Quote:

---

On the one hand, some question why America should intervene at all -– even in limited ways –- in this distant land. They argue that there are many places in the world where innocent civilians face brutal violence at the hands of their government, and America should not be expected to police the world, particularly when we have so many pressing needs here at home.

It’s true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. In this particular country -– Libya -- at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Qaddafi’s forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
A window for opportunity in that moment.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
What did people make of Obama's speech on Libya?

I thought it was impressive, and made the case for limited intervention very well.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I think it was the scariest and most arrogant foreign policy I've seen since the British Empire.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
A window for opportunity in that moment.

---

The window was manufactured by a coalition of international actors.

The question is, why isn't that window manufactured by a coalition for ALL countries in similar plights? For example, why wasn't it manufactured for Rwanda in 1994, where the "horrific scale" actually was occurring as they deliberated and chose to do nothing?

Why only Libya? We come back to the same question, which was not answered by his pretty speech.

---

Quote:

---

Why only Libya? We come back to the same question, which was not answered by his pretty speech.

---

Quote:

---

The question is, why isn't that window manufactured by a coalition for ALL countries in similar plights? For example, why wasn't it manufactured for Rwanda in 1994, where the "horrific scale" actually was occurring as they deliberated and chose to do nothing?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

---

Why only Libya? We come back to the same question, which was not answered by his pretty speech.

---

"we must always measure our interests"

Hello Sky,

I think this is the answer you were looking for in his 'pretty speech.'

--Anthony



Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Because of an existing rebel army. This wasn't the case in Rwanda,

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
In other words OIL is not the only US interest, the US is also interested in the promotion of democracy, stability, and the prevention of conscience-scarring genocide, where possible.

---

Quote:

---

He dithered and dodged for weeks... He failed to meaningfully consult with Congress, much less seek their approval

---

Quote:

---

He did not answer the question 'who are the rebels', he did not address the issue of direct support

---

Quote:

---

he did not address the ground troops issue, and he failed to explain 'why Libya and not (Syria, Bahrain, Iran, Saudi Arabia...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Because of an existing rebel army. This wasn't the case in Rwanda,

---

In 1994, Rwanda had an existing, armed rebel army. It was called the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF).

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Rwandan_Patriotic_Front

---

Quote:

---

KPO, I think what some of us suspect is that the US is ONLY interested in promotion of democracy, stability, and the prevention of conscience-scarring genocide WHEN there is oil involved. And not otherwise.

---

Quote:

---

But if it's a decisive intervention on the side of human freedom, can you knock it?

---

Quote:

---

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-21-2011/america-s-freedom-
packages

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
But my overall point in that paragraph though was that ground troops would've been necessary to intervene and stop the Rwanda genocide, but are likely not imperative for the Libya conflict. I think that point still stands.

---

Quote:

---

We had a unique ability to stop that violence... without putting American troops on the ground.

---

Quote:

---

Similar threat of horrific scale atrocities, similar ground backup of rebel troops. Why Libya and not Rwanda?

---

Quote:

---

Obama: We had a unique ability to stop that violence... without putting American troops on the ground.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
In other words OIL is not the only US interest, the US is also interested in the promotion of democracy, stability, and the prevention of conscience-scarring genocide, where possible.

---

KPO, I think what some of us suspect is that the US is ONLY interested in promotion of democracy, stability, and the prevention of conscience-scarring genocide WHEN there is oil involved. And not otherwise.

Jon Stewart and John Oliver say it better than everyone else.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-21-2011/america-s-freedom-
packages

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Quoting Obama again:

Quote:

---

We had a unique ability to stop that violence... without putting American troops on the ground.

---

That's part of the case he's making for intervening in Libya: that ground troops would not be needed. The implication being that ordinarily they are. And I don't think this is far off conventional wisdom - can you name many interventions that have succeeded just with the use of air power? I don't think we can 'assume' Rwanda would have been one, since that's not the norm.

Quote:

---

Similar threat of horrific scale atrocities, similar ground backup of rebel troops. Why Libya and not Rwanda?

---

There are hundreds of ways in which the situations are subtly different (no two situations are exactly the same, point 1) of the Obama/kpo doctrine) - like the weapons used to carry out the murder of civilians: easier to knock out armour and artillery from the air, than machetes.

It's not personal. It's just war.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
So it's not ALWAYS about oil. There's other mineral wealth to think about.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RionaEire:
They need a plan and if they don't have one then everything's going to be in tatters, whether they win or not.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Quoting Obama again:

Quote:

---

We had a unique ability to stop that violence... without putting American troops on the ground.

---

That's part of the case he's making for intervening in Libya: that ground troops would not be needed. The implication being that ordinarily they are. And I don't think this is far off conventional wisdom - can you name many interventions that have succeeded just with the use of air power? I don't think we can 'assume' Rwanda would have been one, since that's not the norm.

Quote:

---

Similar threat of horrific scale atrocities, similar ground backup of rebel troops. Why Libya and not Rwanda?

---

There are hundreds of ways in which the situations are subtly different (no two situations are exactly the same, point 1) of the Obama/kpo doctrine) - like the weapons used to carry out the murder of civilians: easier to knock out armour and artillery from the air, than machetes.

It's not personal. It's just war.

---

He left off the "...YET" part of it, though, didn't he?

"Without putting troops on the ground. YET."

We will put troops on the ground.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

---

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 26, 1996 -- Today, the Washington Post reported unrest in Libya which the Libyans believe is led by a Col. Khalifa Haftar based in the U.S. On May 17, 1991 the Washington Times reported that three hundred and fifty Libyans would arrive soon in the United States. So what's the connection?

It turns out that the Libyans who arrived in the U.S. in 1991 were not the Libyan President Ghaddafi's terrorists. They were our folks, trained by our CIA. These terrorists, which our government (ever mindful of our sensitivities) prefers to call guerillas, were trained by our CIA to topple President Ghaddafi. Last December 1990 when a new government less sympathetic to our mission was formed in Chad, we tried to find another home for our folks. It seemed that no one wanted our recruits, and so they were flown to the United States from Kenya where they were being temporarily housed. Col. Haftar was part of this group.

Col. Haftar is now reported to be the leader of a contra-style group based in the U.S. called the Libyan National Army. This group is supported by the U.S., and has been given training facilities in the U.S. It's a good presumption that Col. Haftar's group operates in Libya with the blessings of our government.

The question is, "Is Libya terrorizing the U.S., or is the U.S. terrorizing Libya?"

---

Quote:

---

Posted by "Hero":


Our mistake was waiting so long. They had position and momentum weeks ago and the loyalist army units were still on the sidelines. Had we acted then to enact a simple no-fly zone its likely the army would have defected and the conflict would have ended.

---

Quote:

---

Obama more or less said:

Platitudes. We are fighting Al Qaeda, Taliban, lots of talking points and platitudes so far. The US has a unique role as anchor of global security and advocate of human freedom. We are reluctant ? to use force. Interests and values are at stake -> we act. ^Libya

OMFG: Libya sits between Tunisia and Egypt... It is located on the continent of Africa. It is a country, not a province, city, or planet. It is inhabited by humans. People of faith. Male and female; men and women... Okay, I'm making everything after Egypt up, but he hasn't said anything... he's auditioning to be the next Sarah Palin.

Sanctions don't work. I oredered warships. EU and Arab league. At my direction... America led an effort. A no fly zone, and all necessary means...

After trying for ten days to find a peaceful solution <<-- does this guy know how moronic this sounds? I mean holy..%^&*(. Diplomacy takes a little more than ten days. Hell, Bush with the weapons inspectors and negotiations gave Saddam Hussein how much time? It was a lot longer than ten days, and Bush was hell bent on war.

Qaddafi continued to defend his country against CIAinsurgents yadada propaganda. If we waited one more day... Qadaffi would have massacred a million people ... I've heard this one before... what a load of $%^&*

To stop the killing, we did a lot of killing. We have not acted alone. we are 99% of the attack force. again Comparing to Bosnia. Yikes. We did nothing in Croatia, etc. We were undoubtedly a liability

US leads, we hand over to NATO, and that 99% american coalition will take over. The risk and cost to taxpayers will be nuttin' baby where have I heard this one before? Oh, Rummy, you are now president

We will use the money ? to rebuild libya. Why are we rebuilding Libya? How about not destroying it?

We froze more than $33 billion of Libyan assets. We will use this money. translation: We stole their money, and we will give it to ourselves in contracts

Clinton will handle peace talks, great. Our military mission is focused on saving lives this wins the WTF? award

Americans have questions ^ see above. Also, Mr. President: are you a fascist moron?

We'll leave the mess to others. Many question our intervention. Why do this rather than address our problems at home? I won't answer this question, but instead leave you wondering why.

We must measure our interests against the need for action he does know that our interests is blatantly saying we want the oil, etc. America is a leader apparently we choose the leaders of others. Anyone remember Obama's support to a revolution in Iran against an *elected* leader? Now I will make up specters, like a flood of refugees, etc. to scare you.

The american military is needed to secure global stability scary statement
I'll never underestimate the cost of military action you just did a few lines back

We aren't in Libya to replace Qaddafi after saying how evil he is and how he needs to go We are there to save lives police the planet. Oh, what does come next?

We learned from Iraq. We didn't learn not to go to war. Hey, what was done in Iraq you just did in Afghanistan

We will keep them from getting arms or money
hints at food and medicine earlier. this is scary. I defend only america, that's why we're in afghanistan ?

Where our interests, regional stability, flow of of commerce we go to warregional stability is a catch phrase for invading neighboring countries, like Pakistan.change will make the world different and confusing. Others will believe as we do. They will have democracy, and security and freedom, america style

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Here's the pep rally he gave before unilaterally attacking:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:


I dunno, Mike, are you sure Newt didn't mean Obama should have jumped in with both feet, set up a no-fly zone THAT NIGHT, then jumped back out again lest it look like he was doing it for attention, then jumped back in again once the UN passed its resolution, then jumped out to let NATO take over, then...

I'm getting dizzy...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Good idea!

Obama's Evil!
Bush was Evil!
Clinton was Evil!
Bush Sr. was Evil!

Shall we continue? Does this mean Raptor/Kane/Wulf/etc. will now call me an idiot and refute that Obama is evil? Can we frame it, if they do? Or will they say I'm just half wrong, Clinton and Obama are evil, the Bushes weren't? Fun to wait and see...


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Yes, Newt agrees - Obama waited too long before acting too hastily. He should have hurried up and waited.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Yes, Newt agrees - Obama waited too long before acting too hastily. He should have hurried up and waited.

---

The two issues are 1) he did not act quickly enough and 2) he did not consult with Congress.

We'll table the other issues such as leadership, who are those guys, etc.

You seem to think that consulting with Congress means waiting. Therefore you think we are saying he should have both acted quickly and waited. This is not the case. Consulting with Congress is not a lengthy process. It involves calling in the leadership for a briefing followed by a briefing of as many members as possible. It could be and traditionally has been done in the hours or days leading up to a strike and is most often the lead in for an address to the nation from the Oval Office.

Obama spent weeks seeking approval from Europe, the UN, NATO, and the Arab League but never briefed Congress or sought any input from them. If he had weeks to consult with all these foriegn powers why not take a couple hours and send some staffer to brief Congress while calling in the leadership for a meeting, briefing, and photo op.

So I guess I'm really saying he needed to act quickly, in days not weeks (days because we were caught with no assets in place for immediate action) and you might want to tell somebody in our own govt what the hell your planning.

The reasons why neither of this happened are obvious. Obama and his people did not know what to do, how to act, either at home or abroad. Gates did not want to go, Biden was skiing, Obama was packing for Brazil, that left Hillary answering the phone. Thats why all the international work got done, but the domestic side was fumbled.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

---