• 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

I claim the badge-of-honor of being a Neocon. This is not so much for domestic reasons, although I think there is some overlap. I am firmly fiscally conservative, but I also feel government has a big role to play in development of the country. I just happen to feel that entitlements, which are necessary, must be the purview of state and local government, not federal government. I am totally socially liberal, as far as government attempts to restrict abortion, gay marriage and the like. So, I really am unsure whether I fit domestic policy of Neocons.

It is the foreign policy of some Neocons, and when the term was used for people in support of the Iraq war, was when I said, sure, I'm a Neocon, with pride.

So here you list three things that I totally agree with, although I am a little confused with what you are really saying in point three. I think you are saying that international organizations are completely useless, but you may be saying Neocons are skeptical that they are useless.

  • Consistently speak and act with the mindset of a hawk - hell yes. We spend all this money to project power anywhere in the globe and with regards to those countries that don't respect that power, whether they are bad actors, or whether they are in bed with bad actors, we need to set the record straight. Doesn't mean we will act unilaterally if we can build a coalition, but we c an if we need to.
  • Wilsonian in ideal - damn right. We need to act on principle and stop supporting bad actors cause they control things which we have interests: oil, Suez/Panama Canal, shipping lanes. In fact, we should focus on promoting our ideals with the very countries that hold our interests, and thus combine our idealism and our realism.
  • Skeptical of the complete usefulness of international organizations like the UN - now I think this is saying that the UN is useful, at least partially. The hell with the UN, I say. Between the population of dictatorships and other forms of autocracies and failed states having majority domination in the General Assembly (and the Human Rights Council, etc) and then those countries on the Security Council who are opposed to a hawkish spreading of Democracy, like Russia and China, the UN is a snake pit. I appreciate much more the idea of forming an Organization of Democratic States to spread democracy and act preemptively with political, diplomatic, economic and military power. I believe in selective international organizations.

On your last point, neoconservatives grumble about the UN, but they ultimately see its usefulness. It is but one of many avenues in which they perceive they can influence world affairs (yes, including other international organizations like NATO, etc. that may be more useful for American interests). As Moynihan once said (paraphrase) regarding his confrontations at the UN, "It is where the world meets. Do you want to pull out of the world?"
 
I know it was meant to be a dig, but just in case...

Think of it as being a slur against so called hawkish Jews. The ones in America who believe in showcasing American might on the world stage at the same time as believing it in the best interests of the United States to be firmly tied to Israel and defend it vigilantly. Those Jews can get picked on, and while there is a disproportionate amount of Jews being labeled as neoconservatives, much of the neoconservative identity also lay with those who are not Jewish, or in the case of one who is Jewish, but it took a protestant to give him the feeling that Israel was such a vital ally.

but i'm a lib who believes israel is a vital ally. if jews are being labeled neocons, isn't that because of their politics? i guess i never thought about the names i see associated with neoconservatism. it didn't matter me to what religion they were.

edit: i believe the people around bush who pushed for the iraq war were idiots, no matter how you tag them.
 
Last edited:
but i'm a lib who believes israel is a vital ally. if jews are being labeled neocons, isn't that because of their politics? i guess i never thought about the names i see associated with neoconservatism. it didn't matter me to what religion they were.

edit: i believe the people around bush who pushed for the iraq war were idiots, no matter how you tag them.

Well, that is what I discussed. American "might" on the world stage, hawkish politics, and a vigilant defense of Israel. Those characteristics matched with being Jewish will frequently be called it, but the focus (with the idea that the word neocon is a slur) would be on the accusation of "Dual Loyalty" or rather, American blood for Israel or Israel over US interests, Israel over human interests, and so forth. Being Jewish then becomes associated with anti-semitism....and you can then see where people can get sensitive about being labeled that way.

And Prof, both of us were in agreement, it is just that when I said "as you state", I meant to concur with you but did not make that clear.
 
Last edited:
Well, that is what I discussed. American "might" on the world stage, hawkish politics, and a vigilant defense of Israel. Those characteristics matched with being Jewish will frequently be called it, but the focus would be on the accusation of "Dual Loyalty" or rather, American blood for Israel or Israel over US interests, Israel over human interests, and so forth. Being Jewish then becomes associated with anti-semitism....and you can then see where people can get sensitive about being labeled that way.

And Prof, both of us were in agreement, it is just that when I said "as you state", I meant to concur with you but did not make that clear.

i guess so, but i never intended it to be.
 
If you think I accused you of something, do not think so. I used your initial post to then discuss the slur aspect, just in case you or others were thinking it would be interesting or literally had no idea that neocon is sometimes used as such a slur.
 
Last edited:
If you think I accused you of something, do not think so. I used your initial post to then discuss the slur aspect, just in case you or others were thinking it would be interesting or literally had no idea that neocon is sometimes used as such a slur.

ok.......i thought you meant me when when you posted "dig".......
 
ok.......i thought you meant me when when you posted "dig".......

Well, what I meant was I thought you meant to make a political dig against those whom you completely disagreed with. And then I had the sense that just in case it would somehow be interesting or new information, I was going to elaborate on the exact nature of that other person's post.
 
Last edited:
I didn’t watch the President’s speech last night I read a copy of the text today.

In summary:

markstein.jpg


sack.jpg


.
 
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.

Past statements ??? Do you mean the "past" as in last week??

After 2+ years, most Presidents have settled into the leadership seat quite nicely. This one keeps voting "present".
 
Past statements ??? Do you mean the "past" as in last week??

I mean Senator/Candidate 0bama's statements. President 0bama's statements over the last few weeks have been less than inspiring and lacked focus.

After 2+ years, most Presidents have settled into the leadership seat quite nicely. This one keeps voting "present".

Leadership was something 0bama never had to deal with before. He's going to make mistakes. McCain would be making mistakes as well IMO.
 
obama's a rank amateur

1. days, not weeks

2. get khadafi, get khadafi not

3. our mission is humanitarian

4. which stated goal is unreachable unless khadafi is kaput

5. nato is US

6. national security morphs into protecting the un's cred and maintaining coalitions

7. meanwhile, the GULF and ISRAEL are completely overlooked

8. the rebels are a rabble

9. nation building, anyone?

even HILLARY called him AN AMATEUR

you can't commit to something as deadly serious as WAR without a vision of the ENDGAME before you throw in

you can't go changing your mind every hour, issuing vacillating statements of purpose, with various offices contradicting each other day by day

you never commit to a cause that has ZERO CHANCE of success

even HILLARY called him AN AMATEUR

Obama’s indecision on Libya has pushed Clinton over the edge | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

"if's" and "hopefully's" are for children

kids shouldn't wage our WARS
 
today: the rebels are BLAMING nato for not getting the job done

Video, Libya: Rebels Accuse Nato Of Being Too Slow To Act | World News | Sky News

nation building, anyone?

or should we just bug out?

how can obama's humanitarian goals be achieved if khadafi the killer continues?

NATO should not attempt to compensate for the rebels' extreme political and military incompetence to date. The rebels are trying to shift blame in a bid to bring about even greater military intervention on their bahalf so as to have others wage their revolution for them. Full responsibility rests with their own failures to build broad-based support among Libyans, as well as their chaotic military tactics that appear to have lacked even the most basic elements of strategy. Quite frankly, given their inept performance to date, it is difficult to argue that they merit the level of foreign support that they have been receiving.
 
yes, there does not appear much material to build a nation with should khadafi be kicked out

and if the murderer remains, the coalition's humanitarian goals are, to say the least, set back

it's curious that anyone in nato or at foggy bottom would ever have considered arming this mob before reviewing them for their competence, dispositions...

our state dept does not appear to have thought these things thru

a military intervention committed cavalierly

where have all the grownups gone
 
Last edited:
NATO should not attempt to compensate for the rebels' extreme political and military incompetence to date. The rebels are trying to shift blame in a bid to bring about even greater military intervention on their bahalf so as to have others wage their revolution for them. Full responsibility rests with their own failures to build broad-based support among Libyans, as well as their chaotic military tactics that appear to have lacked even the most basic elements of strategy. Quite frankly, given their inept performance to date, it is difficult to argue that they merit the level of foreign support that they have been receiving.

I think your assessment is a bit harsh. The Libyan rebels and their skills are not that much different that the American military in the early days of the Revolutionary War. They were a ragtag bunch of civilians with few military skills until Baron von Stueben whipped them into shape and made them into a true army.

The Libyan rebels have little or no military training and little access to true military hardware. I've heard accounts that they've not secured mortars properly, resulting in them firing backwards toward their own people. You can't blame them for their lack of knowledge. With that said, we still don't know who they are and what their true intentions are.
 
I think your assessment is a bit harsh. The Libyan rebels and their skills are not that much different that the American military in the early days of the Revolutionary War. They were a ragtag bunch of civilians with few military skills until Baron von Stueben whipped them into shape and made them into a true army.

The Libyan rebels have little or no military training and little access to true military hardware. I've heard accounts that they've not secured mortars properly, resulting in them firing backwards toward their own people. You can't blame them for their lack of knowledge.

There are some differences, albeit more modest on the battlefield. While there were some serious issues concerning the capabilities of the American army, the army was able to do enough to survive and build capabilities prior to the Battle of Saratoga. There was evidence of a strategy where small successes could be leveraged for symbolic value e.g., Battle of Princeton. One has seen little evidence of strategy from the anti-Gadhafi forces, even after they received a period of robust close-air support.

In terms of political leadership, the American revolutionaries were light years ahead of the anti-Gadhafi forces. They had a unifying positive agenda set forth in the Declaration of Independence. Even as a significant loyalist element existed, there was also broad support across the colonies for independence. In contrast, there is little evidence of significant support for the anti-Gadhafi forces outside of eastern Libya. Furthermore, the anti-Gadhafi elements have offered no notable documents that would guarantee fundamental rights to all Libyans (rhetoric is not a subsitute for concrete documents), much less guaranteed amnesty for those who abandoned the dictatorship (incentives that are essential given tribal and other divisions that exist within Libya).

Politically, the American revolutionaries were reaching out continually to France and others who were potential allies e.g., the Americans had a permanent diplomatic representation in Paris (John Adams performed that role for about two years). The leadership of the Libyan anti-Gadhafi forces did not make a single presentation to the UN Security Council, even as it was the Security Council that was assessing and later acting on the situation in Libya. Not one of their senior leaders has relocated to the U.S. That some in Libya's missions and embassies have defected does not alter that outcome, as they do not have direct access to the leaders of the anti-Gadhafi forces. The short-sightedness of that political situation cannot be overstated.

With that said, we still don't know who they are and what their true intentions are.

That, in my view, is not due to a lack of due diligence by the U.S. and others. It is the direct result of exactly the political shortcomings I have mentioned above. The anti-Gadhafi movement's inept political performance provides little confidence that the movement would be capable of handling the far more complex issues of governance. The lack of information on their "true intentions" reveals a lack of agreement on anything but the notion that Gadhafi's dictatorship must go. As the American revolutionaries were brought into discussion, the organization and performance of the Continental Congress (not just a mere council) provided evidence that governance could be handled effectively in a post-British colonial America. The Declaration of Independence revealed that the American revolutionaries didn't merely stand for an end of British rule, but had a vision for a post-British America.
 
tom brokaw, yesterday:

Reporting from Baghdad, Iraq yesterday, NBC's Tom Brokaw said the Saudi Arabian monarchy is "so unhappy with the Obama administration for the way it pushed out President Mubarak of Egypt" that it has sent senior officials to the Peoples' Republic of China and Russia to seek expanded business opportunities with those countries.

After remarking on the difficulty of establishing democracy in the Middle East, Brokaw said that Defense Secretary Robert Gates "will face some tough questions in this region about the American intentions going on now with all this new turmoil, especially in an area where the United States has such big stakes politically and economically."

"And a lot of those questions presumably will come from King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia," reported Brokaw on the Nightly News. "I was told on the way in here that the Saudis are so unhappy with the Obama administration for the way it pushed out President Mubarak of Egypt that it sent high level emissaries to China and Russia to tell those two countries that Saudi Arabia now is prepared to do more business with them."

Brokaw: Obama Losing Saudi Arabia to the Russians, Chi-Coms - Tom Brokaw - Fox Nation

do you think this is what the white house intended?

or could it be a case of the administration not fully knowing what it's doing?
 
meanwhile, in nations that have more responsibly been weighed impactful on what have always been considered our genuine national security interets in the middle east, the gulf and israel...

yesterday:

Supporters of Syria's president Bashir al-Asad opened fire during fresh protests on Friday killing at least 22 people, as tentative government concessions showed no signs of winning over the opposition.

Yemen, where more than 120 people have died in three months of protest, was last night also nearer a state of open conflict after President Ali Abdullah Saleh rejected a peace deal presented by his Gulf neighbours, led by his closest ally, Saudi Arabia.

Syria: government troops in violent reaction to fresh protests - Telegraph

what are we doing in libya?
 
If Obama expects any real democracy in places like Libya, Egypt, Ivory Coast, well color me surprised. MB are playing the world like a fiddle. Just wait when their shiny new constitution is all Sharia.
 
Back
Top Bottom