• 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!

The President's Speech on Libya

Because in his 2009 remarks Obama laid down the predicate that it was appropriate for America to act militarily in concert with other nations on humanitarian grounds. With that the foundation was established almost precisely for what followed this month with the U.N. Security Council sanctioned military intervention in Libya on humanitarian grounds by a broad coalition including America but also the Arab League and many European nations. You call that “killing Libyans” but of course there is a little doubt that far more Libyan civilians would have perished if the coalition had failed to intervene when it did. To borrow a line from a former president:

“We got there just in time.” — Ronald Reagan, Address to the Nation on Events in Lebanon and Grenada, October 27, 1983



I guess "no blood for oil" is no longer in vogue for the left. :ssst:
 
I think Obama said something about not getting into nation building or something like that as a candidate.

Yep, said the same thing in meetings with his national security team according to Bob Woodward.
 
obama's speech last nite was a major policy address

major policy addresses cannot be summed up in anything less than thousands of words

ie, there is much, much, much to comment on

it takes america at least several days, if not weeks or months, to get its head completely around any major policy address

that said, here are some initial reactions, some of the most substantial points and the most significant

1. obama's speech was intended to pacify his base as he leads us off to war, he included much red meat for the rachel's and randi's, such as the equation of american national security interests with pure humanitarianism or some need to protect the un's credibility

2. as such, this speech is gonna heat up the right-vs-left rhetoric accompanying this war, the paleocons are gonna rip it to shreds and the left, at least for now, will be compelled to defend some principles of american policy relative to world affairs that are very dear to their hearts

3. conservatives are gonna be mortified by what we see as this attempt by the president to sluff off cic responsibilities to international bodies like nato and the un---call it what you will, but these are OUR troops at risk over there, this is OUR budget that is gonna pay for all this, this is AMERICAN prestige that has been put at risk

4. obama's attempt to DUCK responsibility for his investment of our military and our prestige in libya is most un-cic-like

5. bottom line---obama's description of our mission as the protecting of civilian lives is fundamentally IMPOSSIBLE without the removal of gadaffi, which would necessarily involve REGIME CHANGE and NATION BUILDING

6. this elevation of humanitarian concerns to national security status, weird as it is, also downplays some rather hateful humanitarian crises that absolutely ARE in united states national security interests as more commonly and traditionally defined---that'd be the GULF and ISRAEL---which would require looking at yemen, bahrain, saudi arabia, jordan and syria

there's quite a bit more to say about obama's major policy address and this WAR in libya

and, in time, all of it WILL be said

stay up
 
Last edited:
There is a big difference. In Iraq, The US did the heavy lifting, to the tune of a trillion dollars. In Libya, we stepped into the leadership for a few days, and are now functioning only as support for NATO, which are now the main load bearers.

Honest question for you...

Who do you think the main load bearers of the new "main load bearers" in Libya are?
 
Moammar Gadhafi's forces hammered rebels with tanks and rockets, turning their rapid advance into a panicked retreat in an hourslong battle Tuesday. The fighting underscored the dilemma facing the U.S. and its allies in Libya: Rebels may be unable to oust Gadhafi militarily unless already contentious international airstrikes go even further in taking out his forces.

Opposition fighters pleaded for strikes as they fled the hamlet of Bin Jawwad, where artillery shells crashed thunderously, raising plumes of smoke. No such strikes were launched during the fighting, and some rebels shouted, "Sarkozy, where are you?" — a reference to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, one of the strongest supporters of using air power against Gadhafi.

Libya rebels flee Gadhafi assault as world debates - Yahoo! News

msnbc this morning, reporting on the rout of the rebels outside sirte, pointed out that many of the pro-gadaffi fighters there are locals, militias, armed by the dictator but NOT members of his regular forces

if the american/nato/un/arab league mission in libya is protection of civilians how can we WIPE OUT the citizens of sirte?
 
Honest question for you...

Who do you think the main load bearers of the new "main load bearers" in Libya are?

Why Estonia of course!!!
 
… if the american/nato/un/arab league mission in libya is protection of civilians how can we WIPE OUT the citizens of sirte?

It's a good point; our new rebel friends need to be better than Gaddafi; their treatment of their fellow Libyan should be a considerable concern on the coalition's part.
 
It's a good point; our new rebel friends need to be better than Gaddafi; their treatment of their fellow Libyan should be a considerable concern on the coalition's part.


Who said these people were 'Rebels" in the first place and who really knows what's on their minds?

It seems there are a few assumptions taking place here and it might have been a good idea to get some firmer understanding before dropping the bombs.

Although the Arab League may have the purest motives in their approval of us bombing Libya, our involvement shouldn't really depend or hinge on that.
 
here we go

is libya the RIGHT nation for us to be building?

France24 - New Libya contact group to provide 'political direction'

the coalition led, according to obama, by obama ("real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up") is only now beginning to realize what it's bit off

no spin, lynn

if gadaffi stays, we're emasculated and the mission to protect civilians is failed

if he goes we, thru nato, build a new libya

stay up
 
I think you misread the 2009 quote: it is actually very consistent with the president's speech last night; and, of course, at no time in 2009 was Barack Obama a candidate: he was either president or president-elect.

The fact that he was President when uttering those words is the point.

Senator 0bama would have lots of problems if President McCain was doing the same thing in Libya today.

The point is that the president had established the guidelines for military intervention on the basis of “humanitarian grounds” over a year ago; indeed announced them at the Nobel Peace Price acceptance ceremony and, now, case in point: a broad military coalition has acted on a United Nations Security Council resolution and intervened in Libya on humanitarian grounds. I think it is quite impressive.

And he has my support.
 
There is a big difference. In Iraq, The US did the heavy lifting, to the tune of a trillion dollars. In Libya, we stepped into the leadership for a few days, and are now functioning only as support for NATO, which are now the main load bearers.

I can't think of a military operation with a broad coalition when the US was not the main load bearers.

I do have a problem with NATO being expected to enforce this UN resolution. It sets a bad precedent IMO.

I'm no expert on NATO but Libya is not a member nation and they did not attack one. Why is NATO involved?

However, I do NOT believe that we had any business getting involved with Libya, and am opposed to our involvement there. This is consistent with my belief that we should not have gone into Iraq either, and I was also opposed to that. However, I did support the Afghan war, because it was the nation that provided a base of operations, and also a shelter, to those who attacked us on 9/11, and I saw war there as vital to US interests.

There are lots of people on both sides of the isle who feel the same way.
 
Last edited:
the neocons are ecstatic, congrats

I don't know what a neocon is but nobody I know is "ecstatic" about the US intervention in Libya. It's a tragedy and chaos as are all military operations.

Kristol is surprised to hear 0bama talk about a military operation this way. Kristol summed it up nicely;

The president was unapologetic, freedom-agenda-embracing, and didn’t shrink from defending the use of force or from appealing to American values and interests. Furthermore, the president seems to understand we have to win in Libya.


I support the President. It's extremely unfortunate that Gaddafi didn't just leave instead of killing people. But he didn't. Now that we are engaged we have to see it through.

This morning his butchers are on the offensive. That would not be happening if decisive action had been taken early. When carriers show up I'll know 0bama has realized that serious pounding of Gaddafi's ground forces is the only way to win this.

At this point after hearing recently about snipers targeting civilians, continued shelling of cities and offensive operations more firepower is needed. This may also require a significant covert special operations mission within Libya to designate targets and conduct counter-sniper operations.

If they are there today and the President is deliberately withholding that information to protect their lives I would have no problem with that.
 
I don't know what a neocon is but nobody I know is "ecstatic" about the US intervention in Libya. It's a tragedy and chaos as are all military operations.

Kristol is surprised to hear 0bama talk about a military operation this way. Kristol summed it up nicely;

The president was unapologetic, freedom-agenda-embracing, and didn’t shrink from defending the use of force or from appealing to American values and interests. Furthermore, the president seems to understand we have to win in Libya.


I support the President. It's extremely unfortunate that Gaddafi didn't just leave instead of killing people. But he didn't. Now that we are engaged we have to see it through.

This morning his butchers are on the offensive. That would not be happening if decisive action had been taken early. When carriers show up I'll know 0bama has realized that serious pounding of Gaddafi's ground forces is the only way to win this.

At this point after hearing recently about snipers targeting civilians, continued shelling of cities and offensive operations more firepower is needed. This may also require a significant covert special operations mission within Libya to designate targets and conduct counter-sniper operations.

If they are there today and the President is deliberately withholding that information to protect their lives I would have no problem with that.

you can barely withhold your glee as you discuss your sacred golden calf
 
Liek I said... he gives good speech. hat's about it.

Side note... What are Obama's chances of re-election, should we actually end up with even a single pair of US boots on the ground in Libya?
 
President Barack Obama’s approval rating and prospects for reelection have plunged to all-time lows in a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday.

Half of the registered voters surveyed for the poll think that the president does not deserve a second term in office, while 41 percent say he does. In another Quinnipiac poll released just four weeks ago, 45 percent said the president did not deserve reelection, while 47 percent said he did.

The decline in support for a second Obama term comes as his approval rating has dropped 4 percentage points since early March, landing at 42 percent – a record low – in the poll released Wednesday. His disapproval rating has risen from 46 percent to 48 percent.

The downward shift may in part be the result of dissatisfaction over U.S involvement in Libya, with 47 percent of those surveyed saying they oppose it. By a margin of 58 percent to 29 percent, registered voters said that Obama has not clearly stated U.S. goals for the mission.

Poll: Obama's approval hits new low - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com
 
Liek I said... he gives good speech. hat's about it.

Side note... What are Obama's chances of re-election, should we actually end up with even a single pair of US boots on the ground in Libya?

I don't think it was even a good speech. He was irritating to watch with his constant hand gestures and audible thumping of his hands on the podium.
 
Obama's mission in Libya is a political misread. Democrats are notorious for appealing to this and that base, which in and of itself is rather snarky when you think about it. However, the base in question here is that of independants, and conservatives. He knows that nothing he can do will cost him that 33% of left wing votes, so he's hedging, politically speaking. The problem though is that the hedge is poorly crafted. The hedge isn't generally in favor of a Lbyian campaign; yes it is true we'd like to see Gaddafi beheaded :) but fighting the battles for France and Italy are not something we typically support. He won't change a single conservative vote, but he might get some independants, however, in my opinion independants aren't as concerned with foreign affairs nearly as much as domestic issues when it comes to voting.

I agree with the poster that claimed he was damned if he did, and damned if he didn't though as there is some truth to that statement. Guys like Hannity against the Presidents actions in Lybia is sickening, and why I stopped watching the pundants on cable news. Hannity would be ALL for a Lybia campaign if it were a Republican at the healm, and he's fooling himself if he thinks no one realizes this.

in sum, Lybia is a tactical political move for Obama, nothing more, nothing less. Personally, I think he would have nothing to do with it, if politics weren't front and center. On this one, I'd say to Obama, you should have gone with your instincts on this one, and stayed away.


Tim-
 
I don't think it was even a good speech. He was irritating to watch with his constant hand gestures and audible thumping of his hands on the podium.

That's kind of the reason I try to read these speeches and not watch them.
 
Hannity would be ALL for a Lybia campaign if it were a Republican at the healm, and he's fooling himself if he thinks no one realizes this.

No doubt about that one at all.

in sum, Lybia is a tactical political move for Obama, nothing more, nothing less. Personally, I think he would have nothing to do with it, if politics weren't front and center. On this one, I'd say to Obama, you should have gone with your instincts on this one, and stayed away.


Tim-

That may very well be true. IMO 0bama was dragged kicking and screaming into this.
 
I don't think it was even a good speech. He was irritating to watch with his constant hand gestures and audible thumping of his hands on the podium.

He was trying to look all leaderly and forceful and decisive and ****.
 
He was trying to look all leaderly and forceful and decisive and ****.

yeah I know, but it didn't work.

He looked like he'd rather be anywhere but where he was. He's not good at forceful. He's much better at voting "present".
 
Back
Top Bottom