What Obama has to tell America about Libya

[Gerald]

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

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"

[Gerald]

No undesirable situation directly, with the consequence of his actions

[Armistead]

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]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

If we'd just stop screwing with people in the Middle East, maybe we'll be better off.

this

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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.

[Gerald]

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

[tater]

I'm afraid this will make many countries more islamist. Helping this along seems like a bad idea.

[gimpy117]

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.

[Gerald]

Islamists will always exist, regardless of the actions taken

[Freiwillige]

Originally Posted by Vendor

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]

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.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

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