• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Dismisses 'Fuss' About Libya Battle

Marshabar

Marshabar

Active member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
293
Reaction score
142
Location
United States
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
“We have engaged in a limited operation to help a lot of people against one of the worst tyrants in the world, somebody who nobody should want to defend,” Mr. Obama told reporters in a wide-ranging news conference in the White House’s East Room. “And this suddenly becomes the cause celebre for some folks in Congress? Come on.”

“A lot of this fuss is politics,” he said.
Click to expand...

Obama dismisses 'fuss' about Libya battle - Washington Times

Chatter. Fuss. Do your homework. What's with this guy?
 
Lots of bad guys in the world.. but he chooses Libya.. what did he just say a few days ago about drones being so great?? Yeah.. he finds his ways around getting Congressional approval (We The People).. cap and trade goes to EPA, Dream Act sneaks in through ICE.. now war is apparently not war that needs to go before Congress if there are no boots on the ground... bombing all over the place.. Yemen, now Somalia today... I know what's with this guy. He is so full of himself he does what he wants any way he has to do it. Total disrespect for We The People, his own Generals, he is answering to a different boss. High degree globalist, never lets his feet (ideology) touch the ground here in the USA if he can avoid it... I could go on all day, but that is as close as I can get to staying on topic..
 
krickitt said:
Lots of bad guys in the world.. but he chooses Libya.. what did he just say a few days ago about drones being so great?? Yeah.. he finds his ways around getting Congressional approval (We The People).. cap and trade goes to EPA, Dream Act sneaks in through ICE.. now war is apparently not war that needs to go before Congress if there are no boots on the ground... bombing all over the place.. Yemen, now Somalia today... I know what's with this guy. He is so full of himself he does what he wants any way he has to do it. Total disrespect for We The People, his own Generals, he is answering to a different boss. High degree globalist, never lets his feet (ideology) touch the ground here in the USA if he can avoid it... I could go on all day, but that is as close as I can get to staying on topic..
Click to expand...

Right. To hell with those Iranians who tried to oppose that killer regime and are now either dead or in prison. Not even an encouraging word for them from Oblahblah.
 
Correct. He passed on the war we should have fought, passed on taking those nuke sites down when we had the chance... (New here, not well versed in the rules of staying on topic yet.. mainly just reading and watching..)
 
What?

Iran would be a far more difficult war than Iraq and Afghanistan were. Not an engagement the United States wants at this period in our history.

Libya is mostly a European interest. Obama is assisting them via NATO in a limited role because they did the same in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though Europeans outside of Britain had no vested interest in either territory.
 
Morality Games said:
What?

Iran would be a far more difficult war than Iraq and Afghanistan were. Not an engagement the United States wants at this period in our history.

Libya is mostly a European interest. Obama is assisting them via NATO in a limited role because they did the same in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though Europeans outside of Britain had no vested interest in either territory.
Click to expand...

Point taken. But not even an encouraging word. Not even a rebuke of the regime. I think at that point in our history Obama still believed his own press and thought all "the one" had to do was meet Ahmadmanijad and he'd magically transform into a man of peace.
 
krickitt said:
Lots of bad guys in the world.. but he chooses Libya.. what did he just say a few days ago about drones being so great?? Yeah.. he finds his ways around getting Congressional approval (We The People).. cap and trade goes to EPA, Dream Act sneaks in through ICE.. now war is apparently not war that needs to go before Congress if there are no boots on the ground... bombing all over the place.. Yemen, now Somalia today... I know what's with this guy. He is so full of himself he does what he wants any way he has to do it. Total disrespect for We The People, his own Generals, he is answering to a different boss. High degree globalist, never lets his feet (ideology) touch the ground here in the USA if he can avoid it... I could go on all day, but that is as close as I can get to staying on topic..
Click to expand...

Pray tell, how do you define globalism, and what is your problem with the given definition of that ideology?
 
Funny thing about Iran is since 2006, unofficially it has been suggested that the CIA helps and funds a terrorist group that plots against Iran and helps the CIA to spy and understand Iran even more. Despite our limited role in Libya I still think we need to get out of there totally and to me, it seems as if though that will be the case in a few months.
 
No it wouldn't they'd fall just as quickly.


Morality Games said:
What?

Iran would be a far more difficult war than Iraq and Afghanistan were. Not an engagement the United States wants at this period in our history.

Libya is mostly a European interest. Obama is assisting them via NATO in a limited role because they did the same in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though Europeans outside of Britain had no vested interest in either territory.
Click to expand...
 
My opposing U.S. military intervention aimed at regime change in Libya has nothing to do with seeking to 'defend' in any way one of the world's more brutal tyrants. It has strictly to do with the absence of critical U.S. interests or regional allies being threatened. Continuation of the Gadhafi dictatorship would not imperil critical U.S. interests or regional allies. On the global stage, the U.S. has far more important geopolitical matters to attend to and, in a looming era of fiscal consolidation, will need to learn to better prioritize. In the meantime, Iran continues to pursue its nuclear activities and maintains its push for regional preeminence. Iranian regional preeminence would pose a substantial threat to critical U.S. interests and key U.S. allies in the region.
 
It's ironic....how long have these people been screaming that we AREN'T the world police.


donsutherland1 said:
My opposing U.S. military intervention aimed at regime change in Libya has nothing to do with seeking to 'defend' in any way one of the world's more brutal tyrants. It has strictly to do with the absence of critical U.S. interests or regional allies being threatened. Continuation of the Gadhafi dictatorship would not imperil critical U.S. interests or regional allies. On the global stage, the U.S. has far more important geopolitical matters to attend to and, in a looming era of fiscal consolidation, will need to learn to better prioritize. In the meantime, Iran continues to pursue its nuclear activities and maintains its push for regional preeminence. Iranian regional preeminence would pose a substantial threat to critical U.S. interests and key U.S. allies in the region.
Click to expand...
 
Amazed said:
It's ironic....how long have these people been screaming that we AREN'T the world police.
Click to expand...

As always, it's not wrong when they do it.

They are bathed in the holy light of humanitarian progressivism
202_animated_person_praying.gif
while us greedy pubs just do it out of unmitigated greed
48_48.gif
. Don't you know?

It's covered in Meme 101 at Harvard.
49_49.gif
 
Limited War is an interesting concept and the first thing that comes to mind is being a little pregnant.

I remember all the outrage real or simply politically motivated when we went into Iraq, after the House and Senate, both voted in favor of the authorizing it.

It was based on information from the UN believed not only believed but came up with on WMDs.

All that never happened now. and it was all about getting even with Saddam, and since when does the US go for regime change?

We have to be consistent, and if it's about the people fine I can deal with that, but it seems to be about certain people not all people who are on jeopardy in the world.

Obama back hands our only true friend in the Middle East. Why is it because he's anti-Jewish, or it it just that he'd pro-Islam.

What was his first over seas trip?

It was his blame America first, apology/appeasement tour of the Middle East.

Since then he has done what with Israel?

Treated them poorly and made really stupid statements like going back to pre 1967 War borders.

Obama is dangerous and not just to our economy.
 
Limited War hes been an umitigated disaster....in it's simplest terms it means do not fight to win.



Councilman said:
Limited War is an interesting concept and the first thing that comes to mind is being a little pregnant.

I remember all the outrage real or simply politically motivated when we went into Iraq, after the House and Senate, both voted in favor of the authorizing it.

It was based on information from the UN believed not only believed but came up with on WMDs.

All that never happened now. and it was all about getting even with Saddam, and since when does the US go for regime change?

We have to be consistent, and if it's about the people fine I can deal with that, but it seems to be about certain people not all people who are on jeopardy in the world.

Obama back hands our only true friend in the Middle East. Why is it because he's anti-Jewish, or it it just that he'd pro-Islam.

What was his first over seas trip?

It was his blame America first, apology/appeasement tour of the Middle East.

Since then he has done what with Israel?

Treated them poorly and made really stupid statements like going back to pre 1967 War borders.

Obama is dangerous and not just to our economy.
Click to expand...
 
Amazed said:
Limited War hes been an unmitigated disaster....in it's simplest terms it means do not fight to win.
Click to expand...

Well heck, Assistant Professor Obama does not even like to use the word victory. You know it implies somebody won and therefore somebody lost. Very un-pc. :censored

Unless he's talking about Republicans of course.

Then he will talk about winners and losers.
 
You Conservative tease/temptress ;)

Marshabar said:
Well heck, Assistant Professor Obama does not even like to use the word victory. You know it implies somebody won and therefore somebody lost. Very un-pc. :censored

Unless he's talking about Republicans of course.

Then he will talk about winners and losers.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
it's his war, he's president, he can do what he wants

but he's certainly not being straight with the american people

days not weeks?

nato not us?

no hostilities?

he's redefined united states strategic interests away from what for the better part of a century the adults and professionals at foggy bottom have considered central to our concerns in the region---israel and the gulf

and instead he has prioritized what? civilian life? the credibility of nato?

like i said, more power to him

but he's gonna be held accountable

and whatever he breaks over there we're all obliged to fix

party on
 
Yes he can...but we're coming.....2010 was a "rehersal"....

The Prof said:
it's his war, he's president, he can do what he wants

but he's certainly not being straight with the american people

days not weeks?

nato not us?

no hostilities?

he's redefined united states strategic interests away from what for the better part of a century the adults and professionals at foggy bottom have considered central to our concerns in the region---israel and the gulf

and instead he has prioritized what? civilian life? the credibility of nato?

like i said, more power to him

but he's gonna be held accountable

and whatever he breaks over there we're all obliged to fix

party on
Click to expand...
 
Obama you shouldnt get involved with other peoples civil wars thats period. Do not just brush this **** off.
 
yesterday:

Air Force and Navy aircraft are still flying hundreds of strike missions over Libya despite the Obama administration’s claim that American forces are playing only a limited support role in the NATO operation.

An Africa Command (AFRICOM) spokeswoman confirmed Wednesday that since NATO’s Operation Unified Protector (OUP) took over from the American-led Operation Odyssey Dawn on March 31, the U.S. military has flown hundreds of strike sorties. Previously, Washington had claimed that it was mostly providing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and tanker support to NATO forces operating over Libya.

“U.S. aircraft continue to fly support [ISR and refueling] missions, as well as strike sorties under NATO tasking,” AFRICOM spokeswoman Nicole Dalrymple said in an emailed statement. “As of today, and since 31 March, the U.S. has flown a total of 3,475 sorties in support of OUP. Of those, 801 were strike sorties, 132 of which actually dropped ordnance.”

A White House report on Libya sent to Congress on June 15 says that “American strikes are limited to the suppression of enemy air defense and occasional strikes by unmanned Predator UAVs against a specific set of targets.” The report also says the U.S. provides an “alert strike package.”

Dalrymple named the Air Force’s F-16CJ and Navy’s EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft as the primary platforms that have been suppressing enemy air defenses.
Click to expand...

AFRICOM: AF, Navy still flying Libya missions - Air Force News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Air Force Times

obama's a liar
 
He got elected by lying to multiple special interest groups. He continues to lie to them, as he campaigns with them, and supposedly for them, for 2012. Of course he lies. Basic Alinsky.

Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals
 
today:

[T]he longer this conflict goes on, the more desperate the protagonists have become to extricate themselves from a war that is – in the words of Admiral Mike Mullen, America’s highest-ranking military officer – “in a stalemate”.

The reality is that, unless there is a dramatic change by this weekend, the military campaign will run into the sand: with the entire Libyan population observing a strict Ramadan fast, neither Nato nor the rebels will be able to make a decisive breakthrough. So the most likely outcome of the conflict will be Gaddafi retaining control of Tripoli and its environs, and Nato’s credibility lying in tatters.
Click to expand...

The Libyan campaign is running into the sand - Telegraph

days not weeks, anyone?

hostilities?
 
You know, if we had stood up this way 8 years ago, we wouldn't have ended up wasting time and resources on a war we didn't need to fight - Iraq. So I must ask, IS politics involved here? It's a fair question.
 
“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."

"As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States,” Obama continued. “In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.”
Click to expand...

Obama: president does not have power under constitution to unilaterally authorize attack
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom