Page 3 of 66 FirstFirst 123451353 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 657

Thread: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

  1. #21
    Guru
    Councilman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Riverside, County, CA.
    Last Seen
    11-04-11 @ 10:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,454
    Blog Entries
    10

    re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Wait just a damn minute this is Obama the water walker, you are not seeing what you think you see or hearing what you think you hear.

    Obama would never invade any Country, he's anti-war and swore would pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and now you all think he's been allowing attacks using Predators on targets in Pakistan and now firing over a hundred Cruise missiles into Libya, and sending war planes in to attack ground targets in support of Rebels.

    It has to be a mistake and we jut got it wrong.

    Either that or is it possible Obama is a liar? OMG!

  2. #22
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post

    Are you saying you knew he was a liar? Or that his Disney world view was not possible?

    .
    I can't directly address your questions because they refer to things that do not exist, but I can answer the general question behind them:

    Q: Why did you expect the U.S. to try to install democracy in Libya?

    A: I expected it because the United States, under every party, has a history of undertaking the difficult task of nation-building even when its on the brink of military and economic overstretch.
    Last edited by ThePlayDrive; 03-22-11 at 07:12 PM.

  3. #23
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Where's Code Pink? Where are the protestors in the streets?
    I think you're overestimating the role of partisan loyalty that goes into a lot of liberals' thought processes and undervaluing the differences in the atmosphere of the country between now and when we entered Iraq/Afganistan. Nonetheless, here you go:

    1,500 protest US occupation in Iraq, Libya | abc7chicago.com

    Some Americans already protesting U.S. military involvement in Libya

  4. #24
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

    re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    I would say to everyone "REMAIN CALM!" Per the article in the OP, it's speculation at this point as to knowing exactly what's going to happen in Libya as far as what form of government takes shape when Ghadaffi (spell check) is either removed from power by force or he leaves of his own accord if he leaves at all. More to the point, without knowing exactly what the U.N. resolution states, you really can't determine for sure what's going to happen because we don't know what the resolution actually calls for. (I tried to find the resolution calling for Libyan air strikes but it's not posted at the U.N.'s website yet.)
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 03-22-11 at 07:12 PM.

  5. #25
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Link


    Well well well, all this sound familiar?
    And the mission creep continues. The no-fly zone quickly escalated to air strikes, and now protecting Libya's people has escalated to spreading democracy to Libya. One way or another, Obama is NOT going to get the result he wants in Libya. It's better to not even be involved in this.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  6. #26
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    It's a war!
    Why don't we have to declare these things anymore?
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  7. #27
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    I would say to everyone "REMAIN CALM!" Per the article in the OP, it's speculation at this point as to knowing exactly what's going to happen in Libya as far as what form of government takes shape when Ghadaffi (spell check) is either removed from power by force or he leaves of his own accord if he leaves at all. More to the point, without knowing exactly what the U.N. resolution states, you really can't determine for sure what's going to happen because we don't know what the resolution actually calls for. (I tried to find the resolution calling for Libyan air strikes but it's not posted at the U.N.'s website yet.)
    Sounds reasonable.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #28
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Why don't we have to declare these things anymore?
    We should. We really should.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  9. #29
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537
    Last edited by The Prof; 03-22-11 at 10:43 PM.

  10. #30
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    11-28-17 @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,690

    re: White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Edit: Haven't seen DonaldSutherland. I wonder how he'd weigh in on what's happening...
    Maggie,

    I've commented in a few threads. My thoughts are as follows:

    My preference would have been supplying arms to the anti-Gadhafi forces. A no-fly zone aimed at protecting civilians would be as far as I would go, but that was not my preference. As that is the direction things went, I strongly support the military men and women who are involved in the effort.

    I continue to believe that it should be up to the Libyans to wage their revolution, fully recognizing that there is no guarantee that the revolution would be successful under such circumstances. I am concerned about the risk that the mission could morph into active intervention on the side of the revolution. While I support the anti-Gadhafi forces, I do not believe the U.S. should be helping wage their revolution. I just don't see the compelling U.S. interests that would justify such direct intervention.

    I also remain concerned about the lack of broad-based support for the revolution. Col. Gadhafi still enjoys a significant reservoir of support, and not all of that support can be explained by coercion. I suspect that such support more than Col. Gadhafi's use of air power might have explained why the anti-Gadhafi forces ran out of steam and were in broad retreat until the no fly zone was implemented. The masses of people in areas from which Gadhafi's forces were initially driven out did not join the revolutionaries to to necessary extent that a building tidal wave of popular support would have toppled the regime. Therefore, no knockout blow was delivered.

    Given that reality, should the Gadhafi dictatorship be driven from power--and that could still happen--the lack of broad support for the anti-Gadhafi forces and the poor political/military skill shown on their part raise real questions as to whether they could forge a sufficiently stable and broadly representative government quickly enough to avert the dangers of the power vacuum that would be left in the wake of the dictatorship's demise. There would be real risk of civil war if such a transitional government could not be formed quickly enough. Mere pledges of democracy would not be able to avert those risks.

    Finally, while the no fly zone has been designed, in theory, to protect civilians, the rhetoric coming from Washington, Paris, and London has differed at times from the mandate and those differences raise credibility issues. For example, President Obama recently stated that it is official U.S. policy that Gadhafi leave. Yet, the military mission is much more limited (unless it has already evolved into something beyond a no fly zone). I favor a more limited military mission (as noted above, and would have preferred supplying arms to the anti-Gadhafi forces rather than the no fly zone). Nevertheless, the gap between the political rhetoric/stated policy and the actual military mission is not helpful. It is important that the rhetoric/official policy reflect the reality. Either the rhetoric/policy goals have to be reined in or the military mission expanded. I favor the former. Otherwise, U.S. policy and communication on the issue will be viewed as hollow.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 03-22-11 at 11:21 PM.

Page 3 of 66 FirstFirst 123451353 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •