Obama: US Launches Military Action Against Libya

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheOracle said:
HUFFPOST HILL - Obama: We're Promoting Democracy In Libya

Mixed signals? From Iran to Libya, will Obama ride this democracy train of protests? - CSMonitor.com

Independent Women's Forum - I Hope Colonel Gaddafi Is As Confused As I Am...

Gaddafi must go: Obama : World News Australia on SBS


White House aims to 'install' democracy in Libya | Hayley Peterson | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner


So...this is our policy...just not our goal right now. Hmm. Seems like our current goal supports our policy!


(Like it did in Iraq...didn't work.)
Click to expand...

:ty: for proving my point in my post #272 - #4.

Jiro said:
4. it is common for country leaders to speak out and express their opinions. It is President Obama's opinion that Gaddafi should step down but our official military goal is NOT removing Gaddafi.
Click to expand...

plus - from your post
US policy is that Colonel Gaddafi has to leave power, Mr Obama said, but he stressed the United States would stick to a United Nations mandate during its military action in Libya.
Click to expand...
 
TheOracle said:
I am not saying we are at war with Libya. I am saying that it seems as though our goal is to see Qadaffi ousted...yet our "official directive" is to enforce the UN resolution.

If you read the resolution, you'll see that it's rather ambiguous. If removing Qafaffi ends up being the only way to ensure the safety of civilians, then can't we claim it's our new goal?

If so, what do we do about the aftermath? Who takes charge? It's important to think of these things now. Once you topple Qadaffi, you can't go back!
Click to expand...

did you even read UN Security Council Resolution? It said NO SUCH thing about removing Gaddafi.
 
The seeming inconsistency between the stated goal of the military mission (to protect the civilian population and prevent a humanitarian crisis) and Obama’s statement of U.S. policy (that Gaddafi must go) may make sense to policymakers here and in some allied capitals. It may be deliberately inconsistent, given the differing views of coalition partners and the desire of the administration not to make this a U.S.-only intervention. But to some, it has seemed a muddle.
Click to expand...

Big stakes for Obama in Monday’s Libya speech - The Washington Post

*shrug* He left it up to the Senate to figure out a stimulus bill, a health care bill...I'm just saying...this guy is hardly the hxc decision-maker he claimed to be. (Although I appreciate the developments in Iraq and Afghanistan.)
 
Jiro said:
did you even read UN Security Council Resolution? It said NO SUCH thing about removing Gaddafi.
Click to expand...



Like I said, you could claim that if removing him is the only way to quell the violent unrest, then yes, the statement could be considered ambiguous on the Qadaffi question.

"Authorises member states...acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements, and acting in co-operation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures...to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack...including Benghazi".
Click to expand...
 
TheOracle said:
Big stakes for Obama in Monday’s Libya speech - The Washington Post

*shrug* He left it up to the Senate to figure out a stimulus bill, a health care bill...I'm just saying...this guy is hardly the hxc decision-maker he claimed to be. (Although I appreciate the developments in Iraq and Afghanistan.)
Click to expand...

eh.... I wasn't even confused. I thought it was pretty crystal-clear to me.

These are newspapers owned by conglomerates with their own political agenda... they're in business of obfuscating, quibbling, confusing, etc. Take your pick. and they're very effective at this because average people are not well-versed with civics knowledge.
 
TheOracle said:
Like I said, you could claim that if removing him is the only way to quell the violent unrest, then yes, the statement could be considered ambiguous on the Qadaffi question.
Click to expand...

not really. I wouldn't claim such thing.... otherwise Saddam would have been removed after 1991 Persian Gulf War, eh? or Kim Jong-Il... or Ali Khamenei...

hardly ambiguous to me.

Security Council Approves ‘No-Fly Zone’ over Libya, Authorizing ‘All Necessary Measures’ to Protect Civilians, by Vote of 10 in Favour with 5 Abstentions

SECURITY COUNCIL APPROVES ‘NO-FLY ZONE’ OVER LIBYA, AUTHORIZING ‘ALL NECESSARY
MEASURES’ TO PROTECT CIVILIANS, BY VOTE OF 10 IN FAVOUR WITH 5 ABSTENTIONS
SUSAN RICE (United States) said that today, the Council had responded to the Libyan peoples’ cry for help. The Council’s purpose was clear: to protect Libyan civilians. The Council had adopted an earlier resolution that had sent a strong message, but Colonel Qadhafi and those that still stood by him had continued to grossly and systematically violate the most fundamental rights of the Libyan people. The Arab League had subsequently called on the Council to take more stringent measures, and the current resolution was an answer to that call, as well as a strong response to the situation in the ground.
Click to expand...

the layout of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 -
1. Protection of Civilians
2. No-Fly Zone
3. Enforcement of the Arms Embargo
4. Ban on Flights
5. Asset Freeze
6. Designations
7. Panel of Experts

You can see what UN Security Council has proposed for Libya at the bottom of the link.
 
We imposed a no-fly zone on Iraq and encouraged Iraqi leaders to replace Saddam. Wishful thinking.

We participate in a no-fly zone in Libya and say "Gadaffi must go" without forcibly removing him. What I'm saying is, the current resolution supports the goal. If it happens - he's removed - then what? If you don't take that seriously, then I can't help you.

I could say that my personal goal was to get you kicked off AD for saying something stupid, but my plan of attack could be to bait you instead of reporting the things you say. Plan supporting goal.

What people are asking is if our plan goes beyond attacking air forces and offering humanitarian aid. Obama says it's not, but he also says our policy is for Qadaffi to go.

So if we want him to go (and are certainly supporting it), then what's the plan for afterward?
 
TheOracle said:
Plus...if you're wiling to do a tour in Iraq to get some college cash, that says quite a bit about your determination to succeed in life.

imo
Click to expand...

i wouldnt say determination, id say desparation. People are being systematically impoverised and thus become more suscepitble to join the military for 'college money' as you say (this ploy is not unique to USA, happens here too), because there isnt anywhere/anyone else who'd take them on with a 'promise' for a better future with that 'provided special training' that 'came cheaper' with the *cost* which is a risk that you'd go to war and die instead...

blah, I dont see Steinhauser being that far off...just because there's a lack of publication , it doesnt mean it doesnt happen, it just hasnt beenn documented..(and which by documentation is usually directed/controlled, so from that vantage point it can illustrate that we don't really have 'Freedom'..

i dont know if I'im wasting time here but my take is dont bomb steinhuser's post, and dont rely on Every publication because to me, all publication is Never neutral, period. Printed, or visual or painted or video recorded piece of 'captures' or 'embodiment of meanings' are always in possession of a kind of ideological reference.
 
Jiro said:
see? President Obama has done nothing unconstitutional nor illegal. Congressional authorization for the use of military is not needed. All of this is within War Power Act.
Click to expand...

Nope.....just hypocritical
 
Miss-Delectable said:
:lol:

They must be surprised to see that it is not so. Aussies might have been wild about American sailors and soldiers during WW2 when they were stationed here. But now, they'd go 'meh, another American'.....
Click to expand...

Funny, yet somehow I am hurt at the same time. :lol:
 
There was also a "conflict" in Vietnam that might be interesting reading for you.
 
TXgolfer said:
Ummm.....Iwo Jima ring a bell? I mean....as a teacher. Fairly significant event in history.

In fact the entire Pacific campaign of WWII was filled with Marines.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?! I said I thought the Marines that Beowulf was talking about were on ships. As in, on ships and not getting off. As in, no boots on the ground right now. :crazy:
 
TheOracle said:
What are you talking about?! I said I thought the Marines that Beowulf was talking about were on ships. As in, on ships and not getting off. As in, no boots on the ground right now. :crazy:
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top