Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 101

Thread: Obama' libyan coalition Falls apart

  1. #21
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537
    Last edited by The Prof; 03-23-11 at 04:47 PM.

  2. #22
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Obama' libyan coalition Falls apart

    This from one of your links:

    The president said primary responsibility for air patrols over Libya would shift from the Pentagon to coalition partners, under a NATO command arrangement still being drafted. That, he said, would ensure that U.S. forces assume only a support role in the operation.

    “When this transition takes place, it is not going to be our planes that are maintaining the no-fly zone,” Obama said. “It is not going to be our ships that are necessarily involved in enforcing the arms embargo. That’s precisely what the other coalition partners are going to do.”
    It is very difficult for me to believe that we are not going to be in the lead. I don't believe it, in fact. Obama may think the American people are pickin' up what he's puttin' down, but the thinkers won't be.

    Puppetmasters we will be.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  3. #23
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Obama' libyan coalition Falls apart

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Libya under Gadhafi does not pose an imminent and credible threat to the U.S., critical U.S. interests, or U.S. allies.
    true

    obama, december 20, 2007:

    "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 and imminent threat to the nation"

    Boston.com - Special reports - News

  4. #24
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Obama' libyan coalition Falls apart

    meanwhile, he accomplished SQUAT in latin america

    With Obama scheduled to depart Wednesday morning, the White House has yet to announce any major economic or diplomatic progress. No new Latin trade treaties emerged, and pending treaties with Panama and Colombia — countries Obama skipped this time around — are sidetracked in Washington, forestalling any new Latin trade deals.

    Obama has been received warmly by his Latin American hosts. Local media coverage has been positive, reporting on protocol for official state meals and hailing the fact that the entire first family made the trip.

    Yet despite the focus on U.S.-Latin relations, Obama has repeatedly faced questions about Libya, and the lack of substantive Latin American news has led even local reporters to essentially ask, “Where’s the beef?”
    Big trip short on progress - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

    the president just can't catch a break these days, with local, national or international media

    why do you think that is?

  5. #25
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,694

    Re: Obama' libyan coalition Falls apart

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    From your link:



    Can anyone say cluster****?
    Yep...can...and have. This is what we can typically expect when we rely on the UN for ANYTHING. Its why I have no problem with the US taking a mandate and then simply telling everyone else to sit down, shut up, and get out of the way. My biggest problem with what Obama has done throughout this situation is he has been so damned indecisive. If we were going to stay out of it we should have declared it and told others handle it or STFU. If we were going to step in we should have told others, you all agreed...now, STFU and stay out of our way and God help you if you turn on us once we engage.

  6. #26
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Obama' libyan coalition Falls apart

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Providing limited weapons (and I have made the point about limited weapons clear in a number of past messages on the topic), namely a modest number of anti-aircraft weapons, would be anything but a quagmire.
    Yet we must recall the incredible yet failed effort to retrieve and account for stinger missiles after the Soviet pullout from Afghan. Are we to arm people who may very well use those arms against us or others in the future?

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Unlimited weapons would be an issue.
    I agree. I did not believe you were supporting that.

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Tactical air strikes are not justified, because the U.S. lacks the critical interests to become involved in military operations.
    given the amount of "aid" we pony-up to keep Libyan nuclear scientists "busy" doing medical research rather than making weapons indicates that our interest in Libya is of importance.

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Libya under Gadhafi does not pose an imminent and credible threat to the U.S., critical U.S. interests, or U.S. allies.
    I agree that there is little to no worry of Gadhafi as an unpredictable and aggressive dictator as compared to Saddam

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Emotions are not sufficient to justify direct military intervention.
    agreed

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Indeed, I believe the emotional urge "to do something" following the collapse of Somalia's dictator and evolution of a civil war was an example of a terrible decision to put emotions ahead of interests. The Cold War had largely wound down. Somalia had no geopolitical importance. The collapse of Somalia's dictatorship and jockeying of factions posed no threat to U.S. interests or allies. Sending troops there was, therefore, not anchored in critical U.S. interests.
    And what of the pirating off the coasts of Somalia? Unattended soars can fester--sometimes they go away on their own. But that is a whole other debate.



    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    There is no contradiction. In the former case, the Libyans would be waging the war all by themselves. In the latter, the U.S. and others are doing so to some extent.
    So you believe the rebels can overcome Gadhafi's army and mercs with such limited US assistance? It would seem that if we are going to support one side we should do our best (within reason) to ensure they win. Otherwise why should we bother at all?


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    I was talking about how the U.S. and other Western leaders were communicating their message concerning the mission, rationale for it, etc., not the politics of other nations.
    That makes sense. I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Clearly, the U.S. and West, cannot make democracy magically appear in Libya. That would depend on the Libyans themselves, their institutions, their laws, etc. That Libya has had a monarchy followed by a long period of authoritarian rule is no coincidence. It is a product of the country's institutions, structure, history, and dynamics. Even if the anti-Gadhafi revolution succeeded, the barriers to democratic governance would be very steep and democratic governance would not be the assured outcome. It might not even be the most likely one e.g., civil war might be more likely given tribal rivalries, the reality that Col. Gadhafi still enjoys significant support, etc.
    I'm not inclined to believe that a democracy would result from this civil war rather than any other type of government. Civil wars often result in years of further bloodshed and violence. Some countries never fully recover. America was one of the few exceptions.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  7. #27
    Sage
    Infinite Chaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Seen
    11-19-17 @ 06:45 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,858

    Re: Obama' libyan coalition Falls apart

    That doesn't counter that France and Germany have been at serious odds over this mission from the start. Russia (via Putin) has been against it from the start and Medvedev has been pro. The common factor in both cases is leaders who are jostling for power before elections coming up.
    This actually includes Sarkozy who seems to have launched his fighter planes before the ink was even dry on resolution 1973. Sarkozy is playing tough because he faces annihilation at the next Presidential elections, Angela Merkel just got a drubbing as German voters swung to the left and would have wiped her out completely if Germany had agreed the actions in Libya and Medvedev seems to have found his b***s to try and face down Putin before next year's elections in Russia.

    Some countries want NATO to run this but are deeply aware NATO involvement in yet another arab / muslim country won't go down well with the arab league - especially Turkey who can veto NATO involvement. All this is old news given a dramatic twist by the Daily Mail.

  8. #28
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,752

    Re: Obama' libyan coalition Falls apart

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    IMO, this exercise risks becoming a case study of bad leadership and communication, if increasingly urgent corrections (mission definition + consistent message articulation) are not made.

    First, the risks involved illustrate exactly why national interests, not emotional impulses, should drive the application of military force. America's, France's, and the UK's providing weapons to the anti-Gadhafi forces (my preference) would have entailed no commitment from states such as Germany who possibly have even fewer interests in Libya than the U.S., France, or UK.

    Second, I believe the military mission should not be widened beyond an NFZ. Tactical air strikes aimed at helping the anti-Gadhafi forces should not be furnished. Such a move is not justified by critical U.S. interests (nor those of the other Western states participating). The revolution should be waged, won, or lost by Libyans.

    Third, in my opinion, maintaining a strong and effective partnership with Germany is far more important than any of the stakes involved in Libya. In terms of the national interest, there is no contest whatsoever, even if the worst-case scenario of a complete Gadhafi victory materialized. Dependable allies are extremely valuable. Partners who join "coalitions of the willing" do so only because some temporary cause brings them together. What they bring to bilateral relations is far short of what reliable allies offer. While I'm not yet sure of where things stand vis-a-vis Germany, I am fully aware of its consistently-articulated positions on the issue and strongly believe NATO as an organization should not take a formal role given Germany's needs.

    Fourth, communication has to be clear, consistent, and focused to be effective. To date, the communication has been muddled, inconsistent, and anything but focused. Different leaders are saying different things. Some leaders are even saying different things to different audiences or at different moments. There remains no succinct definition of the mission at hand, much less one that has had any staying power. The gap between rhetoric/policy and actions has created a genuine credibility problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 translated
    Obama screwed up.
    I completely agree with you.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  9. #29
    Sage
    ric27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,539

    Re: Obama' libyan coalition Falls apart

    Quote Originally Posted by lpast View Post
    Germany pulls out of Nato and the coalition falls apart...what a cluster this is...we shouldnt be in there in the first place


    Libya war: Germans pull forces out of NATO as Libyan coalition falls apart | Mail Online
    Obama can deceive himself and say he wants to do things for noble reasons and get noble results....but at the end, he will end up disappointed, frustrated and yeah, cluster****ed

    or he can acknowledge that all nations are really only honest when they are operating in their own self interest.

    Bottom line - If we aren't getting nada, zilch out of Libya, then WTF are we doing there?

  10. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: Obama' libyan coalition Falls apart

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Your first problem.. The Daily Mail

    Second problem.. it is an utter lie and distortion by the Daily Mail.

    Third.. Germany was against the operation from the start, so it is hardly "the coalition falls apart" moment.. Germany was NEVER IN IT!..

    Gezz, do you conservatives never learn when it comes to FACTS?
    The problem is Obama will not show leadership and is following what the UN says

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •