View Full Version : What Obama has to tell America about Libya
President Barack Obama tonight makes a speech he'd rather not be making: Explaining to his country, proud of its military but weary of war, why he has decided to bomb the armed forces of another Middle Eastern country.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/
Note: 14:50 UK time, Monday, 28 March 2011
Tribesman
03-28-11, 11:42 AM
That should be funny to see, I wonder how he is going to rationalise one intervention while not intervening elsewhere, how he can explain the ofsupport some democracy movements in some places and support those who crush them elsewhere. Maybe the French have given him a way out, after all it was them who recognised the rebel council as a government.
However he should have addressed the nation as soon as he decided to get his country involved in the "its not a war"
No undesirable situation directly, with the consequence of his actions
Armistead
03-28-11, 12:33 PM
10 days later he speaks. The real question that needs answering is just who are we supporting, the terrorist back rebels or the people, we know who will end up in power.
I guess he'll also explain why we have to go into Syria next to solve the human crisis that could happen there.
I don't what nuts run next, but give me a Nader, Trump or Paul, someone that won't go to war at a drop of a hat to rebuild other nations why ours crumbles...Obama certainly wasn't it.
GoldenRivet
03-28-11, 12:45 PM
I personally support his decision to commit to air strikes against Libya. There is a lot of change happening in the middle east... it is hard to say whether it will be good change, or bad change, but for me personally, it is hard to imagine the place getting much worse than it has been over the past couple of thousand years. :shifty:
I hear a lot of people who supported bush for Iraq, calling foul on BO within minutes of the news flash. and thats BS
on the other hand, i think his handling of the air strikes was botched, i do question whether or not we should have even done it in the first place... and i think he should have spoken up about it a hell of a lot earlier than 10 days after the fact.
mookiemookie
03-28-11, 12:47 PM
That should be funny to see, I wonder how he is going to rationalise one intervention while not intervening elsewhere, how he can explain the ofsupport some democracy movements in some places and support those who crush them elsewhere. Maybe the French have given him a way out, after all it was them who recognised the rebel council as a government.
However he should have addressed the nation as soon as he decided to get his country involved in the "its not a war"
Agree. If this is to prevent a massacre, why aren't we bombing Syria and the Ivory Coast?
If we'd just stop screwing with people in the Middle East, maybe we'll be better off.
GoldenRivet
03-28-11, 12:58 PM
If we'd just stop screwing with people in the Middle East, maybe we'll be better off.
this
Bilge_Rat
03-28-11, 01:07 PM
Agree. If this is to prevent a massacre, why aren't we bombing Syria and the Ivory Coast?
Thats the difference between the art of the possible and perfection. There are many problems around the world, we can't solve them all so we have to pick and choose. However the fact that you cannot solve them all should not be an excuse to tackle none.
re: Obama; yes, he should have given this speech at the beginning to explain his rationale.
U.S. can not be "global policeman" for all, so it's better to let them do their own troubles, and related alliance such as the EU member states join in with the sanctioned actions by the United Nations, if it becomes a question of armed intervention, but it best thing is, of course, to prevent these disturbances in their backyard,in countries that have problems
I'm afraid this will make many countries more islamist. Helping this along seems like a bad idea.
gimpy117
03-28-11, 01:37 PM
I don't see why we are freaking out. This is a UN sanctioned operation, A group we, like the other participants are prominent members in. Were not off on some tangent Like in Iraq, we are helping our allies.
Islamists will always exist, regardless of the actions taken
Freiwillige
03-28-11, 01:47 PM
No undesirable situation directly, with the consequence of his actions
I disagree, respectfully of course.
The undesirable situation is precedence. For the first time the US has intervened in a conflict that is outside the scope of US interests on humanitarian grounds.
That is the sales pitch anyhow, The outcome is quit different of course as we blast a path for the rebel forces.
That precedence can lead us off to war until the dinosaurs return. Its endless and has the possibility of escalation in the long run.
Takeda Shingen
03-28-11, 02:19 PM
I'll say this: Obama grandstands more than any president since Reagan. I wish he'd just come off it already; I'm sick of seeing him in primetime.
I disagree, respectfully of course.
The undesirable situation is precedence. For the first time the US has intervened in a conflict that is outside the scope of US interests on humanitarian grounds.
That is the sales pitch anyhow, The outcome is quit different of course as we blast a path for the rebel forces.
That precedence can lead us off to war until the dinosaurs return. Its endless and has the possibility of escalation in the long run. My statement is taken from my thoughts about his upcoming speech, and yes there is a very good chance that this will be very lengthy and it benefits no one, one of the reasons why it is that country where I live do not want to support with, 20 JAS 39 Gripen fighter planes as an example which I think is wrong, then this is one sanctioned by the UN and all countries should do their bit to help
nikimcbee
03-28-11, 02:33 PM
President Barack Obama tonight makes a speech he'd rather not be making: Explaining to his country, proud of its military but weary of war, why he has decided to bomb the armed forces of another Middle Eastern country.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/
Note: 14:50 UK time, Monday, 28 March 2011
I'm surprised he had the time. It must be half time during one of the basketball games.
The bravery of being out of range.....
I'm surprised he had the time. It must be half time during one of the basketball games.
...or the 7th inning stretch of a spring training White Sox game...
NeonSamurai
03-28-11, 02:39 PM
The irony to me is it always seems to be countries that have oil are more likely to have this sort of 'help'.
MothBalls
03-28-11, 02:46 PM
Think it might sound anything like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13xx1J5FdNE
4/14/86
nikimcbee
03-28-11, 02:48 PM
...or the 7th inning stretch of a spring training White Sox game...
touche:salute:
Aramike
03-28-11, 02:51 PM
The irony is that I *may have* supported Obama's decision to intervene in Libya - if I could ascertain a purpose behind it.
At this point however, all I can glean from our actions there is that he wants to be involved in case something goes well, but he wants to be able to distance himself if something goes wrong.
This is leadership at its worst. If he were really committed to a goal regarding Lybia, he would define said goal and take steps towards achieving it. Rather, like everything else these days as election time approaches, he's more interested in punting the responsibility in order to either claim credit or shirk failure later.
nikimcbee
03-28-11, 02:54 PM
President Barack Obama tonight makes a speech he'd rather not be making: Explaining to his country, proud of its military but weary of war, why he has decided to bomb the armed forces of another Middle Eastern country.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/
Note: 14:50 UK time, Monday, 28 March 2011
The real reason why HE is giving the speech...
(earlier in the week at the whitehouse....)
BO: Stop bothering me, I'm watching the game. Hillary, could you give that speech thingy again?
HRC: Shove off, do it yourself.
BO: Michelle, could you...
MO: Barry, turn the damn TV off and give the speech! We've going to miss our flight. Mother will be upset if we're late.
AVGWarhawk
03-28-11, 03:07 PM
The real reason why HE is giving the speech...
(earlier in the week at the whitehouse....)
BO: Stop bothering me, I'm watching the game. Hillary, could you give that speech thingy again?
HRC: Shove off, do it yourself.
BO: Michelle, could you...
MO: Barry, turn the damn TV off and give the speech! We've going to miss our flight. Mother will be upset if we're late.
Well, can you blame BO? After all it is March Madness and we are down to the final four. I was thinking post game speech was in order.
US President Barack Obama has defended the first war launched under his presidency, insisting US military involvement in Libya will be limited.
Addressing Americans, he said US intervention had saved "countless lives" threatened by the forces of the "tyrant" Muammar Gaddafi.
But having led the initial campaign, the US would hand over to Nato allies on Wednesday, he said.
Meanwhile, the rebel advance inside Libya has been slowed down near Sirte.
'Regime change' ruled out
"Tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gaddafi's deadly advance," Mr Obama said, speaking from the National Defense University in Washington DC.
But the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone "and protecting civilians on the ground" would now move to US "allies and partners".
"Because of this transition to a broader, Nato-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation - to our military, and to American taxpayers - will be reduced significantly," Mr Obama said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12888826
Note: Update Record,29 March 2011 Last updated at 00:28 GMT
UnderseaLcpl
03-28-11, 08:17 PM
I watched his speech. Actually, I thought he did a rather good job of explaining himself for the most part. I remain concerned about just who it is who will be in power afterwards and what they will do, though.
MothBalls
03-28-11, 08:27 PM
Here's his speech:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2011/03/28/president-obama-s-speech-libya
Tribesman
03-28-11, 08:43 PM
I remain concerned about just who it is who will be in power afterwards and what they will do, though.
The current council is mainly lawyers, diplomats, businessmen and ex officers with a teacher and a "royal" thrown in for good measure.
Several are US educated.
If they stay in power or not is another matter, then again the country may well be split up
I watched his speech. Actually, I thought he did a rather good job of explaining himself for the most part. I remain concerned about just who it is who will be in power afterwards and what they will do, though. What impression did he make you,good or bad?
UnderseaLcpl
03-28-11, 10:22 PM
What impression did he make you,good or bad?
Good. I understand what he was trying to do and I think he was trying to do the right thing. I don't agree with all of it, and I have tactical concerns about this operation, mostly because the pace of events is now being dictated by the rebels since we don't have troops on the ground. A battalion of Marines would make the goal of removing Qadaffi much more certain much more quickly.
Good. I understand what he was trying to do and I think he was trying to do the right thing. I don't agree with all of it, and I have tactical concerns about this operation, mostly because the pace of events is now being dictated by the rebels since we don't have troops on the ground. A battalion of Marines would make the goal of removing Qadaffi much more certain much more quickly. There, I agree, but unlikely at least on paper, but off the record, such an operation as "likely"
Aramike
03-28-11, 10:31 PM
His reasoning is fairly sound but it feels contrived from polling data rather than what led him to the decision in the first place. Why else did he not explain this to the public much sooner?
That's not to say I agree with him, either.
Maybe, depending on the situation as such, not sure what that leads to and what impact the whole mess,but of course he would have acted earlier
UnderseaLcpl
03-28-11, 11:09 PM
His reasoning is fairly sound but it feels contrived from polling data rather than what led him to the decision in the first place. Why else did he not explain this to the public much sooner?
Still trying to get the story straight, most likely. The Democratic politburo knew the Republicans would jump all over this for a lot of reasons. The talking heads at Fox have been relentlessly pounding every possible thing they can find about this all night: "Why is he taking us to war?", "Remember what he said about Bush?", "Why aren't we leading the coalition anymore?", "What happens afterwards?", "What happens now?", "Why aren't we in Syria?", "Why aren't we everywhere else?", "This is unconstitutional!", and about fifty other points.
Pure speculation on my part, but I think Obama wanted to go in right from the start and make it a good operation, likely in part so the Dems could have a military operation they could point to and say "That's how you do it!". As a political move, that would work out well for them since Republicans are the acknowledged "war" party. Well, nowadays anyway. I also say this because contrary to what he said in his speech, Obama did not make the decision to go in as soon as it became clear Benghazi was in danger. All this stuff, including many of the coalition missives, got in the works when the rebels were still winning.
Not that I care. Presumably, we helped save Benghazi and a lot of other people as well so that's good enough for me, might as well since we're there anyway. Personally, I'd have said let Europe do it if they care so much. They don't need our help with Qadaffi's joke of an army. But then again this isn't the non-interventionist country with no allies or enemies that I'd like it to be.
MothBalls
03-28-11, 11:41 PM
His reasoning is fairly sound but it feels contrived from polling data rather than what led him to the decision in the first place. Why else did he not explain this to the public much sooner?
That's not to say I agree with him, either.
Kinda feel the same way you do. If you watch Regan's address to the nation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13xx1J5FdNE you'll notice he made the announcement right after the bombs dropped. I would much rather hear about it the night it happened, rather than wait for the polls and take time to develop a PR speech. I think the fact that the election is right around the corner that they decided to wait and see how the public felt about this.
Turning over command is nothing more than a political move, and to pacify other Muslim countries in the area. Last thing we need is to have everyone in the middle east think we're trigger happy for Muslim countries, but the reality is we are. In the name of "Protecting American Interests" [SUV Fuel] we bomb the living **** out of another oil producing country. Kinda hard to hide our "interests".
In his speech he said it isn't out place to police the world. I agree. But I still have a problem with his statements about basic humanity, that we had to act (as a country) because so many people could be harmed. Yet we turned a blind eye to the events in Rwanda (I hate to keep harping on that but...) where 800,000 people were killed in three months. Then we pull the trigger quickly when it suits "out interest" to protect a few thousand. So how many people have to die before we intervene in the name of humanity?
The few billion we [the UN coalition] just committed to spending by bombing the shiznit out of someone could have bought a whole bunch of food and clean water for people in starving nations, in the name of humanity.
Sorry for the rant, but I just think it's time all of us, everyone in developed countries, pull our heads out of our asses, quit fighting and finally decide to help each other in the name of humanity and really mean it.
Platapus
03-29-11, 05:56 PM
I read President Obama's transcript today.
While he may have made a good argument for the need for military action to enforce the no fly zone as well as to "protect" the Libyan citizens,
In my opinion, he failed to make the argument that there is a need for United States military to participate.
This is something I think we need to stay out of. Let the regional powers over there handle it.
I often get the impression that the United States is too eager to go some place and kill people. Perhaps this is part of the military industrial complex attitude. Dunno.
In other words, a neutral speech!
President Obama, in his speech Monday evening on the American military role in Libya, said that the United States had a responsibility to intervene in foreign conflicts "when our interests and values are at stake."
Whether they agreed with the president or not, many analysts were quick to see the outlines of an Obama doctrine -- a grand strategy for American involvement in wars abroad. Did the president articulate such a blueprint? If so, what is it and what are the long-term risks and implications?
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/03/29/is-there-really-an-obama-doctrine?hp
Note: Updated March 29, 2011 11:32 PM
The Third Man
04-01-11, 01:00 AM
Obviously very little. It will come back to haunt Obama.
After all he said about GWB how can anyone support this option?
Takeda Shingen
04-01-11, 07:44 AM
President Obama, in his speech Monday evening on the American military role in Libya, said that the United States had a responsibility to intervene in foreign conflicts "when our interests and values are at stake."
Whether they agreed with the president or not, many analysts were quick to see the outlines of an Obama doctrine -- a grand strategy for American involvement in wars abroad. Did the president articulate such a blueprint? If so, what is it and what are the long-term risks and implications?
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/03/29/is-there-really-an-obama-doctrine?hp
Note: Updated March 29, 2011 11:32 PM
I've said this before, but despite assurances to the contrary, the 'Obama doctrine' is little more than a continuance of the 'Bush doctrine'; so much so that it might as well be a third term of Bush 43.
Takeda Shingen
04-01-11, 08:19 AM
Quite possible.
I think so. And as a continuation, the only thing I see different is the role reversal. In 2002/03/04, the Right called our actions laudable and patriotic, while the Left characterized them as being an abuse of power. Now, it is the Right screaming about abuse of power while the Left drones on about nobility in patiotism. I suppose it all comes down to what team you root for. Personally, I think both actions were and are bad news for the United States; a belief that I find to be validated by current events.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.