What Obama has to tell America about Libya

Gerald · 03-28-11, 10:55 AM

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

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"

Gerald · 03-28-11, 12:13 PM

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.

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.

Freiwillige · 03-28-11, 01:47 PM

Quote:

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.

Gerald · 03-28-11, 02:24 PM

Quote:

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

Factor · 03-28-11, 02:35 PM

The bravery of being out of range.....

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.

mookiemookie · 03-28-11, 12:47 PM

Quote:

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 · 03-28-11, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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

this

Gerald · 03-28-11, 01:14 PM

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 · 03-28-11, 01:30 PM

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

Bilge_Rat · 03-28-11, 01:07 PM

Quote:

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.

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.

03-28-11, 10:55 AM	#1
Gerald SUBSIM Newsman Join Date: May 2008 Location: Close to sea Posts: 24,254 Downloads: 553 Uploads: 0	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 __________________ Nothing in life is to be feard,it is only to be understood. Marie Curie

03-28-11, 12:13 PM	#3
Gerald SUBSIM Newsman Join Date: May 2008 Location: Close to sea Posts: 24,254 Downloads: 553 Uploads: 0	No undesirable situation directly, with the consequence of his actions __________________ Nothing in life is to be feard,it is only to be understood. Marie Curie

03-28-11, 12:45 PM	#5
GoldenRivet Subsim Aviator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 8,726 Downloads: 146 Uploads: 0	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. __________________

03-28-11, 01:14 PM	#12
Gerald SUBSIM Newsman Join Date: May 2008 Location: Close to sea Posts: 24,254 Downloads: 553 Uploads: 0	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 __________________ Nothing in life is to be feard,it is only to be understood. Marie Curie

03-28-11, 01:30 PM	#13
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	I'm afraid this will make many countries more islamist. Helping this along seems like a bad idea. __________________ "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." — Thomas Paine

03-28-11, 11:42 AM	#2
Tribesman Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	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"

03-28-11, 12:33 PM	#4
Armistead Rear Admiral Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: on the Dan Posts: 10,880 Downloads: 364 Uploads: 0	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.

03-28-11, 02:35 PM	#8
Factor Weps Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: North Carolina Posts: 356 Downloads: 180 Uploads: 0	The bravery of being out of range.....

03-28-11, 02:51 PM	#9
Aramike Ocean Warrior Best of SUBSIM Chairman Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 3,207 Downloads: 59 Uploads: 0	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.

03-28-11, 02:19 PM	#15
Takeda Shingen Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2000 Posts: 8,643 Downloads: 19 Uploads: 0	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.