i've stayed clear of this, but the more of this stuff that happens, the more i tend to believe that it is a guerilla foreign policy of the obama administration, right down to the whole wikileaks thing.  if that is the case, then it is very important for america to appear interested but neutral, "let the people decide".  but the fact that these have been motivated by wikileaks reports of opulence and corruption, and then driven by facebook and other social networking media make it all seem like a daring, but brilliant attempt to refocus middle eastern outrage away from israel and america, and back onto their own governments, where most of their outrage probably best belongs.  not sure why obama caved and got involved with gaddafi, unless for the very realistic assessment by the cia that gaddafi would win without foreign intervention.

I thought Obama gave a great speach.  Then you see the haters tear it apart for one reason or another.  It was perfect to me and how I think america needs to act.  I dont support Obama or any political figure 100% but I agree on this one.

I am in support of how this has gone down and how Obama has acted.  We are not the heavy hitters on this deal and I like that.  The middle east needs to know that it isnt just Americans that have a problem with them and it isnt going to be just Americans acting.  I dont know that we need to be there at all either but if the UN and NATO think that it has to be done I think we should do our part. 

I thought Obama made a very good speach not just the delivery but the words he said.  However when it was done I switched to FoxNews.  They were all over him for not acting faster and on our own if it was that important.  They did actually have several good things to say about the action in Lybia.  At that point I started think about what would have happened if Bush was still in there or if Obama was in there during 9/11.  The one thing I thought Obama was going to be weakest at, military action, is the one thing I agree with him most on.

artie_fufkin wrote:

"At that point I started think about what would have happened if Bush was still in there or if Obama was in there during 9/11."

Common sense says there's no way Bush could have led the charge into Lybia. Then again, common sense was in pretty short supply during the Bush administration.
The Democrats get tagged with being soft by the GOP and the conservative media, but when you look at the 20th Century, most if not all the wars in which we participated were initiated while a Democrat was in the White House. The exception being the first Gulf War.

And the afgan and Iraq wars.  I dont see how anyone on either side could think that it is wise to jump into another middle east war by ourself.  Maybe if Bush would have waited in Iraq other countries would have joined in.  As it went they didnt have to and why would they want to if we were going to do it all.  They were getting on Obama for getting in the mix of a civil war and in the next sentence saying he was to soft.  I dont think the GOP knows what should have been done.  What they do know is that Obama was wrong.  I guess they will think of a reason later.  Obama is by no means my favorite leader but give credit when it is due.  If we had to get involved and I think we should be involved in UN movements, I think it was done in the right way.

I am ready to for our troops to come home and our money to start being pumped into our own countries needs as well.  However I agree that we cant turn a bind eye to human suffering brought on by a government.  I also support the idea of the UN.  Any UN movement that the US agrees need to be done we should do our far share.

Last night foxnews did bring up one thing I thought was a valid point.  Pre-Election Obama would have been one of the guy tottaly against helping in Lybia.  Now he was the one to decide to go in.  That to me says that something had to be done and that there is alot more going on then what we know.

artie_fufkin wrote:

APRTW wrote:

I thought Obama gave a great speach.  Then you see the haters tear it apart for one reason or another.  It was perfect to me and how I think america needs to act.  I dont support Obama or any political figure 100% but I agree on this one.

Well, if there's one thing Barry can do, it's read from a teleprompter. I still have no idea what the hell we're doing in Lybia, just as I have no idea what the hell we were doing in Iraq. It's great to say, "Well, Khadafi's a nut, he has to go ..." but you're just going to be replacing him with another nut, probably of equally-religious fervor or worse.

Big differences:

We went into Libya to get a nut who was killing protestors without mercy.
We went into Iraq to get WMD, and only later decided it was to get a nut who was killing protestors without mercy.

We went into Libya with the plan to get out quickly.
We went into Iraq with the plan to build massive American military bases for the more or less permanent occupation of the country.

I am sure we can think of others.  Libya doesn't bother me much, except that it sounds like if we had done a bit more closed door policy making, we could have gotten the French to have done it all.  One problem with America that is beyond the reach of the politicians, is that some branches of the US government enjoy, and even need, their role as world policeman, and they would not have liked for us to have missed this opportunity to fly some missions and drop some bombs.

Webstergrovesalum wrote:

APRTW wrote:

I am ready to for our troops to come home and our money to start being pumped into our own countries needs as well.  However I agree that we cant turn a bind eye to human suffering brought on by a government.  I also support the idea of the UN.  Any UN movement that the US agrees need to be done we should do our far share.

Last night foxnews did bring up one thing I thought was a valid point.  Pre-Election Obama would have been one of the guy tottaly against helping in Lybia.  Now he was the one to decide to go in.  That to me says that something had to be done and that there is alot more going on then what we know.

Or Mr. Obama got to Washington & had his eyes opened by what he actually sees - along with the "education" he was given. There comes a time, though, when we just can't be the policeman of the world. IMHO.

That time has come and gone.  The United Nations was formed directly after WWII with the purpose of being just that, a world policeman.  The UN only works if every country pulls there own weight.  We are responsible for Iraq because we didnt have UN approval.  In Lybia we are in the backseat, yet pulling our weight.  I think that is fair and correct.  The Afgan war doesnt piss me off as much because those bastards killed thousands of Americans.  In Iraq things were different.  If military action had to be taken it should have gone through the UN.

APRTW wrote:

However I agree that we cant turn a bind eye to human suffering brought on by a government.

That would require a great deal of intervention in any number of African countries where civilians are suffering as a result of the actions of their governments.

APRTW wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

APRTW wrote:

However I agree that we cant turn a bind eye to human suffering brought on by a government.

That would require a great deal of intervention in any number of African countries where civilians are suffering as a result of the actions of their governments.

Do they have oil?....I mean WMD. 

But really I believe everything of this nature should be left up to the UN.  If the 200 countries in the UN think it is an issue then it is dealt with.  That is what our country was founded on.  To just go to war with a country because you dont like how the UN is handling it is dictator like or Bush like.  Whatever you want to call it.  It isnt democratic, that is for sure.

Hmmm - I doubt our founding fathers had the well being of other countries on their mind when they created our country They sure didn't want foreign countries telling us how to run ours either.  That's why we had the Revolutionary War.

Webstergrovesalum wrote:

APRTW wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

That would require a great deal of intervention in any number of African countries where civilians are suffering as a result of the actions of their governments.

Do they have oil?....I mean WMD. 

But really I believe everything of this nature should be left up to the UN.  If the 200 countries in the UN think it is an issue then it is dealt with.  That is what our country was founded on.  To just go to war with a country because you dont like how the UN is handling it is dictator like or Bush like.  Whatever you want to call it.  It isnt democratic, that is for sure.

Hmmm - I doubt our founding fathers had the well being of other countries on their mind when they created our country They sure didn't want foreign countries telling us how to run ours either.  That's why we had the Revolutionary War.

The problem with this argument is that it is so facile, Web.  Invoke Godman's Law and go straight to the Nazi's.  Conservatives are usually the very first to denounce appeasement and cite Chamberlain's "peace in our time" speech.  In spite of what Bluto said, the Germans didn't bomb Pearl Harbor, and Hitler didn't attack us.  We pissed him off by violating true neutrality with actions like the Lend Lease Act, and then declared war on him after the Japanese attacked us.  If I am the average German, I am thinking WTF?!?  So, your argument appears to draw a bright line test for foreign intervention when, except for bloviating politicians and out of control radio talk show hosts, there aren't any bright lines.  At the end of the day, all we have is leadership, a piece of paper to guide us, and the faith that wise leadership will see us through.  Reagan's attack on Grenada?  Bush I's on Panama? Clinton's on Somalia?  Yugoslavia?  Let's not pretend that each of these were self-defense.

Last edited by Max (3/29/2011 4:46 pm)

"BTW, Artie, many of us do ignore the Charlie Sheen's of the world & do pay attention to world events   Most of us are over 30 though."

I understand that. But recognize you're smarter and more well-read than most people who think "Entertainment Tonight" is hard news.

"Last night foxnews did bring up one thing I thought was a valid point.  Pre-Election Obama would have been one of the guy tottaly against helping in Lybia.  Now he was the one to decide to go in."

And thus you've described the main problem, primarily with Limbaugh, but it's a mantra that's also been adopted by Fox News - Someone on their airwaves supposes something that didn't happen actually did happen, and then they use the thing that didn't happen to attack the person who wasn't there when it happened in the first place.
Limbaugh is famous for saying non-sensical things like: "If Obama had lived in 33 A.D. and he'd seen Jesus being crucified, he wouldn't have done anything to help him, because he's a Socialist and Socialists don't like religion ..."
Using a past assumption as a basis for a observation in the present is about the most absurd brand of logic there is, and Limbaugh and Hannity have made their careers scaring the shit out of people by using it.