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.
Another that doesn't get it. The fight is over, Ghadaffi has achieved his goal of retaining control of the country. See, in the interim 3+ weeks while obama and the UN were paralyzed in making a decision, sitting on their hands, Ghadaffi was able to slaughter his way back into control of the country, driving the rebels into one area.
I'd say you're the one who is ill informed on the subject.
How long will we remain patrolling this no-fly zone while Ghadaffi sits back and laughs his butt off?
What if the rebels try an offensive? Will the US and UN back them up...meaning fighting on the ground, going to war?
Yes, they will if that's the necessary tactic. I understand your point on this, but if the rebels continue their revolution there will come a point that he will either have to fight back or renege power. At that point, the UN resolution will be effective.
He's actually backed into a corner, so long as the rebels continue to push. If they don't, then they didn't really want liberty in the first place and life will go back to the way it was.
Following your policy proposal, we would have launched a war and nation-building process prematurely and unnecessarily, potentially lasting many years, costing many thousands more lives than have already been lost, and trillions of dollars. By being patient, they have stopped the immediate bloodshed through diplomacy and put the power back in the hands fo the rebels to make the next move.
Instead of acting like cowboys, the US was smart to work with and allow the international community to make a decision on Libya. I have my personal opinions on US foreign policy, but I understand that each affair the US and the world faces is different. Foreign policy isn't always a black and white issue.
Right and wrong is black and white issue. Either the no-fly zone was the right action to take, or it wasn't.
If our foreign policy is to defer to the decisions of the UN before taking any action, then we are rudderless and have no foreign policy at all.
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.
Yet in this case we have the worst possible scenario, US troops in harm's way, under the command and at the mercy of the hopelessly incompetant UN. Doesn't anyone remember just what a cluster Clinton got us into in Somalia?
The proper answer for the UN and others would be to say the US isn't going to play this time. Arabs killing Arabs in Lybia isn't our fault, and we won't waste American lives and money trying to civilize that part of the world. Instead, we have president spineless bobbing his head and going along with whatever the UN wants.
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.
I don't think Gaddafi has won anything and this is not over at all. I believe the rebels will be rearmed and with the NFZ being approved by the UN many citizens will join the rebels to oust Gaddafi and IMHO, this is the way it should be.
Clearly we don't have the will. If we don't have the money to stop people form being murdered we certainly don't have the money to fund NPR, Give away everything to unions, support health insurance companies, etc., etc., etc......
Wow...that's some wierd equivocating going on.
We can fund any damn thing we want to for Americans as far as i'm concerned. There is always enough money for that in my book. For Libyans....eh..not so much!
They are in the backyard of some very wealthy countries. And if those countries have so much righteous indignation at the slaughter of Arabs then they can take their Italian, German, Spanish,French and British asses over there and take care of the problem themselves. And since the Arab League approves a no-fly zone, then they can pay for it.
Americans are TIRED OF BAILING OUT THE WHOLE DAMN WORLD!!! Don't you get that? Go over there yourself and join the rebels...they need your help. It is not the job of the USA to pick winners and losers in the civil wars of sovereign nations.
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.
Obama was never anti war. He was adament about expanding the theater in Afghanistan as a candidate.
I also don't understand what's hawkish about this move. He pushed for an international NFZ so that we wouldn't be stuck with another war on our hands. At least temporarily, that position has stopped the killing.
That seems reasonable to avoid unnecessary war but also provide the power to oust a murderous and rather insane dictator.
Yet in this case we have the worst possible scenario, US troops in harm's way, under the command and at the mercy of the hopelessly incompetant UN. Doesn't anyone remember just what a cluster Clinton got us into in Somalia?
The proper answer for the UN and others would be to say the US isn't going to play this time. Arabs killing Arabs in Lybia isn't our fault, and we won't waste American lives and money trying to civilize that part of the world. Instead, we have president spineless bobbing his head and going along with whatever the UN wants.
Obama was never anti war. He was adament about expanding the theater in Afghanistan as a candidate.
I also don't understand what's hawkish about this move. He pushed for an international NFZ so that we wouldn't be stuck with another war on our hands. At least temporarily, that position has stopped the killing.
That seems reasonable to avoid unnecessary war but also provide the power to oust a murderous and rather insane dictator.
In exchange for what? Who in Libya is better than Ghaddafi?
Yes, they will if that's the necessary tactic. I understand your point on this, but if the rebels continue their revolution there will come a point that he will either have to fight back or renege power. At that point, the UN resolution will be effective.
He's actually backed into a corner, so long as the rebels continue to push. If they don't, then they didn't really want liberty in the first place and life will go back to the way it was.
Following your policy proposal, we would have launched a war and nation-building process prematurely and unnecessarily, potentially lasting many years and trillions of dollars. By being patient, they have stopped the immediate bloodshed through diplomacy and put the power back in the hands fo the rebels to make the next move.
so what if Qaddafi decides to use tanks and artillery instead of aircraft?
If that happens, I suppose it will require Hillary to go back to the UN and renegotiate, and hoping China does not veto our brilliant foreign policy plan - waiting for the UN to tell us what to do.
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.
