Will Libya end up being a positive for Obama?

[gonzomax]

@BrainGlutton

We don’t need to support a dictator. But it’s a good idea, if the costs moral and political are not too high, to try to be friendly with all countries regardless of their regimes. And good relations with the outside world might open up and liberalize a dictatorship. Eventually.

You have an example? Otherwise I doubt dictatorships tend to ease up on the people. As he gets older, he has generally to become more ruthless in order to assure that his family will get power after he is gone.

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

@Frank

At the beginning, while waiting for NATO to ramp up, it was entirely a U.S. operation. Certainly, that didn’t last too long. (Less than a week, if I recall correctly.)

That’s not how I remember it. Weren’t the first air strikes carried out by French Mirage’s?

ETA, from here:

On 19 March 2011 a multi-state coalition began a military intervention in Libya to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which was taken in response to events during the 2011 Libyan civil war.[16] On 19 March, military operations began, with US and British forces firing over 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles,[17] the French Air Force and British Royal Air Force[18] undertaking sorties across Libya and a naval blockade by the Royal Navy.

Hardly entirely a US operation.

[marshmallow]

@Onomatopoeia

However, when added to the capture of bin Laden it pretty much obliterates the ‘Democrats inept on foreign policy’ meme, doesn’t it?

Nope. Especially since it never made sense in the first place. The Dems killed way more people in the 20th century than the Pubs.

@xtisme

But I doubt most Americans are going to look at it that way, or really care all that much one way or the other…the primary focus is going to be on the economy and jobs.

This. Just look at Bush I. He oversaw the biggest American military victory since WWII against a cartoonish bad guy the media could easily play up and this was when America was still feeling down after the Vietnam humiliation and all of Reagan’s dirty Latin American wars. Theoretically he should’ve easily won a second term.

[BrainGlutton]

@gonzomax

You have an example?

Gaddafi started making friends with the West just a few years go and now he’s gone. Of course, that does not necessarily show a causal relationship.

[Little_Nemo]

@marshmallow

Nope. Especially since it never made sense in the first place. The Dems killed way more people in the 20th century than the Pubs.

Same question Bob Dole was asked when he tried to make this argument: Are you saying a Republican President wouldn’t have declared war when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor? Are you saying a Republican President would have allowed German submarines to kill Americans? Are you saying a Republican President would have allowed the Communists to take all of Korea?

If so, then I guess it’s a good thing we had Democratic Presidents.

[gonzomax]

@BrainGlutton

Gaddafi started making friends with the West just a few years go and now he’s gone. Of course, that does not necessarily show a causal relationship.

But he did not ease off on his people. He was just playing to the west to get concessions. It worked. He was still a brutal dictator inside his borders. Gadaffy is not gone. As a matter of fact, we don’t know where he is. The battle still continues.

[marshmallow]

@Little_Nemo

Same question Bob Dole was asked when he tried to make this argument…

What argument is that? That Dems are imperialist mass murderers? I didn’t advance that argument in this thread.

You agree with what I said. The Dems have killed far more people and started more wars than the Pubs. Ergo, when the Pubs started painting the Dems as weak kneed pacifists it had no basis in reality. Therefore, the fact that Obama killed OBL, increased our presence in Afghanistan, increased drone bombings, and continued Bush torture and survellience programs won’t prevent the Pubs from painting Obama and all Dems as weak kneed pacifists. Because it’s not connected to reality at all, it’s just a a PR campaign. The Dems pull the lever for vague hope, the Pubs for vague hate.

[Little_Nemo]

@marshmallow

What argument is that? That Dems are imperialist mass murderers? I didn’t advance that argument in this thread.

You agree with what I said. The Dems have killed far more people and started more wars than the Pubs. Ergo, when the Pubs started painting the Dems as weak kneed pacifists it had no basis in reality. Therefore, the fact that Obama killed OBL, increased our presence in Afghanistan, increased drone bombings, and continued Bush torture and survellience programs won’t prevent the Pubs from painting Obama and all Dems as weak kneed pacifists. Because it’s not connected to reality at all, it’s just a a PR campaign. The Dems pull the lever for vague hope, the Pubs for vague hate.

No, I do not agree with what you said. The “Dems” didn’t start more wars than the “Pubs” and they didn’t kill more people.

The Germans started World War I. The Japanese and the Germans started World War II. The North Koreans started the Korean War. Iraq started the Gulf War. The Taliban started the Afghanistan War.

I will give the Democrats most of the credit for the Vietnam War (although Eisenhower has his share). The Republicans get credit for Grenada, Panama, and Iraq.

[straight_man]

@gonzomax

You have an example? Otherwise I doubt dictatorships tend to ease up on the people. As he gets older, he has generally to become more ruthless in order to assure that his family will get power after he is gone.

There are lots of dictatorial regimes that liberalized politically while having good relations with the West both before and after —South Korea, Taiwan, and Indonesia all come to mind. That said, I don’t know whether there’s actual evidence a causal relationship.