"Americans can be proud of the role our country has played in helping to defeat Gadhafi, but we regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower." --Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham
Length of Operation Iraqi Freedom: 8 years and counting
Number of American casualties: 4,474
Length of Operation Enduring Freedom/Afghanistan: 10 years and counting
Number of American casualties: 1,747
Length of Libyan civil war: six months
Number of American casualties: zero
What did we fail at doing exactly, other than not killing Americans and letting something resolve itself in six months instead of shitting the diplomacy bed for a decade?
That goes for the critics of his Libya policy, as well as those blowing a load in their pants in support.
I just wish I knew what Obama's policy was. Just like Egypt, it looks like he's trying to support the good parts of dictator removal, without having to own the "what happens next" question.
If Egypt and Libya end up becoming Islamic states that fuel an ultimate showdown with Israel that we will end up getting involved in, will you still say "nice work, Obama"?
I don't know what I'll say in the future. When I debate current events I usually stick to things that have actually happened; that's kind of my one sticking point.
What a fucking joke of a president.
A 30-year maypole of terrorism is no longer in power, at the expense of ZERO American soldiers, and all you can think to add to the discussion is that Obama is, "A fucking joke of a president"?
I think I've figured out why Mitch Daniels didn't run and the current crop of 2012 GOP hopefuls suck ass: much of the conservative electorate is too retarded to put on their own socks in the morning, let alone be clear-headed enough to pick a decent candidate.
...and I resent those who need to make Barry into "the worst president in modern history". I do not question that he and and qualified most of his minions do indeed love their country and are not conspiring to do damage as many idiots claim. But his vision is simply flawed in terms of his policies and/or how to get there. He is very wrong in terms of government, it's role, and how to grow jobs.
My concern is that Libya, much like Egypt, ends up in the hands of Islamic, fundamentalist, 1st century, lap dogs.
Does "Fearless Leader" have a "Plan B"?
I know that I would.
and I supported the operation from day one. I do have doubts about the rebels. Is al quaeda playing a role?
So far, so good, but until we know who the new gov't will be it is hard to get too excited.
As if the Libyan "insurgency" was ready to take over immediately, if only we had helped more aggressively. What nonsense. These characters are hardly organized now, much less 6 months ago.
McCain has never met a war he didn't like, or didn't want to escalate.
(no message)
..."Nice work, Obama".
(no message)
As of the end of July, US taxpayers had paid $896 million (two days in Iraq).
Any more questions?
that our objective was to get rid of Gaddafi. He did say that "Gaddafi must go" but carefully crafted his words that we were there for "humanitarian purposes".
And there were two goals: saving Libyan lives and regime change.
Time will tell.
Not that I have the answer to that, but I'm fairly certain that Trucker2 does.
I think that is how they say it over there.
(no message)
1) Our European allies absolutely depend on Lybian oil, which is flowing again. 2) Gaddafi hated America and preached anti-US rhetoric throughout his reign. 3) The inevitagble civil war for Lybian independence from Gaddafi is now over, ending a humanitarian crisis. Shall I name more?
btw...weren't you reluctant to give Obama credit for taking out Osama bin Laden?
Libs like Mac and I are about fed up with Obama, but that doesn't mean we don't/can't recognize the few good things he's done.
If you want to talk about the oil, then letting Quadafi squash the revolt would have been much quicker and cheaper for us. But I understand that's not the real issue for you, you're just adding that into the mix.
The humanitarian issue is a solid one to be concerned with. Where were you on the Saddam Hussein issue? Anti Bush?
As far as this being a good thing done by Obama, what he's done is open a power void in a part of the world that's rife with what many think will eventually lead us to the third world war. Lets not get too carried away with "he did something right" just yet.
However, I will say this. I think that there's a good chance that our leaders (including those from France and England) know more than we do about who has the better grasp on that power that's now left in the air. I don't think we get involved otherwise. At least I hope this is the case. But it wasn't Obama, remember that he had to be convinced on this by the European leaders.
At any rate, I just don't see cause for giving Obama much credit beyond saying he did what any of us would do. And I don't think that those on the other side of the aisle would have done anything different, regardless of the political comments they may make after the fact.
But I am glad he paid for his deeds.
In 2009 Gaddafi visited NYC, we could have taken him out much easier then wouldn't you say?
If Obama hadn't spouted talk in other places around the world about how bad America has been, and how that's all changed now that he is here, then a photo like that is just another photo of world leaders meeting and not breaking out into a fist fight.
When Gaddafi announced in 2003 he would renounce terrorism and end Libya's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction, Republicans hailed it as the victorious exclamation point on Bush's War on Terror. The symbolic victory seemingly could not be overstated; the living manifestation of terror during the Reagan Administration was now finally capitulating to the genius of Cheney and his neocon nation-builders.
You've relegated him from a star to a cameo role in only eight short years. Poor Muammar!
I didn't make any statements in 2003 about Gaddafi, nor am I making any now.
Throughout the Libya campaign I have maintained 3 questions:
1. What is our objective?
The consensus seems to be to get rid of Gaddafi.
2. What will it cost?
Answer seems to be ~$1B
3. Is the cost justifiable?
Answer seems to be, no one knows because we aren't sure if the Gaddafi replacement will be better than him or not.
Seems like we should answer question 3 before we go in, no?
The same 3 questions should be asked of Iraq and Afghanistan. And after having the experience of Iraq and Afghanistan we should be more hesitant to get involved in these conflicts. By the way, wasn't it US involvement in a civil war that led to Saddam Hussein in the first place?
In fact, at this point the answer seems to be a resounding yes, by all accounts. Time will tell if the new regime is US-friendly, but here's what's happened so far:
1) an anti-US dictator that committed literally hundreds of war crimes in his tenure has been dethroned setting up the possibility of a true democracy in the nation to go along with the rest of the democratic movements sweeping the region.
2) oil prices have already dropped. Since we helped the rebels odds are they will help us with regards to oil prices.
Were the airstrikes that took out Milosovich and led to stability in the former Yugoslavia also not worth the price in your opinion?
If oil is the reason, then it should be stated as the reason.
I know that when the CIA funded the Ba'ath party coup in Iraq it did not turn out well for us.
Ever hear of Saddam Hussein?
Spending a billion dollars in a military operation operation to support a revolution without a clear understanding of who the revolutionaries are seems stupid to me. But we have done it before and surely will do it again in the future.
I'm just saying up to now...so far, so good.
It certainly benefited the Libyan people.
It might help our image in the Arab world.
And Gaddafi wasn't exactly a US ally.
(no message)
But - even you have to admit - so far, so good.
(no message)
It probably won't be worse. But this will be judged, in the long run, by what comes next.
(no message)
Everybody was so pleased with themselves when the Cold War ended, but look what that has done to the Olympics.
I mean come on, when you heard THIS, who here wasn't ready to kick somebody's ass? It was just one awesomely evil, get-your-blood-boiling song.
My wrestling interest pretty much peaked when he and the Iron Sheik lost the tag team title.
Whether you agree with the Iraq Invasion or the occupation of Afghanistan to this point, being semi-involved cheerleaders to a conflict where the fighting was done by nationalist rebels of the country in question is hardly the same thing as the former two.
There was a clear push by several congressional Republicans--not to mention Secretary of State Clinton and UN Ambassador Susan Rice--to intervene militarily in Libya. At the same time there was a clear push by a loose coalition of congressional Democrats and Republicans to do nothing. It was a nice bit of diplomatic juggling by Barry when it could have been so much easier to just shoot something or give Libya the finger.
...this was nowhere near the regional conflict that the other places represented. Plus it was not hard to have Europe -- the ones most at risk for being short of Libyan oil -- to do the heavy lifitng thru NATO. To call this a Barry work of finesse is pretty silly. The fact is that his ass was so carved up by other things that he stayed away by default. Now if he would only do the same with the markets and healthcare.
I'm sure if he did something correct and more importantly wasnt so completely confrontational at every turn to the Republicans that some might say nice work.
He has brought of all it on himself.
I'll leave it to one of "your guys" to answer:
"I was among those who were critical of the position of 'leading from behind.' I think as a general proposition that's not a good position for the U.S. to be in. On the other hand, I think the outcome should give the [Obama] administration some degree of satisfaction. After all, it worked." --L. Paul Bremer III, former President George W. Bush's envoy to Iraq
The Republican Party is split between people who thought Obama was wrong for not doing enough and people who thought he shouldn't intervene at all. Once you get past all the frothing-at-the-mouth types like yourself--completely confrontational at every turn? give me a fucking break--it's generally fair to say Obama got this one just right. And in doing so, he can now say that the two thorns in the sides of Bush's presidency and Reagan's presidency were removed on his watch.
Pull your head out of your ass!
Nice attempt to side step again.
Talk about someone not calling a spade a spade.
Where did I say Obama is not confrontational to Republicans? I simply disputed your hyperbolic assertion he was "completely confrontational at every turn".
You've made it uncomfortably obvious you can't have a reasonable conversation about the guy.
(no message)