Page 14 of 18 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 176

Thread: The President's Speech on Libya

  1. #131
    Sage

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

    Re: The President's Speech on Libya

    december, 03: Libya Halts Arms Program - Orlando Sentinel

    nostalgia, anyone?

  2. #132
    Sage

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

    Re: The President's Speech on Libya

    CIA Deploys to Libya as White House Authorizes Direct Assistance to Rebels - Wednesday, March 30, 2011

    The CIA has sent more than a dozen covert operatives to Libya as part of an escalating U.S. effort to vet the rebels working to oust Libyan strongman Muammar el-Qaddafi and lay the groundwork for funneling American aid to the insurgents, according to a person with direct knowledge of the CIA operations there.

    The CIA’s deployment to Libya, which is virtually certain to expand in the coming days, comes amid word that President Obama has authorized U.S. intelligence agencies to provide direct assistance to the Libyan rebels. There are no U.S. military personnel on the ground in Libya yet, though the United Kingdom, America’s closest battlefield ally, has several dozen Special Air Service commandoes and M16 agents already operating there. News of the CIA deployments to Libya was first reported by The New York Times and then independently confirmed by National Journal.

    With the administration openly considering direct assistance to Libya's rebels, the administration appears to have decided that it needed to get CIA operatives into position there to make contact with Libya's disparate insurgents and begin orchestrating the logistics of providing weaponry, money, and other forms of aid to the fighters.

    The CIA declined to comment.

    The CIA personnel are thought to have deployed to Libya after Obama signed a Presidential Finding authorizing American intelligence agencies to provide aid to the rebels. It's not known whether the finding covers weaponry and armaments or is limited to money, communication gear, and other forms of non-lethal assistance. News of the classified authorization was first reported by Reuters.

    The United States has special operations forces at a base within several hundred miles of Libya but has not yet sent them into the country.

    The Presidential Finding would not necessarily permit the insertion of special forces troops, but a broader national-security decision directive, which could also be classified, would.

  3. #133
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,637

    Re: The President's Speech on Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Mars View Post
    Who describes themselves as a neocon?

    If anybody should have been a neocon it was Regan.

    I don't remember anyone calling him a neocon. Including Regan himself.
    Well, it depends. Reagan to me is easy to get caught up in the labeling process, but I would immediately caution against labeling him either: 1) Libertarian 2) Neoconservative (as both groups blindly try to claim him, cherry picking some things, but conveniently ignoring other things). Most of the time, the first generation (most of the time, domestic social policy or intellectual thought, but a decent chunk were also foreign policy specialists or identified themselves as more concerned about that) either rejected the label or were indifferent toward it. Later, some could actually subscribe some identity toward it and would reflect upon that. Now, the word neocon, has either been "meaningless" or a "badge of honor" to those so-labeled. To some labeled as such, the mere act of agreeing with the Iraq war was proof positive of being a neocon (hence why some thought the label meaningless). However, in these post-Bush times, it once again (like the term's entire history it seems) becomes problematic to figure such a thing out, but I'll try.

    I would say with Obama, much of the identity process is not there yet with him (or at least as much as we know). While he may agree with some instances here or there of the "neoconservative creed" (in this instance, foreign policy notion of democracy promotion and muscled foreign policy interventionism), I believe Obama is far from a person who would truly feel that way. To me, Obama neither resembles the simplistic joke that a "neoconservative is a liberal mugged by reality" (the statement by Irving Kristol was a play on someone else's statement, for everyone's information) nor a person who actually believes in either 1) immense "Jihad hunting" like some 2) Pax Americana democracy promotion by force if necessary. It is more than likely that Obama is neither a believer of domestic policy neoconservatism (which somewhat typically is more skeptical of some of his endeavors thus far....save for portions of Obamacare which theoretically could be somewhat popular with some "neoconservatives") nor a subscriber to the notion that folks like Kristol, Perle, Wolfowitz and so on had much he could agree with.

    With Kristol & Kagan, there was a particular brand of "neoconservatism" (though in all actuality, the two coined it "Neo-Reaganite" and merely gave into the term neoconservative) that was to be spread: American Hegemony in a post-Cold War era that required American vigilance in the face of newer threats like North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and so on. Terrorism was sort of there, sort of not there, but basically, the new threats emerged in such a time like the 1990s that these guys were thinking that it needed to be dealt with uniquely and more strongly than most of the foreign policy apparatus around it.

    This then gets conflated with the whole "concerned for the fate of Israel" bit of, say, Commentary Magazine, and so on. So, some will emphasize some aspects of democracy promotion, while others will be thinking about being vigilant militarily and diplomatically against agents of terrorism-fearful of blind interventionism just because it promotes democracy (which does not necessarily mean the ends they desire).

    This brings into question the whole term neoconservative, just like many times before. So in many instances, I will respect many so-labeled, but dismiss others labeled (like Rumsfeld and Cheney, whom have long been considered merely conservative foreign policy hawks from the get-go).
    Last edited by Fiddytree; 03-31-11 at 01:49 AM.
    Michael J Petrilli-"Is School Choice Enough?"-A response to the recent timidity of American conservatives toward education reform. https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...-choice-enough

  4. #134
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,262

    Re: The President's Speech on Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Mars View Post
    I'd settle for Congressional approval. He should have been asking Congress for that yesterday.
    I wouldn't be satisfied with just approval. I want what Dems wanted during Bush's years.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  5. #135
    Sage
    Gill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Derby City
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    8,686

    Re: The President's Speech on Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Mars View Post
    0bama said the reasons are to stop Gaddafi from killing civilians and force Gaddafi to leave.

    I think those are worthy reasons.
    But I thought Obama said we wouldn't engage in regime change ????

    • "The America Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville





  6. #136
    Educator
    Ron Mars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,194

    Re: The President's Speech on Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Well, it depends. Reagan to me is easy to get caught up in the labeling process, but I would immediately caution against labeling him either: 1) Libertarian 2) Neoconservative (as both groups blindly try to claim him, cherry picking some things, but conveniently ignoring other things). Most of the time, the first generation (most of the time, domestic social policy or intellectual thought, but a decent chunk were also foreign policy specialists or identified themselves as more concerned about that) either rejected the label or were indifferent toward it. Later, some could actually subscribe some identity toward it and would reflect upon that. Now, the word neocon, has either been "meaningless" or a "badge of honor" to those so-labeled. To some labeled as such, the mere act of agreeing with the Iraq war was proof positive of being a neocon (hence why some thought the label meaningless). However, in these post-Bush times, it once again (like the term's entire history it seems) becomes problematic to figure such a thing out, but I'll try.

    I would say with Obama, much of the identity process is not there yet with him (or at least as much as we know). While he may agree with some instances here or there of the "neoconservative creed" (in this instance, foreign policy notion of democracy promotion and muscled foreign policy interventionism), I believe Obama is far from a person who would truly feel that way. To me, Obama neither resembles the simplistic joke that a "neoconservative is a liberal mugged by reality" (the statement by Irving Kristol was a play on someone else's statement, for everyone's information) nor a person who actually believes in either 1) immense "Jihad hunting" like some 2) Pax Americana democracy promotion by force if necessary. It is more than likely that Obama is neither a believer of domestic policy neoconservatism (which somewhat typically is more skeptical of some of his endeavors thus far....save for portions of Obamacare which theoretically could be somewhat popular with some "neoconservatives") nor a subscriber to the notion that folks like Kristol, Perle, Wolfowitz and so on had much he could agree with.

    With Kristol & Kagan, there was a particular brand of "neoconservatism" (though in all actuality, the two coined it "Neo-Reaganite" and merely gave into the term neoconservative) that was to be spread: American Hegemony in a post-Cold War era that required American vigilance in the face of newer threats like North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and so on. Terrorism was sort of there, sort of not there, but basically, the new threats emerged in such a time like the 1990s that these guys were thinking that it needed to be dealt with uniquely and more strongly than most of the foreign policy apparatus around it.

    This then gets conflated with the whole "concerned for the fate of Israel" bit of, say, Commentary Magazine, and so on. So, some will emphasize some aspects of democracy promotion, while others will be thinking about being vigilant militarily and diplomatically against agents of terrorism-fearful of blind interventionism just because it promotes democracy (which does not necessarily mean the ends they desire).

    This brings into question the whole term neoconservative, just like many times before. So in many instances, I will respect many so-labeled, but dismiss others labeled (like Rumsfeld and Cheney, whom have long been considered merely conservative foreign policy hawks from the get-go).
    necon has been tossed around like racism that the term has no meaning anymore.

    necon is most often used in a derogatory manner to describe someone lefties don't like. It's meant to be a slur.

    neo-new con-convict

    The new corrupt Republican/Conservative movement.

    Of course Iím just a focus group of one and itís only my opinion.

    I still don't know what a neocon is even after your post. That description applies to lots of people who would most likely not agree with the label. But sincerely, thanks for taking the time to write that.
    The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.

  7. #137
    Educator
    Ron Mars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,194

    Re: The President's Speech on Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    I wouldn't be satisfied with just approval. I want what Dems wanted during Bush's years.
    I don't think we should but it's just my opinion. I thought the Dems were wrong then and I don't know who/what we would declare war against today.

    Gaddafi? A good poster here thinks so and maybe he's right. If Congress declares war on Gaddafi what happens if today we serve a 1,000 pounder for his dessert. Do the operations in Libya end? Do we amend the war declaration if fighting is still going on? On Libya in general?

    I don't know the answers of course but I've always thought it's and interesting discussion with both sides bringing up good points.
    The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.

  8. #138
    Educator
    Ron Mars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,194

    Re: The President's Speech on Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Gill View Post
    But I thought Obama said we wouldn't engage in regime change ????
    He did.

    Things look different from the oval office. Bush tried to warn him.

    On Libya I'm willing to forgive 0bama's past statements about military interventions and chalk it up to his ignorance of foreign policy and naive beliefs about the world.

    He's not in the leadership seat yet and hopefully he will realize this thing will not succeed without his leadership.
    The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.

  9. #139
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,637

    Re: The President's Speech on Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Mars View Post
    necon has been tossed around like racism that the term has no meaning anymore.

    necon is most often used in a derogatory manner to describe someone lefties don't like. It's meant to be a slur.

    neo-new con-convict

    The new corrupt Republican/Conservative movement.

    Of course Iím just a focus group of one and itís only my opinion.

    I still don't know what a neocon is even after your post. That description applies to lots of people who would most likely not agree with the label. But sincerely, thanks for taking the time to write that.
    Try to think of it as Obama's foreign policy needing to be all at the same time 1) Consistently speak and act with the mindset of a hawk 2) Wilsonian in ideal 3) Skeptical of the complete usefulness of international organizations like the UN.
    Last edited by Fiddytree; 03-31-11 at 01:35 PM.
    Michael J Petrilli-"Is School Choice Enough?"-A response to the recent timidity of American conservatives toward education reform. https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...-choice-enough

  10. #140
    Educator
    Ron Mars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,194

    Re: The President's Speech on Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by ric27 View Post
    Just a quick reply. More on your other points....later on

    I don't like people directing my life and telling me to do something else, "because it's for my own good", when I very clearly have a different idea about what is for my own good. So long as I'm exercising my rights responsibly and not interfering with someone else's free exercise of their rights, then I should be left the **** alone.

    In essence, that is the heart of our republic. Freedom. Not absolute freedom, but freedom minimally restricted by laws to protect the rights of all, not just the strong.

    If that is our belief for us, why shouldn't we apply it to our relations with other nations as well?
    I don't believe helping other nations shed a tyrant equates to "directing" their lives.

    I don't favor overthrowing a nations leader/government because it doesn't have the same government we have.
    The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.

Page 14 of 18 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... 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
  •