Libya

[Conan71]

Has anybody actually been paying attention to anything about Libya?

First, has Obama said we will lead in the coalition to invade Libya with our ground troops?  No he said he wouldn't send them in.  
"should Iraqi President Saddam Hussein choose not to disarm, the United States will lead a coalition of the willing to disarm him."  -GWB


Does overthrowing a government lead to a power vacuum?  Yes absolutely.  But it sounds like you think we should bomb the rebels so that the country would be more stable.  The only reason why we bombed or did anything in Libya is because they have an active rebellion.  You know... They held actual cities.  Had military defectors.  The reason for bombing was to give them time to organize and to help with their superior firepower (but calling it protecting civilians of course).

Among the rebels, as well, there was a realization that fighting could be drawn out. Mohammed Abdul-Mullah, a 38-year-old civil engineer from Benghazi who was fighting with the rebel force, said government troops stopped all resistance after the international campaign began.

"The balance has changed a lot," he said. "But pro-Gadhafi forces are still strong. They are a professional military and they have good equipment. Ninety percent of us rebels are civilians, while Gadhafi's people are professional fighters."

http://www.northjersey.com/news/international/032111_Pentagon_Gadhafi_forces_in_disarray_after_assault.html

Where did you draw that conclusion from?  I really wonder about your's and other's critical reading skills at times.  Seems to follow the more liberal mindset.

I don't advocate any sort of military action in Libya right now.  There are no strategic U.S. interests at stake.   It's a civil uprising in a sovereign nation.

[Gaspar]

Where did you draw that conclusion from?  I really wonder about your's and other's critical reading skills at times.  Seems to follow the more liberal mindset.

I don't advocate any sort of military action in Libya right now.  There are no strategic U.S. interests at stake.   It's a civil uprising in a sovereign nation.

But what about European oil interests?  Primarily BP with the majority of the off-shore leases?
We have to fight for BP!  Right?

[Conan71]

But what about European oil interests?  Primarily BP with the majority of the off-shore leases?
We have to fight for BP!  Right?

Let 'em hire mercenaries.

[Gaspar]

Let 'em hire mercenaries.

They did!

[Conan71]

They did!

Let 'em hire more.  I think there's a bunch of idle insurgents in Iraq looking for a good conflict right now.

[Cats Cats Cats]

As if there's going to be any quicker stability in Libya if there's a sudden vacuum of power?

You are worried about the stability of Libya.  The most stable Libya can be in the near term is with the current Regime.  As you correctly stated, successfully overthrowing the government will create a power vacuum.  So, under the assumption that the best case scenario for the United States is to have the most stable Libya possible in the short term.  The failure of the civilian uprising is in our best interests (no power vacuum).  So, the quicker the rebellion is squashed the more stable Libya will be.

[Cats Cats Cats]

But what about European oil interests?  Primarily BP with the majority of the off-shore leases?
We have to fight for BP!  Right?

So you are saying that overthrowing the government is going to help major oil companies with existing agreements with Gaddafi?  I am pretty sure all existing oil contracts would be invalidated and new agreements would have to be made.  Are you assuming that the new government will have better contracts and those with existing contracts will come out better?

[we vs us]

I didn't get to see the Libya speech, but found this (from one of my new favorite libby blogs) to be an apt description of Obama's moves to date:

"1) Write political checks with your mouth that you have no intention of cashing with your military. 2) Keep acting like it's no big thing to your presidency, because you're a busy leader, and let the French take this bit in their mouth for once. 3) When all the ducks (UN, NATO, Arab League) are lined up, commit only the minimum of cutting-edge military assets to make this work, emphasizing no boots on the ground and absolutely no sense of responsibility for the aftermath — besides the usual superpower tithing. So yeah, a responsibility to protect, just no responsibility to pay the Bush-Cheney standard of 90-percent of blood and treasure."

[Cats Cats Cats]

I didn't get to see the Libya speech, but found this (from one of my new favorite libby blogs) to be an apt description of Obama's moves to date:

"1) Write political checks with your mouth that you have no intention of cashing with your military. 2) Keep acting like it's no big thing to your presidency, because you're a busy leader, and let the French take this bit in their mouth for once. 3) When all the ducks (UN, NATO, Arab League) are lined up, commit only the minimum of cutting-edge military assets to make this work, emphasizing no boots on the ground and absolutely no sense of responsibility for the aftermath — besides the usual superpower tithing. So yeah, a responsibility to protect, just no responsibility to pay the Bush-Cheney standard of 90-percent of blood and treasure."

You can find the video online on msnbc.  Sure it will be up many places.

[Gaspar]

It was the standard President Obama "But" speech.

"Bla Bla Bla, but. . ."
"Bla Bla Bla, but. . ."
"Bla Bla Bla, but. . ."

That seems to sum up all of his speeches.  He gives his passionate position and then says "but" and explains why he is acting opposite.  Or. . . He says what people want to hear and then adds "but" and explains why he is not doing that.

The wife and I spent about an hour on YouTube going through his past speeches laughing at this pattern.

Over all he gave Luke-warm speech that provided some explanation, but I think it will be even less acceptable to liberals because he sounded like President Obama trying to sound like President Bush sans-commitment.

I am happy that he started by recognizing American exceptionalism.

[Cats Cats Cats]

He brought up the argument against him.  Then brought up his statement why he is right.  He was responding to criticism, so he gave both sides of the story.  This helps educate the many that have no idea what is going on. 

[Townsend]

 This helps educate the many that have no idea what is going on.  

Unless they don't listen or refuse to listen or are confused by the scary guy on television with the "furiner's" name.

[Conan71]

I didn't get to see the Libya speech, but found this (from one of my new favorite libby blogs) to be an apt description of Obama's moves to date:

"1) Write political checks with your mouth that you have no intention of cashing with your military. 2) Keep acting like it's no big thing to your presidency, because you're a busy leader, and let the French take this bit in their mouth for once. 3) When all the ducks (UN, NATO, Arab League) are lined up, commit only the minimum of cutting-edge military assets to make this work, emphasizing no boots on the ground and absolutely no sense of responsibility for the aftermath — besides the usual superpower tithing. So yeah, a responsibility to protect, just no responsibility to pay the Bush-Cheney standard of 90-percent of blood and treasure."

When did you start reading neo-con blogs? 

[Gaspar]

Trog, it's deeper than that.

His speeches can be broken down into this:

First part of sentence = [understood reality of the situation]
"BUT"
Second part of sentence = [what President Obama actually believes is of primary importance]

You're right, this allows him to present both sides of an argument and in many cases take neither.  Politics for politics sake.  Listen for it and you will not be disappointed. 

[Cats Cats Cats]

Trog, it's deeper than that.

His speeches can be broken down into this:

First part of sentence = [understood reality of the situation]
"BUT"
Second part of sentence = [what President Obama actually believes is of primary importance]

You're right, this allows him to present both sides of an argument and in many cases take neither.  Politics for politics sake.  Listen for it and you will not be disappointed.  

Every But from last night.  Doesn't seem to be used for point/counterpoint though.



Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world's many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That is what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks.


Because while our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives, we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people.

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.

Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq's future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.


will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.


It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Gaddafi tries desperately to hang on to power. but it should be clear to those around Gadaffi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on his side.

There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and common security – responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America's problems alone, but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world's most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.


In such cases, we should not be afraid to act – but the burden of action should not be America's alone.

The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change. Only the people of the region can do that. but we can make a difference.

but let us also remember that for generations, we have done the hard work of protecting our own people, as well as millions around the globe. We have done so because we know that our own future is safer and brighter if more of mankind can live with the bright light of freedom and dignity. Tonight, let us give thanks for the Americans who are serving through these trying times, and the coalition that is carrying our effort forward; and let us look to the future with confidence and hope not only for our own country, but for all those yearning for freedom around the world. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.