies? (funny, that sounds a lot like arguments used to justify the iraq war.) bush got congressional approval to support military action... for 90 days. (it'll be 3,000 days in iraq this coming monday.) that's like me asking a neighbor to borrow a hammer, and say eight years later, "i'm still borrowing it."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2012 10:54:55 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2012 13:39:17 GMT -5
|
|