That’s exactly what he should be doing. As much as I like democracy, I don’t want to help the Libyans fight their battles for them. They should stand or fall based on their own support
When I decried Bush for going in cowboy style to Iraq, I meant it. We should not be getting involved in other countries’ civil wars, no matter how good the outcome may be for us on one side. I don’t want Obama to lift one finger to help Libya except to support them through back channels and speeches. Supporting democracy around the world with guns has not worked, nor will it work
It is easy to do something, especially the wrong thing. Not doing something, when that is actually the best choice, is much harder.
It was clear before the election from their responses to events that occurred during that season: if you wanted someone who would respond without thinking by instinctual gut response then McCain was your guy. If you wanted someone who considered things before acting and had the maturity and wisdom to sometimes hold back and watch rather than to act foolishly and make a bad circumstance much worse, to finesse rather than overpower a situation, then Obama was your man.
The point is that the Libyans are demanding a no-fly zone themselves. In addition the Europeans have far more limited force projection capabilities than us and far less of a willingness to fight (consider the reluctance with which they’re intervening in Afghanistan). As far as I can see, like it or not we’re the world’s policeman for now and something like this is actually a great oppourtunity to show the US’ actions can be constructive.
Who are they demanding a no fly zone from? Where would they get the right to demand a country commit its troops, planes and treasury to their rebellion?
A no fly zone is an act of war. Are you so hopped up for the Libyans that you want another war in the middle east?
Obama is doing all he can. That is verbal support and pushing other countries to put up a unified front .
Just for the record, the Lockerbie bombing was an attack on an American airline. Specifically, Pan Am Flight 103 from London to New York, so Gaddafi wasn’t attacking the United Kingdom - he was attacking the United States.
Meaning pretty much everyone in the industrialized world and much of the rest of the planet, outside of the US. I don’t think you grasp just how out of the mainstream America is. Or how much America has done to earn the distrust of the rest of humanity.
This is not specific enough. What you’re saying is the rebels have asked for a no fly zone, assuming you are correct. The Arab League also supports one. None of which means the U.S. is expected to do so on its own.
We’ve all heard that one before. Intervening in Libya could be a good idea, but “it’s a good opportunity to make the U.S. look good” is not a good reason to do that.
This is a bunch of nonsense. The left never tied Bush’s hands and neither did world opinion.
I think Obama is superior to Bush in nearly all aspects of foreign policy (partly as a function of his identity and perception of him abroad, partly by his actions), but that’s such a low bar that I’m still largely disappointed.
I agree that he seems oddly passive about Libya in particular.
No, it’s the torturer Bush and his apologists who made the US look bad, not Bush’s critics, or as you call them, intellectual agitators.
That you would even suggest military action on the grounds that it will salve your ego is revolting. No, you shouldn’t take action in Libya on the grounds that it will make you feel better. Libyan sovereignty and Libyan lives are more important than the bruised ego of the American right.
Oh, he thinks it’s just leftists and “agitators” who thought Bush’s actions harmed the image of the U.S.? You need to abandon this kind of rhetoric, Qin Shi Huangdi; you sound like you’re trying to imitate McCarthy or Nixon or something. I’m not sure how much it matters that Bush hurt the standing of the U.S. as opposed to the other damage he did - particularly in that he left the country with two new major military commitments, which has made a lot of foreign policy challenges much more difficult - but he did harm the standing of the country. Remember how people’s impressions of the U.S. shot up in polls after Obama was elected?
I have seen no one call for the U.S. to kill everyone. I simply used the common ironic phrase that implies that outsiders would find it better if both sides suffered heavy casualties.
I made no reference to politicians of any stripe.
A number of people, including several posters in this thread, have stated or implied that we should simply go in and “handle” the situation, (at which point I presume that there would be a great many deaths). My point was merely that the situation on the ground is ripe for a long-term civil war and that putting boots on the ground could lead to a long entanglement.
(That caution does not prevent the employment of a no-fly option.)
Again, who specifically are you talking about that would find it better if both sides suffered heavy casualties? That’s what I mean specifically.
You are claiming that some group or groups wants there to be heavy casualties on both sides. Who, specifically, has expressed a hope for this? Not just a hope that the US intervene - a hope that this will bring about heavy casualties on both sides.