Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wrong! "We" aren't choosing anything, "we' are sitting back and waiting to see what the UN decides to do, and if China or Russia veto the UN... oh well. Like I said, if Qaddafi changes his tactics then we will have to go back to 'the international community" and see what to do next, unless of course we face a veto, or Qaddafi changes his tactics again...
Umm.... I defined we as "the international community". Obama had Clinton pushing for an international NFZ. It would have been foolhardy for us to bumble into yet another war to oust a dictator without UN support.
Seriously. This is the wise path for a 21st century world. It's just not the striden cowboy path, so it appears to be weak to those who view leadership in a conventional machismo manner.
I can't fathom how you could blame Obama for that. It's great that the UN's ruling did precisely what it should have done - stopped the violence.
Did you want the US to lead yet another invasion without UN support? Have we learned nothing from past failures in leadership? I don't think your policies would make for very wise leadership.
She doesn't like it because he follows the rules unlike the prior president. We can't afford health care but we always have money to go to war without UN support.
You're absolutely correct, and it's the one thing about this president that i hate even though i voted for him. He's a damn hawk....far hawkish than Bush ever was. I sensed that he was even before he was elected, but i didn't want to believe it.
Before i vote for him again, i want to see a little more dovish behavior first cuz i'm tired of these damn wars.
Yes, some repugs would make lousy leaders since they would go willy nilly into war, ANY war, just to have a good time and spend trillions more of taxpayer's money....
This administration, just as the past one "will" find a way into military action. It just can't help itself any more - it's an addiction.
What are you talking about? England and France would lead any invasion, with Norway in support. By not blundering ahead with a full invasion led by the US, Obama's proved himself to be lightyears more enligthened than the last administration.
If the rebels can't beat Ol' Ghaddafi, then tough t*tty. If at first you don't succeed, try, try, again. They won't be the last rebel movement to fail.
If we enforce a no-fly zone, it's picking the rebels over Ghaddafi....period. That's the whole premise of setting it up...so that the rebels have a chance. I want the rebels to have a chance, just not with our help. At some point, America has to cut the umbilical cord that allows other nations to spend their monies on their populations while we spend ours on a bloated war machine. This time in history is as good as any to start doing it.
And again....where is the proof that a rebel victory MIGHT be better than what's there now? Answer: there is none. Obama is striking the right balance. DO NOTHING!!....and doing nothing never seemed more appropriate than in this situation.
I agree with you, but the minute Obama called for Ghaddafi to step down was the minute we chose sides. So has most of the world.
0bama only supports a NFZ until the UN disagrees or until it becomes a moot point, because the rebellion has already been crushed.
Purely hypothetical
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
My point is, if the NFZ was the right thing to do, it was the right thing to do. How can the NFZ be right if the UN agrees, and wrong if the UN disagrees?
How can our foreign policy be so fleeting and tenuous that it depends on whether or not the UN agrees to allow us to have it, or not?
Again the situation you're discussing is hypothetical. There's certainly the possibility of the US opposing the UN's decision if they opted out of the NFZ. But then circumstances would probably have been different. In the end, it is not our business. Of course, along with the international community, we did make our business, but much more responsibly this time around. I personally would have opposed it, but I can see the merit of it, despite the possible consequences.
Why don't you get this? They are backing off AFTER they have the victory, AFTER they have slaughtered thousands of rebel fighters, AFTER waiting 3+ weeks for the UN to make a decision. They outsmarted everyone here.
Brilliant strategy.
So what should we have done? Gone alone like normal? We waited for the UN to make a decision like we were suppose to. What would you have done?
And to think "conservatives" of your kind are blaming him for being weak and indecisive.
Have I indicted him as such?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Exactly!
