FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Gadhafi vs. Obama doctrine





handfleisch
Obama showed us the right way to get rid of dictators like Gadhafi. Aid the local freedom-fighters against the dictator, go through NATO, have patience. Don't lie about WMD to create fake support among Americans the way Bush did in Iraq. Don't fund murderous mercenaries the way Reagan did in Central America. Lay out your case to the American people, ignore the politics of the right wing Republicans who love war unless it might actually show Obama in a good light. And what do we get -- success.

Under Obama: first Bin Laden, now Gadhafi. Not bad so far.

-on edit, I have change the subject name to more accurately reflect the point
truespeed
Next Jedward.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
Obama

^.^
I knew as soon as I saw the topic title and author that you were going to politicize this, but even I didn't expect you to do so starting with the very first word of the post!

You're not celebrating Gadhafi's defeat, you're celebrating Obama's victory.
Quote:

Under Obama: first Bin Laden, now Gadhafi. Not bad so far.

Wait... When he was running for president, I thought he was supposed to be something of a peacemaker in the middle east, as opposed to the Republican side which was being portrayed as warmongers... but his major accomplishments are neutralizing enemy leaders?




The real interesting point, I think, is what kind of government will the victorious rebels set up?
It might end up being a shining example of the best that can happen... it might end up even worse than before -- could go either way, really. And the way it turns out will end up defining the whole struggle.
Bikerman
I am happy for the Libyans but I think the west should really keep quiet rather than boasting or generating a big hue and cry about another 'emergent democracy'.
We supported Gadhaffi for years, so it ill becomes ANY western leader to crow about it. The libyans did this themselves and they deserve the credit. The UK, France, and a few others did bomb Gadhaffi's troops and probably helped a bit, but it was not crucial or decisive.
Any Western leader appearing on TV claiming some qudos for this is a prick.

As for what happens next - I hope the Libyans can sort out the tribal differences, but I'm not overly optimistic - I suspect it could be a little like Iraq before long....
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:

Wait... When he was running for president, I thought he was supposed to be something of a peacemaker in the middle east, as opposed to the Republican side which was being portrayed as warmongers... but his major accomplishments are neutralizing enemy leaders?


It's sad when people only know what they are "supposed" to know and parrot superficial hype. Just to clue you in, Obama ran on defeating the enemies of US and he was loud and clear about this. It's true that Obama represents a more rational and ethical foreign policy versus total lies to instigate wars and using torture like we had with Bush and Iraq (war crimes, basically). Just to catch you up, Obama made the difficult decision to throw strong support to the forces against Gadhafi because he didn't want another Bosnia situation, where the US took a year before stepping in to fight a situation that had devolved to genocide. These things hardly make Obama one of the "warmongers".

Also you're probably not aware that Republicans gave Obama trouble over his decision, which is of course insanely ironic given their very real warmongering this century. But Obama pretty much has made them look like fools once again.

If you think Obama's victories in the fight against Bin Laden and Gadhafi are his only "major accomplishments" I suggest you take a class in US history of the last couple years and then start keeping closer track of daily events.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

It's sad when people only know what they are "supposed" to know and parrot superficial hype. Just to clue you in, Obama ran on defeating the enemies of US and he was loud and clear about this. It's true that Obama represents a more rational and ethical foreign policy versus total lies to instigate wars and using torture like we had with Bush and Iraq (war crimes, basically). Just to catch you up, Obama made the difficult decision to throw strong support to the forces against Gadhafi because he didn't want another Bosnia situation, where the US took a year before stepping in to fight a situation that had devolved to genocide. These things hardly make Obama one of the "warmongers".

Doesn't make him the somewhat pacifist diplomat that he was portrayed as either.
Not that I particularly disagree with the way the Libya situation has been handled so far, given that interventionist policy is not likely to change, it is better to limit the scope of the intervention.
Quote:

Also you're probably not aware that Republicans gave Obama trouble over his decision, which is of course insanely ironic given their very real warmongering this century.

I was already aware of that, thank you.
It doesn't require paying attention to the news or taking classes in (very) recent history though. (There are actually places that teach classes on history within the last few years!?!)
All you need to know is that the Republicans these days have a problem with anything Obama does, and then you can infer that they would have a problem with him doing this.
Quote:

If you think Obama's victories in the fight against Bin Laden and Gadhafi are his only "major accomplishments" I suggest you take a class in US history of the last couple years and then start keeping closer track of daily events.

Perhaps I should be more specific - major accomplishments in foreign policy... Also, I didn't say 'only'.
coolclay
Quote:
I knew as soon as I saw the topic title and author that you were going to politicize this, but even I didn't expect you to do so starting with the very first word of the post!


HAHAHA, my thoughts exactly! To draw any relation whatsoever between Obama, and the Libyan rebels has got to be the biggest stretch I have heard in a while. This was done by the people of Libya, and has very little to do with anything Obama has done. Yes, NATO is helping some but only in relation to assisting in protecting civilians, and NATO does not = Obama. Once again I am blown away by your blatant disregard for any logical discussion handfleish.

BTW I don't know how much credit you can put on this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14626202 interview but Saif al-Islam Gaddafi sounds fairly confident in himself and his family. Regardless I think it's sad to say the blood shed is far from over between all sides.



Quote:
The real interesting point, I think, is what kind of government will the victorious rebels set up?
It might end up being a shining example of the best that can happen... it might end up even worse than before -- could go either way, really. And the way it turns out will end up defining the whole struggle.

100%
handfleisch
coolclay wrote:
HAHAHA, my thoughts exactly! To draw any relation whatsoever between Obama, and the Libyan rebels has got to be the biggest stretch I have heard in a while. This was done by the people of Libya, and has very little to do with anything Obama has done. Yes, NATO is helping some but only in relation to assisting in protecting civilians, and NATO does not = Obama. Once again I am blown away by your blatant disregard for any logical discussion handfleish.

BTW I don't know how much credit you can put on this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14626202 interview but Saif al-Islam Gaddafi sounds fairly confident in himself and his family. Regardless I think it's sad to say the blood shed is far from over between all sides.

Take one look at the rubble left of Gadhafi's headquarters from the NATO campaign, started and led by Obama, and tell me that the Obama doctrine had nothing to do with the defeat of Gadhafi. The USA was a key supporter of the NATO decision to protest the anti-Gadhafi forces. The rebels were struggling a long time even with the NATO assistance and this victory was very doubtful without the NATO effort. Take one look at a comparison between the Bush doctrine and the Obama doctrine and tell me there's no difference.

It's very clearly another victory for the president of the USA and a credit to his judgment, and everyone (except Obama-haters and the Gadhafi sympathizers) is glad Gadhafi's days are numbered. How silly and anti-American it is to try to say that the victory over this dictator had nothing to do with Obama. This article argues the point very well, you might want to educate yourself with it:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/obama-doctrine-successful-in-keeping-us-libya-effort-modest/article2139511/
Quote:
Obama 'doctrine' successful in keeping U.S. Libya effort modest

America's role in promoting democracy may have been reshaped by ensuring Libyan ownership of their own revolution

In its first full-blown test, the low-profile Obama doctrine has delivered regime change without sullying the outcome with the taint of American imperialism.

Libya's rebel army "owned" their revolution and ousted the bizarre and brutal despot Colonel Moammar Gadhafi. The outside intervention was cloaked as a NATO operation, and although it was billed as "protecting civilians," it was hardly indistinguishable from Western warplanes bombing Gadhafi forces to support rebel advances.

The American presence, while still major and irreplaceable, was deliberately kept out of the limelight as British and French warplanes flew the lion's share of combat missions, followed by Canada's CF-18s. Italy provided most of the air bases.

"All of this was done without putting a single U.S. troop on the ground," Barack Obama said, although history may reveal whether U.S. Special Forces helped train the rebels, as did British and French "advisers." And even if there were really no Americans on the ground, from the barrage of several hundred cruise missiles that launched the war, to the unmanned Predator drones and spy satellites, America's fighting role in Libya was big and vital.

It was a striking contrast to the ostentatious bragging about American power under George W. Bush. (Remember then-U.S. defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld flashing pictures of U.S. Special Forces on horseback in Afghanistan and barely mentioning the Northern Alliance whose soldiers did almost all of the ground fighting to oust the Taliban). There will be no "Mission Accomplished" photo-op with a flight-suited president landing on U.S. aircraft carrier - the unmistakable icon of power projection by the world's last remaining superpower. Mr. Obama didn't even go before the cameras.

While the Pentagon ran the first few days of the war, the Obama administration quickly settled on a Canadian air force general - Charles Bouchard - a commander they knew well and trusted from his previous senior posts at NORAD to run the war.

"Many have criticized U.S. President Barack Obama's strategy of 'leading from behind' in Libya, but that strategy now seems utterly vindicated," Blake Hounshell, wrote in Foreign Policy as the rebels entered Tripoli. "It was Libyans themselves, with significant help from NATO, Qatar and the UAE, who liberated their country from Gadhafi's grip - a fact about which they are fiercely and justly proud."


edit to fix link
coolclay
You did notice the "doctrine" in quotations right?
Just because the US supported NATO's decision, does not =
Quote:
started and led by Obama
Beside it wasn't just Obama that supported NATO's decisions it was as much as anything Defense Secretary Gates support that really made a difference. You don't think Obama just sits up there and makes all the decisions for everything that happens in the world do you? The US as a whole supported the Libyan rebel forces, as did the majority of NATO members (with a few exceptions), not just Obama. That makes it just as much their victory as Obama's.

P.S. You forgot to highlight the end of the article

Quote:
Blake Hounshell, wrote in Foreign Policy as the rebels entered Tripoli. "It was Libyans themselves, with significant help from NATO, Qatar and the UAE, who liberated their country from Gadhafi's grip - a fact about which they are fiercely and justly proud."


P.P.S
Just because I don't boast about all the wonderful things Obama supposedly has done to rid our world of brutal dictators doesn't make me anti-American. Nor does it even make me anti-Obama, in fact I like the guy for a lot of the things he's done. But to voraciously take the Libyan "victory" and claim it as a trophy for Obama makes you look like a overzealous fanboy.

P.P.P.S. Like many posts by you it's not even worth my time. Discussing w/ you is as bad as discussing with a fundamentalist Christian, or a far right Conservative. I'm out.....
jwellsy
Intentionally violating the war powers act is another reason BO should be impeached.
ocalhoun
jwellsy wrote:
Intentionally violating the war powers act is another reason BO should be impeached.

^.^ I can think of certain others who did that too, and didn't get impeached for it.
loremar
We should celebrate for the Libyan people.
Its their country. Its their rights. Its their freedom. And it is their Victory.
shivaghimire
Best of luck Libyan People, go ahead..
jwellsy
ocalhoun wrote:
jwellsy wrote:
Intentionally violating the war powers act is another reason BO should be impeached.

^.^ I can think of certain others who did that too, and didn't get impeached for it.


Details?
handfleisch
coolclay wrote:
You did notice the "doctrine" in quotations right?
Just because the US supported NATO's decision, does not =
Quote:
started and led by Obama
Beside it wasn't just Obama that supported NATO's decisions it was as much as anything Defense Secretary Gates support that really made a difference. You don't think Obama just sits up there and makes all the decisions for everything that happens in the world do you? The US as a whole supported the Libyan rebel forces, as did the majority of NATO members (with a few exceptions), not just Obama. That makes it just as much their victory as Obama's.

P.S. You forgot to highlight the end of the article

Quote:
Blake Hounshell, wrote in Foreign Policy as the rebels entered Tripoli. "It was Libyans themselves, with significant help from NATO, Qatar and the UAE, who liberated their country from Gadhafi's grip - a fact about which they are fiercely and justly proud."


P.P.S
Just because I don't boast about all the wonderful things Obama supposedly has done to rid our world of brutal dictators doesn't make me anti-American. Nor does it even make me anti-Obama, in fact I like the guy for a lot of the things he's done. But to voraciously take the Libyan "victory" and claim it as a trophy for Obama makes you look like a overzealous fanboy.

P.P.P.S. Like many posts by you it's not even worth my time. Discussing w/ you is as bad as discussing with a fundamentalist Christian, or a far right Conservative. I'm out.....


Okay if I mixed you up with one of the rabid anti-Obama right wingers I apologize.

However you are overreacting. Please note I took nothing from the Libyan people who are the ones who kept up the fight. My main point was how Obama was attacked by Republicans for his decision and so now he should get some credit, just like he made a hard, risky and smart decision in the way he launched the raid on Osama Bin Laden.

Don't you think it's silly to give Secretary Gates support credit but not Obama? Definitely in this case Gates = Obama. It's Obama who keeps a quality adviser like Gates on his team but also it's Obama's call, he's the one who put himself on the line in his strong stance to support the NATO efforts against the rebels.
Dennise
Quote:
Lay out your case to the American people, ignore the politics of the right wing Republicans who love war unless it might actually show Obama in a good light. And what do we get -- success.



Obama KO a sucess?

After more than eight years of war, with over 7,000 US and coalition casualties and trillions of $$$'s in treasure to wipe out one man ..... and you call that success? Determination maybe, but surely not success!

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/war.casualties/index.html
Hello_World
Quote:
But to voraciously take the Libyan "victory" and claim it as a trophy for Obama makes you look like a overzealous fanboy.


To me, Obama gets plus plus for this path of action.

It is not so much that it is Obama's victory. Of course, it isn't, that'd be just silly. (Well done Libya).

But that Obama didn't do what so many other US PMs have done and just marched in and taken over etc etc, but instead supported the rebels in the country in question.

Cudos to Obama for this successful strategy.
AsadAnsari
Reff : http://www.frihost.com/users/AsadAnsari/blog/vp-128741.html

Gaddafi was a part of American policy games for Muslim Countries like Osama and Taliban.. and present President of Afghanistan .
now when people of Libya are tired of him and they are now known to whats going on .. and when they took stands .. so America is now tired of him as it was with SADDAM and OSAMA
as I was saying ..

Gaddafi was a part of American policy games for Muslim Countries like Osama and Taliban or Al-Qaida ..
Who ever plays for America .. Enjoys For Few years and pay until he is Dead.
*-They creates Heroes .. They creates Villons { SpiderMan or Black SpiderMan } {Osama in cold-war with USSR}
*-They Converts Villons = into => heroes .
*-They Proves Heroes = becoming=> villons {SADDAM - OSAMA}
*-They lead them or easily put them over us in GOV. as a ruler..
like Musharraf [ex-Cheif Staff Of Army and most reliable DOGY of UNO Killer of thousands (killings are still continued in zardari's Gov as per negotiation so people can say he was little better)] & Zardari the Pakistani President [the TAX-Bandit of all Time] and the present President of Afghanistan..

They could create a disaster for a reasonable war.. example: 9/11 WTC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWgSaBT9hNU


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw


*-they Can FOOL You ! (as they already did)
They Can Kill Anyone and call him Osama to make You Happy ..

(the real person was killed in drowns attack 2years before 2ndMay2011)

They can crush Our Homes and call it their territory.

Daily drown kills 50+ innocent people including majority of children in Pakistan. [They don't want to see them growing because They cant change their faith and QURAN with Their new concept of [NWO]modernization in Islam as they change Christianity and BIBLE-(Revised standard Edition) every year with improvements and they are mostly denied next year.]

End of World is near and symptoms can be seen ..

The one who is killed dont know for what he is being killed and the one who is killing dont know either why he is killing ?


They can Kill Me And Say I am a Terrorist..
They can Kill You (for your good) For A New Reason For War Against Terrorism
[ Lolzzz for their believer (TV Faith) ]

You Can Delete My Post Or Call It Spam or BAN Me:) [Because what I just Said extremely against your views] But You Can't Hide Or Stop It..

Watch The Arrival Series .. search it in Torrents.. knowing is better then annoying .

http://www.frihost.com/users/AsadAnsari/blog/vp-128741.html
ocalhoun
@AsadAnsari:
Okay, you started off with a very valid criticism of meddling US foreign policy...

But then it got weird.

And what's with the 'kills 50+ innocent people including majority of children in Pakistan'?
How is 50 people a majority of children? There would have to be less than 100 children in the whole country for that to work.


Anyway, there's no weird conspiracy theories needed to show how US foreign policy is often very wrong, or how the war on terror is mainly just a front for power-grabbing...
Those two things are pretty much common knowledge to anybody who investigates more deeply than the nightly news reports.
bukaida
Only time can tell whether the action was good or bad.
ocalhoun
bukaida wrote:
Only time can tell whether the action was good or bad.

Nah, lots of people knew it was bad before it even started... to bad they weren't listened to.

(I was one of the non-listeners myself, at the time, so I share a bit of the guilt.)
Da Rossa
You got it right about Obama's move on Gaddafi handfleisch, but please have in mind that that was not only Obama's credit. EU leaders also helped in the decision to use NATO and aid the "rebellions".

But when you say, in abstract, the idea of "aiding the rebellions against a dictator", then we should be very careful. First, the man may be a dictator, but may have legitimacy. Not sure whether this was Gaddafi's case. Second, think about the idea of 'helping armed fighters to take down the government'. That's a dangerous idea in the first place.

Quote:
Under Obama: first Bin Laden, now Gadhafi. Not bad so far.


The operation to track down Bin Laden started more than five years ago. It just happened to have the final success now. Right?
deanhills
Handfleisch I'm surprised that you are focusing so much on Obama's contribution to any victory with regard to Ghadaffi as I thought the US kept a very low profile during the whole saga. Any Western input was restricted really to Europe and NATO, particularly France and UK who are the main financial contributors to the Libyan Transitional Government.
Da Rossa
I need to agree with Dean. What did Obama actually do?
ocalhoun
Da Rossa wrote:
I need to agree with Dean. What did Obama actually do?


Well, two things.

1- Order targeted bombings (supposedly) with the goal of preventing the rebels from being massacred.
2- Not invade and occupy with ground troops.

As little as I like Obama, I still have to admit that those were two pretty good decisions.
I would prefer complete uninvolvement... but given how much the world expects the US to act as 'world police', inaction at the wrong time could be seen very badly... As much as I dislike the USA's role as 'world police', it's a role that needs to be withdrawn from gradually... otherwise the consequences of an abrupt withdrawal will harm the already negative worldwide opinion of the US.

(And we need only look to Afghanistan to see that providing support, then abruptly withdrawing it can earn you some bitter enemies.)
Hello_World
@Ocalhoun

why would you prefer full involvement?
ocalhoun
Hello_World wrote:
@Ocalhoun

why would you prefer full involvement?

What?!?

I want the opposite of that!

Oh, oops.

I made a typo.

*fixed*
Hello_World
@Ocanhoun LOL I thought that was unusual...

Quote:
As much as I dislike the USA's role as 'world police', it's a role that needs to be withdrawn from gradually... otherwise the consequences of an abrupt withdrawal will harm the already negative worldwide opinion of the US.


A good part of the world's negative opinion is precisiely because of the role of the USA as the world's police, an abrupt withdrawl will harm... hundreds of thousands of people negatively.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Da Rossa wrote:
I need to agree with Dean. What did Obama actually do?


Well, two things.

1- Order targeted bombings (supposedly) with the goal of preventing the rebels from being massacred.
2- Not invade and occupy with ground troops.
I'm a bit confused here Ocalhoun, as far as I know the US troops were only there to support NATO and the decision to proceed with targeted bombings was a NATO decision that Obama agreed to support with troops. Hence why there was no official approval from Congress needed for his decision.

Ditto invade and occupy with ground troops. It was not an American invasion, it was a UN/NATO initiative that was supported by US troops as a NATO member.

Quote:
Last week, Mr Obama informed Congress that administration lawyers deemed the Libya conflict did not require additional congressional approval, arguing US forces were merely playing a supporting role in the Nato campaign.

BBC News
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
I'm a bit confused here Ocalhoun, as far as I know the US troops were only there to support NATO and the decision to proceed with targeted bombings was a NATO decision that Obama agreed to support with troops.

Well, yes, I don't give Obama credit for originally coming up with the idea... but I do give him credit for seeing it as a good idea, going along with it, and -- perhaps most importantly -- not going overboard and letting it slip into another invasion/occupation.

Hello_World wrote:

A good part of the world's negative opinion is precisiely because of the role of the USA as the world's police

Oh, I do realize this, but an abrupt and poorly executed withdrawal from this role would still cause even more damage to the USA's reputation.

Even though most would be in favor of the US abandoning that role, the damage done by a sudden lack of 'world police' would (rightly) be blamed on the US.
Da Rossa
Quote:
I would prefer complete uninvolvement... but given how much the world expects the US to act as 'world police', inaction at the wrong time could be seen very badly... As much as I dislike the USA's role as 'world police', it's a role that needs to be withdrawn from gradually... otherwise the consequences of an abrupt withdrawal will harm the already negative worldwide opinion of the US.


I understand and agree. But what a lousy situation the US has put themselves into! If they invade a country, then there will be public disapproval for being offensive. If they do not invade, then they're accused of being omissive?? People should begin relying less in the US for acting in as an "mediator" or "police". Otherwise there would be that political scientist whose name I forgot right now, who said "there is an ongoing fallacy worldwide that says the world has become multipolar. When crisises arise, they'll always ask US to intervene, even diplomatically."
Hello_World
Quote:
If they do not invade, then they're accused of being omissive??


There are dozens of places around the world that could use honest humanitarian help, in which the US could step in but doesn't look twice...

US steps in when it is the interest of the US to do so.

That isn't the actions of an honest 'cop'.

And yeah, some people will accuse US, no matter what they do, for that is what happens when you are the worlds superpower.

What the US would get negative accusations for, would be if it dropped everything and left places in ruins, in which it has already invaded, such as Afghanistan...
deanhills
Da Rossa wrote:
Quote:
I would prefer complete uninvolvement... but given how much the world expects the US to act as 'world police', inaction at the wrong time could be seen very badly... As much as I dislike the USA's role as 'world police', it's a role that needs to be withdrawn from gradually... otherwise the consequences of an abrupt withdrawal will harm the already negative worldwide opinion of the US.


I understand and agree. But what a lousy situation the US has put themselves into! If they invade a country, then there will be public disapproval for being offensive. If they do not invade, then they're accused of being omissive?? People should begin relying less in the US for acting in as an "mediator" or "police". Otherwise there would be that political scientist whose name I forgot right now, who said "there is an ongoing fallacy worldwide that says the world has become multipolar. When crisises arise, they'll always ask US to intervene, even diplomatically."
I don't agree. Why should the US be the only country taking care of the world's problems. I'm really grateful they are in the Middle East, and I'm sure there must be a very solid reason for them to be there too, but in countries like Libya, Yemen, Bahrain etc. I like the idea of them letting someone else take the initiative and then supporting them, instead of going it alone. I'd far rather too that the US get their economy sorted out, as of course the whole of the world economy has a direct stake in the US's financial situation. If things go bad, it works its way right through the globe, and if things are good, it also makes its way around the globe. The less wars they get involved in, the less debt the US has to incur.
handfleisch
Gadhafi's death: A validation of Obama's policy
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bs-ed-libya-20111020,0,3332089.story
Quote:
If the reports of Mr. Gadhafi’s death prove accurate, they will also serve as a final validation of President Barack Obama’s strategy in handling the conflict there. Mr. Obama has been maligned from both the left and right for committing the United States to a limited military role in the Libyan conflict. In a much maligned phrase, he chose to lead from behind in the conflict, providing American material and support to a NATO air campaign — but no troops on the ground. It made for a conflict that dragged on far longer than it surely would have if we had sent in the Marines. But it also resulted in a revolution that the Libyan people can rightly claim to have conducted by themselves and for themselves.

We have achieved our goals without committing ourselves to a years-long occupation, without American casualties, and without alienating the very people we were supposed to be helping. It may not be the model for every international crisis — and indeed, Mr. Obama has pursued many different strategies for dealing with armed conflicts in other parts of the world — but it is surely a validation of the president’s to reject the ideological foreign policy of the Bush administration and replace it with a supple new pragmatism. The president’s opponents may hate the idea that America wouldn’t immediately take charge in every situation, but the results in this case speak for themselves.
Da Rossa
Handfleisch, have you been hired by Obama's campaign headquarters?

Quote:
If the reports of Mr. Gadhafi’s death prove accurate, they will also serve as a final validation of President Barack Obama’s strategy in handling the conflict there. Mr. Obama has been maligned from both the left and right for committing the United States to a limited military role in the Libyan conflict. In a much maligned phrase, he chose to lead from behind in the conflict, providing American material and support to a NATO air campaign — but no troops on the ground.


First, bear in mind that Obama's role in this is not decisive. Actually, that shyer position speaks for itself: if he doesn't intervene strongly, then you automatically can't say Obama's contribution is more important than France's, England's or other western countries. So this can't be a "final validation". Also, in history, there is no such thing as "final validation". Things change from time to time. This could be used as a campaign propaganda for Obama's reelection only.

Also, don't misunderstand yourself: by saying "both left and right", you're implying you're talking about domestic opinions. What a third world country strategy to say things "Obama's been 'maligned'"! Sorry but that article's author is childish, I must say. Lula here in Brazil used rhetoric. When it comes to the international agenda, when despair takes over, every minor country will ask for US's opinion and intervention, no matter how, whether it's militarily, with a sole speech to the UN, or with resources. And doesn't matter whether those countries hate the Americans in the sunny days. So Obama is disappointing those countries.

Closing, if you guys criticize Bush's administration for leading the Country towards war, then what's Obama doing by "giving background support"? "No troops on the ground"? What are you thinking? Bombing targets from above, with the possibility to overcome collateral damage is "ok", while ground troops are indecent because american lives could be taken? Please. What's so different? This is military intervention in one way or another.

@ Dean
Quote:
I don't agree. Why should the US be the only country taking care of the world's problems. I'm really grateful they are in the Middle East, and I'm sure there must be a very solid reason for them to be there too, but in countries like Libya, Yemen, Bahrain etc. I like the idea of them letting someone else take the initiative and then supporting them, instead of going it alone. I'd far rather too that the US get their economy sorted out, as of course the whole of the world economy has a direct stake in the US's financial situation. If things go bad, it works its way right through the globe, and if things are good, it also makes its way around the globe. The less wars they get involved in, the less debt the US has to incur.


I think you agree in the end, or we have a semantics issue. Did you mean to say ou agree with me, or did you mean "I don't agree with that situation... why do the US have always to be involved?"
bukaida
Now that Gaddafi is dead ( Killed), the victory is for the people of Libiya. World is waiting to see where the future of Libiya goes.
deanhills
bukaida wrote:
Now that Gaddafi is dead ( Killed), the victory is for the people of Libiya. World is waiting to see where the future of Libiya goes.
Right. But looks as though Obama has claimed that for the US as well.
http://news.yahoo.com/qadhafi-death-blunts-gops-critique-133500278.html
handfleisch
Da Rossa wrote:

First, bear in mind that Obama's role in this is not decisive. Actually, that shyer position speaks for itself: if he doesn't intervene strongly, then you automatically can't say Obama's contribution is more important than France's, England's or other western countries. So this can't be a "final validation". Also, in history, there is no such thing as "final validation". Things change from time to time. This could be used as a campaign propaganda for Obama's reelection only.


sounds like you've been listening to too much right wing nonsense. You fail to understand the basic point of the argument. In the case of Libya, instead of invasion & occupation like Bush-style, the Obama doctrine aids the rebel forces to a clearly superior outcome. In the case of Bin Laden, the Obama doctrine authorizes a secret operation, and Obama personally orders there to be an extra helicopter, which turns out to save the day. We can only imagine what Bush would have done, but the Bush style would have chosen the option of flattening the whole compound without knowing for sure if Bin Laden was even in there. So that's why it's being called a validation of Obama, even if "final" is premature.

Da Rossa wrote:
Closing, if you guys criticize Bush's administration for leading the Country towards war, then what's Obama doing by "giving background support"? "No troops on the ground"? What are you thinking? Bombing targets from above, with the possibility to overcome collateral damage is "ok", while ground troops are indecent because american lives could be taken? Please. What's so different? This is military intervention in one way or another.


You don't see a qualitative and quantitative difference between an invasion and giving background support? Then you really fail to comprehend.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
So that's why it's being called a validation of Obama, even if "final" is premature.

It'll be a validation if 5 years from now, we still never had troops on the ground there...
The previous government may be fully destroyed now, but until we see what gets put up in its place, we can't be sure that there won't still be a 'need' for further intervention. There's always the chance that the new government will be even worse than the old one.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
So that's why it's being called a validation of Obama, even if "final" is premature.

It'll be a validation if 5 years from now, we still never had troops on the ground there...
The previous government may be fully destroyed now, but until we see what gets put up in its place, we can't be sure that there won't still be a 'need' for further intervention. There's always the chance that the new government will be even worse than the old one.

Sure, that's true. But c'mon, an apparently insane dictator who overtly supported terrorism and the worst despots around the world. You're worried about "worse"?
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
You're worried about "worse"?

Oh, it can always get worse... especially in Africa.


Heck, even the same thing over again would be worse, because rebellion would be discouraged by the 'we already did it once, and what good did it really do?' thought.
deanhills
I think we're forgetting that the war in Libya in essence is a tribal war. Ghadaffi through his dictatorship (similar to Saddam Hussein in Iraq) managed to force a cohesion of sorts on the tribes. Now that there is no dictator, it is going to take a very special kind of leadership to hold all of the tribes together. So what Ocalhoun is warning about can easily happen. Unless the Libyans can set their tribal differences aside, the war can be ongoing for a very long time.
Da Rossa
Quote:
sounds like you've been listening to too much right wing nonsense. You fail to understand the basic point of the argument. In the case of Libya, instead of invasion & occupation like Bush-style, the Obama doctrine aids the rebel forces to a clearly superior outcome.


I'm not sure whether you didn't understand what I mean or you blindly insists on your position without even reading.

First, let me make clear that I've not been listening for such "rightwing nonsense" for a long time. I can't even have access because in my country we don't have your radio stations.

Now stay focused to your "Obama doctrine" as you call it (you seem to worship it, but ok). Don't you think I'm a Bush supporter, because I'm not. I don't like wars any more than you do. What I'm saying is that getting involved in a war does not required one to invade with footmen. Obama has sponsored the rebels actions in a war scenario, so I can't help but calling that an act of war. It could be helpful to the americans for sparing US soldiers, then you're right. But this doesn't mean that Obama is more pacific than Bush or whatsoever. Obama can't say Bush is a belligerent.

Quote:
In the case of Bin Laden, the Obama doctrine authorizes a secret operation, and Obama personally orders there to be an extra helicopter, which turns out to save the day. We can only imagine what Bush would have done, but the Bush style would have chosen the option of flattening the whole compound without knowing for sure if Bin Laden was even in there. So that's why it's being called a validation of Obama, even if "final" is premature.


The Obama doctrine again... Sad
Yes, he authorized a secret operation. Like the US have done since 1776. Even more during the 20th century. Obama did order that 'extra helicopter'? Come on. He obviously didn't make that judgment call by himself. A General was sitting next to him. He does as his General advises. Takes the credit? Of course, the president is the one who officially orders.

And not defending Bush but please, stay cool on that. You can't just turn this argument to a speculative matter such as "we could only imagine what Bush would have done". You might be talking about some horrible videos CNN and some other networks, including FOX airs, with those helicopters and someone saying: "The truck!" then "Bang bang boom". how many of that have happened? 163? How many 'collateral damage' victims? Now ask yourself if Bush was there for EVERY MOVE MADE BY THE MILITARY, literally.

Quote:
You don't see a qualitative and quantitative difference between an invasion and giving background support? Then you really fail to comprehend.


No, I'm not stupid as you might be thinking. What I'm saying is purely qualitative. Also, giving background support to some rebels is, if see it right, questionable at least. "Ow, come on, he was a dictator!" Ok, but think about "aiding rebels against governments we don't see friendly". This is the same as aiding a revolution to overthrow the current state. Now imagine someone more powerful than Bush in his days invading US territory and sweeping him and the institutions away, so another order, another constitution arise. This is not much worse than Gaddafi himself.
sketteksalfa
The good thing about Obama administration is that, dictators have been toppled without getting our forces directly involved in war.
ocalhoun
sketteksalfa wrote:
The good thing about Obama administration is that, a dictator has been toppled without getting our forces directly involved in war.

Fixed.
(And that's assuming that dropping bombs on an enemy military doesn't constitute 'direct' involvement.)

You can't claim that he killed Osama without getting involved in a war, since we were already in a war with Osama.
Navigator
Check out this evil doer!

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlv31b_le-diable-selon-l-otan-kadhafi-chez-lui_news?start=0#from=embediframe
deanhills
Navigator wrote:
Check out this evil doer!

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlv31b_le-diable-selon-l-otan-kadhafi-chez-lui_news?start=0#from=embediframe
I don't see any evil in it. More like Ghadaffi trying to make a stage show out of how much he cares about his family. That usually make a big political impression on everyone. I found the video very contrived and artificial. Think the little boy does not seem to take very well to Ghadaffi either. Or maybe the little boy was not in the mood for stage performances. The little girl however did very well.
Da Rossa
Quote:
The good thing about Obama administration is that, dictators have been toppled without getting our forces directly involved in war.


That's still illegitimate. Direct involvment or indirect involvement means "involvement" in one way or another. That would make Obama no different from other administrators that, under the pretext of removing evil, invaded other countries. What is the focus? the fact of having ground troops, or the fact of taking part in a war at all?
handfleisch
Da Rossa wrote:
Quote:
The good thing about Obama administration is that, dictators have been toppled without getting our forces directly involved in war.


That's still illegitimate. Direct involvment or indirect involvement means "involvement" in one way or another. That would make Obama no different from other administrators that, under the pretext of removing evil, invaded other countries. What is the focus? the fact of having ground troops, or the fact of taking part in a war at all?


You have an absolutist point of view, that any involvement is bad, that there is little difference between minimum aid to some rebels versus a full scale invasion. This might be a pacifist point of view. I respect it but I don't see it as realistic. Considering what the USA has experienced in the recent past, the insane war fever of Bush's unprovoked invasion of Iraq resulting in massive death and destabilization, I feel we have to be realistic and grateful for Obama's approach. We have to realize that a Republican president might already be bombing Iran now, would probably still be sending more troops to Iraq, might have invaded Libya, wouldn't have canceled the stop-loss disgrace.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
We have to realize that a Republican president might already be bombing Iran now, would probably still be sending more troops to Iraq, might have invaded Libya, wouldn't have canceled the stop-loss disgrace.


Not that I really disagree... but, it really is unfair to blame them for things you think they might have done if elected.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
We have to realize that a Republican president might already be bombing Iran now, would probably still be sending more troops to Iraq, might have invaded Libya, wouldn't have canceled the stop-loss disgrace.


Not that I really disagree... but, it really is unfair to blame them for things you think they might have done if elected.
True, but I am not "blaming" them, just pointing out some things Americans can think about and be thankful for. None of those things is a stretch, by any means. Oh, I forgot to add: Republicans probably would have flubbed the Osama Bin Laden raid too, either by just bombing the whole compound or by not sending in the second helicopter (Obama's personal decision that saved the whole mission).
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
Republicans probably would have flubbed the Osama Bin Laden raid too, either by just bombing the whole compound or by not sending in the second helicopter (Obama's personal decision that saved the whole mission).

Or maybe they would have planned it differently and managed to do it perfectly without crashing any helicopters at all...

That kind of speculative reasoning really can't tell us anything useful... Mainly because it's not feasible to evaluate the truth of such 'might have been's.
deanhills
Better yet. Get the Pakistan military to do it by putting a price on Ossama Bin Laden's head. If more money is what got the Pakistanis talking about Ossama's whereabouts, it would not have taken much more than that for Ossama to have been killed by an unknown group of terrorists.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Better yet. Get the Pakistan military to do it by putting a price on Ossama Bin Laden's head.

There already was a price on his head... a pretty hefty one.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Better yet. Get the Pakistan military to do it by putting a price on Ossama Bin Laden's head.

There already was a price on his head... a pretty hefty one.
Agreed. But was it really necessary for the US to assassinate the guy? Meaning, immediately after 2001, Ossama was valuable enough - perhaps had lots of money to buy off the Pakistani Military and was dangerous. But by the time someone was willing to sell him out, he could not have been worth that much any longer. I'm sure there could have been different ways to pursuade people to do the assassination that would have been half, maybe even quarter the price it must have cost the US to send in the Seals.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
I'm sure there could have been different ways to pursuade people to do the assassination that would have been half, maybe even quarter the price it must have cost the US to send in the Seals.


There may have been cheaper ways, yes... But for something that important, I don't blame them for using a method that gives better surety of success... even if it was a bit more expensive.
Related topics
[soft]Firefox más inseguro que IE
Windows Vista Beta 1
Mac vs Linux
Smackdown Vs Raw 2006
EXPLOSION AT CRICKET MATCH!(ENGLAND VS INDIA)
US democrats Obama vs Clinton?
Barack Obama vs John McCain
Apparently, this Obama guy is popular with the media...
Unhappiness with Obama?
Obama Fails US Citizens in Libya
2012: Barack Obama (D) vs Mitt Romney (R)
Ron Paul Preemptively Wins Iowa + Minnesota
Romney Break Down
Obama WON!
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.