Libya and Obama; it's the last straw for me

The BBQ Pit
#1

There’s no indication of genocide in Libya; it’s a simple civil war. It’s the civilians rising up against the Army. It’s a perfectly valid act of war for a government to attack the civilians that are taking military action against it.

The vote of the U.S. for the no-fly zone was bullshit; the participation of the U.S. in enforcing it will be bullshit. It’s none of our fucking business.

And without troops on the ground, it won’t make any fucking difference. It’s just fucking stupid! Qaddaffi doesn’t need aircraft. He’s solidified the support of Libya’s Army and that army is rolling over the rebels. That won’t be stopped with a no-fly zone, yet that zone will linger for years, until someday we decide that he is hiding weapons of mass destruction somewhere south, west, north, east of Tripoli.

I’m absolutely astonished that Obama, of all people, with his unique life experience, has once again caved in to the right. Instead of standing foursquare and stalwart for, “It’s none of our business,” he’s wiffled and waffled and now the U.S. is sticking our foot in the tar. When will we extricate ourselves from this one?

Mr. President, grow some balls, for once, and act like someone that has beliefs and stands by them against all comers. You’re a fucking wimp. You didn’t get elected because we believed you’d be a wimp, and I, for one, will not cast a vote for you in 2012 if you continue to be a wimp.

You were elected because we believed you would be a strong, forceful, and resolute President who would fight for what he thought was right. We were, it appears, wrong.

#2

While I generally agree with you, Frank, I think you have some of the facts wrong.

This is more than a no-fly zone. It allows “all necessary measures” to stop the attacks against the rebels. And it’s not just the right that is pressuring Obama. He’s getting heat from Clinton (both of them) and Kerry, to name a few prominent Democrats. And is the French government “the right”? One can also argue that the air power only attacks on Serbia were successful. We didn’t send any ground troops in.

Anyway, I just hope that we let the Europeans do the lions share of the work here, as it’s really in their back yard, not ours.

#3

This is a target rich environment.

  1. Obama doesn’t have a particularly unique life experience for a ruler in America, other than the fact he has a deep tan.

  2. Obama is an imperialist and campaigned as one. He widened the drone campaigns and covert operations in countries we’re not even technically at war with. He loves him some torture and quasi-legal intelligence gathering. The shocking course would be if he stood pat.

  3. He’s not caving in to anyone, and this decade long meme among progs is cognitive dissonance in action.

  4. “It’s none of our business” hasn’t characterized Democratic Party thought in over 100 years…if ever. They killed more foreigners in the 20th century than the Pubs did. For the children.

#4

Even worse.

Which shows that rightist Democrats can be wrong too.

Yes, by French and Western European standards, the current French government is rightist.

Completely different, John. We bombed Serbian civilians, and U.N. Peacekeepers were on the ground afterwards. I’ll also note that a no-fly zone did not stop Saddam Hussein from crushing the revolts in both northern and southern Iraq after his army had been annihilated.

#5

Hardy-har-har. This is such arrant nonsense that I shall not bother to respond further.

#6

Although I don’t care for the decision, it was heartening to see Obama resuming the Imperial “Non-Negotiable Ultimatum” beloved by his predecessor once he realised the tide was flowing against the Colonel and nothing would be lost by ditching him. Quite like old times…
Is it true that Obama regularly makes the Black Pilgrimage to Chorazin at Preston Hollow to sit at the feet of the Puppet-Master ?

#7

The important thing here is that you actually believe all this unsubstantiated horseshit.

#8

Maybe, but I was just correcting an error you made in your OP.

True, but that doesn’t make them “the right”.

Not by American standards. Did you mean, in your OP, that Obama was caving in to “the right” as it is defined in Europe?

No, we didn’t. At least not on purpose.

Well, that can happen here, too.

Not really. The Kurds were operating in a largely autonomous region while we had the no fly zone in effect.

#9

Course not. Both Clintons, Kerry, and Obama are all socialists. If it helps at all, I don’t give a shit whether they are leftist, centrist, or rightist: they are wrong. The bulk of the desire to dethrone Qaddaffi is coming from the right. Just poke around this message board.

Why did you bring up France, then? If my OP was delimited to America, France is irrelevant, eh?

Was France’s opinion important to you when we invaded Iraq? It wasn’t important to me then; it’s not important to me now.

Horseshit. We didn’t worry about collateral damage any more that Qaddaffi is.

#10

It could be, but he’s still getting a lot of pressure from people not on the right.

Well, now you’re just going off the deep end. Should we just start calling you Der Trihs?

Look, I agree with you on Libya. But you’re not making a very good argument. Let’s just say it’s none of our business and leave it at that. But it’s hardly a doomed policy.

#11

So far, the military engagement of American forces has been confined to the deployment of stern words and resolutions. Our allies undoubtedly understand that there is no reasonable chance for a deployment of American grunts, because they are otherwise occupied. American air and techno power is, however, formidable, and makes a valuable contribution. Which is precisely what Obama has committed.

Will it work? Stranger things have happened. The likelihood that the rebels can prevail against a professional and armored military force is pretty slim. Untrained civilians with small arms fit best into the category of victim. Against armor, of course, they might as well be fighting with Nerf balls.

But what if Ghaddafi cannot move his armor for fear of tank-busting gunships? How long will the loyalty of his army last against real casualties?

With luck, it could work. So far, the risk is hypothetical. Small risk, big gain. Fair to say, though, luck doesn’t seem to be Barry’s long suit. His inbox is on his desk, and every couple of hours a helicopter flies over and drops a rabid warthog into it.

#12

I’m not going to go deep on this, but I think George Bush should have highlighted the difference between the lesser of 2 evils. IMHO, the OP is a big reason why the Democratic Party generally doesn’t have any longevity. Eg, the Dem President can’t possibly live up to the expectations from the entire spectrum that voted for him, and the often knee jerk reaction is to vote for a Republican because “they are all the same.”

I’ve seen on the board posters that froth at the mouth that Guatanamo Bay hasn’t been shut down and they threaten to go Republican in the next cycle. Talk about cut your nose to spite your face.

Of course, my guiding principles of rat fuck the moral majority and vote for the most fiscally responsible candidate makes it pretty simple.

#13

The government of Libya will have regained full control of the country before “all necesary measures” kick in. Then what happens with “all necessary measures”?

Let’s say the rebels manage to hang onto one city, with no food supply, no water supply, no means of income, no means of resupply of arms. Then what happens with “all necessary measures”? It’s a doomed policy.

#14

I am, obviously, growing increasingly distressed that my vote for Obama has resulted in what I would have hoped for had I wished to vote for McCain.

#15

:confused:

The reports I have seen is that Egypt was helping the rebels, not only with food, but with arms as well.

I think that you are also missing that the Arab league also wants Kadaffy out.

#16

I’ve said it already and I’ll repeat it. I think this is a mistake.

I wish the Libyan people the best of luck in overthrowing Gaddafi. But I don’t see any American interest that requires us to intervene.

I also think there is a reasonable chance our involvement will end up being greater than we wish.

I don’t blame either party on this one. It appears to be a bipartisan mistake.

#17

McCain would had invaded Russia.

#18

I’m not sure why we didn’t just buy $1bn in arms for the rebels and drop them off, and be done with it. Would it have resulted in a successful rebellion? Most likely not, in terms of unseating Ghaddafi. It would have been cheaper than other options, less likely to commit us to anything more, less likely to kill American soldiers, and would probably be a thorn in Ghaddafi’s side for longer than this action will be.

#19

Frank, you didn’t get the memo. We’re regaining the moral highground and being accepted back into the fold of the international community.

1 is opinion and maybe I could see it, especially if we’re just going to say that being black is a lot different. That’s fair. Although I don’t know why being black would make you less likely to be an interventionist.

2 has been an ongoing crisis for progs and people like Frank who like to pretend the Dems are anything but blood drinking reptiles, which immediately leads into 3 (“they have to bomb even more than Bush to look tough on terror! Or the Pubs will make fun of him!” etc.). If you do even cursory searches for these topics you’ll get all the cites you need. Not exactly state secrets. Hell, even the useless gits at the Daily Kos have been wringing their hands over this stuff.

4 is just a fact. WWI, WW2, Vietnam, JFK’s latin American adventures and Clinton’s continuance of Bush I’s Iraqi policy blow away the Pubs. Not even close really, despite Nixon’s and Reagan’s valiant attempts. I’ll admit Dubya got the Pubs off to a really good start for this century though. It must make the Dems jealous.

#20

My attitude is that it’s about damn time. The US, along with pretty much the rest of the world sat on their hands for two weeks while Qadaffi was bombing rebel positions and slaughtering peaceful protesters in Tripoli, just like in Egypt, the US did nothing but give halfassed condemnations of Mubarak.

It’s about time the international community is doing something, and I hope it isn’t too late.