So. . .not a word about the "weak in foreign policy"

[Openmind]

and "weak on terrorism" President!

Is it because President Obama's record speaks for itself?

Bush's war in Iraq: 10 years, $1 trillion, and over 4,000 American death.

Obama/NATO war in Libya: 8 months, $1 billion, and NO American death.

Bush's war on terrorism: Ziltch. . .nothing in 8 years.

Obama's war on terrorism: under 3 years, two top terrorists dead.

This is obviously a very short, very inadequate reminder of Obama's victory and comparison with Bush's "victories!"

But it will do for now. . .

 

[pocketfullofshells]

and "weak on terrorism" President!

Is it because President Obama's record speaks for itself?

Bush's war in Iraq: 10 years, $1 trillion, and over 4,000 American death.

Obama/NATO war in Libya: 8 months, $1 billion, and NO American death.

Bush's war on terrorism: Ziltch. . .nothing in 8 years.

Obama's war on terrorism: under 3 years, two top terrorists dead.

This is obviously a very short, very inadequate reminder of Obama's victory and comparison with Bush's "victories!"

But it will do for now. . .

actuly Bush had a few victories in the war on Terror...just not the big one...KSM, Taliban lost control ( he won, then lost it back again by not caring because it was not Iraq) and a few others...But Kadafi and OBL , a few top of the Haqani network, and top guys in Yemen.. kinda wins I think

 

[Openmind]

actuly Bush had a few victories in the war on Terror...just not the big one...KSM, Taliban lost control ( he won, then lost it back again by not caring because it was not Iraq) and a few others...But Kadafi and OBL , a few top of the Haqani network, and top guys in Yemen.. kinda wins I think

Thanks for the correction! I wouldn't deprive someone of their accomplishments. . .especially when there are so few!

 

[Openmind]

Thanks for the correction! I wouldn't deprive someone of their accomplishments. . .especially when there are so few!

Funny, still no comments about Obama/NATO's last victory. . .
I guess the "party line" spin hasn't come down clearly enough yet from Fox News and Limbaugh. . .

I'm sure we'll hear all the criticism on how "Obama should have gone into Libya earlier to save lives," and " Obama should have LED instead of follow NATO," or "we spent too much money."

Although. . . Lindsay Graham who was bashing Obama for even going into Libya is suddenly finding that "WE should go help those people establish a new democracy. . . because they have oil!!!"

Funny how greed always seems to overseed everything with the GOP policians!

 

[dogtowner]

Funny how greed always seems to overseed everything with the GOP policians!

Sarkosy is GOP ?

 

[Openmind]

Sarkosy is GOP ?

I didn't know Sarkosy was either an American or a Republican?

 

[dogtowner]

I didn't know Sarkosy was either an American or a Republican?

Exactly, its referred to as irony in prose. Nick drove the bus on this as France relies to a large extent on Libyan oil.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

When they where mad about Libya, it was All Obama...when its a success, its all France and the UK....

Typical

 

[dogtowner]

When they where mad about Libya, it was All Obama...when its a success, its all France and the UK....

Typical

Obama failed to follow the rules on committing forces so of course there was a problem. Its far too early to deem it a success. And since when did you guys get so bloodthirsty ? The military delivered Hussein alive to be tried for his crimes then executed OBL and the rebels executed Q-daffy and no outcry ? (Note: I have no issue with then being whacked. Way simpler and faster.)

 

[Openmind]

Obama failed to follow the rules on committing forces so of course there was a problem. Its far too early to deem it a success. And since when did you guys get so bloodthirsty ? The military delivered Hussein alive to be tried for his crimes then executed OBL and the rebels executed Q-daffy and no outcry ? (Note: I have no issue with then being whacked. Way simpler and faster.)

For what we wanted to do, for what the people of Libya wanted to do, it is a success, and a big one.

Whether or not (probably not) the Libyan people will turn toward us as "friends," remains to be seen. . .but that is their choice!
And it looks like, having spend $1 trillion in Iraq, and havign "delivered Hussein alive," and having lost 4,400 American soldiers in the process and this having taken 9 years is a MOOT POINT, since today, the Iraqui are turning towards Iran anyway!

So.. . .if you had even an ounce of fairness and decency, you would recognize that the way Obama went about getting rid of a dictator (by JOINING IN with other countries to HELP rather than impose their will on the Libyan) is a MUCH greater success than the "Bush" technique that made us only more enemies and cost us a trillion $.

But, knowing you, it is obvious that Obama scored another success. .. because you and a majority of the GOP/Tea party suddenly developped a green with envy attitude!

 

[BigRob]

Funny, still no comments about Obama/NATO's last victory. . .

What victory? Mere removal of a dictator in no way ensures a smooth transition to democracy...look at Iraq, look at Egypt, and now look at Libya.

You call it a "victory", but the reality is that this is simply the beginning, and with no real plan in place for a peaceful transition, the future of Libya is by no means secure.

I guess the "party line" spin hasn't come down clearly enough yet from Fox News and Limbaugh. . .

Comments such as this simply serve to make you appear small.

I'm sure we'll hear all the criticism on how "Obama should have gone into Libya earlier to save lives," and " Obama should have LED instead of follow NATO," or "we spent too much money."

My criticism will remain as it always was....what national interest was served by intervening in Libya? Our own Sec. of Defense said we had none at stake.

Although. . . Lindsay Graham who was bashing Obama for even going into Libya is suddenly finding that "WE should go help those people establish a new democracy. . . because they have oil!!!"

There is nothing wrong with opposition to an action, and then when the action occurs, making an effort to ensure it has a good outcome...something that is far from certain.

Funny how greed always seems to overseed everything with the GOP policians!

Graham is "greedy" because he argues since NATO overthrew the government we ought to take steps to ensure a meaningful transition? What does that make Obama?

It is in fact suddenly in our interest to to bring Libyian oil back online, and to get their economy moving to prevent radical elements from grabbing power.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Obama failed to follow the rules on committing forces so of course there was a problem. Its far too early to deem it a success. And since when did you guys get so bloodthirsty ? The military delivered Hussein alive to be tried for his crimes then executed OBL and the rebels executed Q-daffy and no outcry ? (Note: I have no issue with then being whacked. Way simpler and faster.)

well unless a new terror supporting dictator who kills and tortures his own, and who works on building wmd takes over...its a success...

the Liberation of Libya is a success...the only issue now is if the transformation to something better is..and that is on the people of Libya not us...the US should do as much as we can to help, but the people must choose there next moves.

Saddam was found in a hole, could not fight back...was taken alive..OBL was taken in a raid where they where fighting back, he had a gun with him...he moved...sucks for him...had they walked in and he was sitting with his hands up and or on his head and did not move...Bet we take him...he made a choice.. And I would be pretty pissed if the US shot Gadafi after taking him in alive...but it was not us, it was his people..and well...sucks for him...he should have surrendered to the US or some other nation...''I have never been a peace love hippie..sometimes you take someone out...my Issue with Bush was a unneeded war, based on lies and or bad intel that we should have known was bad ( and some did) and when we did we have poor planning for what most non neocons and blinded republicans knew was at least very possible...Notice I never said a thing about Afganstian outside send more troops and that where where not focusing enough on it.

 

[Openmind]

What victory? Mere removal of a dictator in no way ensures a smooth transition to democracy...look at Iraq, look at Egypt, and now look at Libya.

You call it a "victory", but the reality is that this is simply the beginning, and with no real plan in place for a peaceful transition, the future of Libya is by no means secure.

As I said before. . .it is AT LEAST as much as victory as the LONG, EXPENSIVE (both in money and in lives) war in Iraq. . .And for the rest, it is not our judgement of what a "democracy" should look like that matters. . .if that was it, we should be very worried for BOTH Libya AND Iraq. . .It is a GREAT victory because

1. It was started by the people of Libya, not by an American President
2. It only lasted a short time
3. It didn't cost $1 trillion
4. It didn't cost ANY American life.
5. It didn't make us any enemies, on the contrary, it demonstrated to the world that we could work TOGETHER with other nations to help people.
Comments such as this simply serve to make you appear small.

My criticism will remain as it always was....what national interest was served by intervening in Libya? Our own Sec. of Defense said we had none at stake.

We had as much "national interest" by intervening in Libya than we did invading Iraq! And the results may actually be BETTER than in Iraq. . .since they seem to be turned totally towards Iran!
There is nothing wrong with opposition to an action, and then when the action occurs, making an effort to ensure it has a good outcome...something that is far from certain.

Graham is "greedy" because he argues since NATO overthrew the government we ought to take steps to ensure a meaningful transition? What does that make Obama?

Graham is greedy because he is trying NOW to get the benefit of an intervention that HE BASHED Obama for, not because of "helping with a transition," but because he wants the OIL.

He is too stupid and dishonest to know that France is much closer to Libya than we are, and less "distrusted" than the US.
At the least, if Graham had an ounce of fairness, he would have recognize that Obama's action was beneficial and well planned.

But the GOP, and apparently yourself, can't afford to give credit for ANYTHING to Obama. . .although if ANY of our soldiers had died, or if we had spent $10 billions, or if we had still been there in November 2012, the GOP would have ATTACKED Obama for it!

It is in fact suddenly in our interest to to bring Libyian oil back online, and to get their economy moving to prevent radical elements from grabbing power.

It might be in OUR Interest, but if it is not in Libyans' interest, that's tough luck! And what appears to Republicans to be "radical" elements is awfully subjective. . .face it. . .the GOP calls the 99%ers "radical elements!"

 

[BigRob]

As I said before. . .it is AT LEAST as much as victory as the LONG, EXPENSIVE (both in money and in lives) war in Iraq. . .And for the rest, it is not our judgement of what a "democracy" should look like that matters. . .if that was it, we should be very worried for BOTH Libya AND Iraq. . .

Alright..it is at least as much a victory as Iraq...aka not much of one.

It is a GREAT victory because

1. It was started by the people of Libya, not by an American President

Rebellions are occuring all around the world in various places...included in Iraq before we invaded in 2003...that has nothing to do with anything.

2. It only lasted a short time

This again has nothing to do with anything...the real work has yet to begin. In Iraq the simple overthrow of Saddam took a mere days as well..so what?

3. It didn't cost $1 trillion
4. It didn't cost ANY American life.

I can agree it is cheaper and no American's were killed. That is positive, but is that how we measure "victory" now? Cost and death count?

5. It didn't make us any enemies, on the contrary, it demonstrated to the world that we could work TOGETHER with other nations to help people.

I think you are jumping the gun with this comment. Invading Iraq at first created no real enemies either, it was not until the aftermath that problems really started to arise.

We had as much "national interest" by intervening in Libya than we did invading Iraq! And the results may actually be BETTER than in Iraq. . .since they seem to be turned totally towards Iran!

So, either you are unable to answer the question of what national interest did we have at stake or you are dodging it...why?

Even if there was a perceived national interest (even if it turned out to be wrong, ie Iraq) it would have made more sense than the argument we heard.

Graham is greedy because he is trying NOW to get the benefit of an intervention that HE BASHED Obama for, not because of "helping with a transition," but because he wants the OIL.

So it is wrong to attempt to make the best of a bad situation?

He is too stupid and dishonest to know that France is much closer to Libya than we are, and less "distrusted" than the US.

This is irrelavent since NATO is leading the mission, and we have a say in NATO.

At the least, if Graham had an ounce of fairness, he would have recognize that Obama's action was beneficial and well planned.

Don't you even want to see the outcome before you slap yourself on the back and call it "well planned"?

But the GOP, and apparently yourself, can't afford to give credit for ANYTHING to Obama. . .although if ANY of our soldiers had died, or if we had spent $10 billions, or if we had still been there in November 2012, the GOP would have ATTACKED Obama for it!

Again, take off the Obama blinders and attempt to comprehend why I oppose action in Libya. It has nothing to do with who is in the White House. If it was a Republican I would be saying the exact same thing....apparently you are too blinded to see past the "everyone hates Obama" rhetoric. Sad.

It might be in OUR Interest, but if it is not in Libyans' interest, that's tough luck!

Are you going to sit here and tell me that Libyans selling oil is not in their interest?

That aside, you are damn right if something is in our interest and opposes Libyan interests then I would still support it.

And what appears to Republicans to be "radical" elements is awfully subjective. . .face it. . .the GOP calls the 99%ers "radical elements!"

And the Left called Grandma and Granpa Smith "terrorists". So what? People say stupid things...try to see past it.

 

[Openmind]

Alright..it is at least as much a victory as Iraq...aka not much of one.

BUT. . .infinitely LESS EXPENSIVE, both in terms of American life and in terms of money!

Rebellions are occuring all around the world in various places...included in Iraq before we invaded in 2003...that has nothing to do with anything.

Come on, Bob. . .Never heard about the "Arab Spring?" That was the "Spring of 2011," you know, not the "Spring of 2003!" Be real!

This again has nothing to do with anything...the real work has yet to begin. In Iraq the simple overthrow of Saddam took a mere days as well..so what?

So. . .it's not our problem, either way! And we didn't have to occupy a country for 9 years, only to be basically kicked out so Iraq can continue its honeymoon with Iran!

I can agree it is cheaper and no American's were killed. That is positive, but is that how we measure "victory" now? Cost and death count?

And how would YOU measure it for American people? If Libya (or Iraq) had turned out to be our "pets," or if we could continue to "manipulate" their politics, or if we continue to purchase their weapons for them like we do for Israel?

I think you are jumping the gun with this comment. Invading Iraq at first created no real enemies either, it was not until the aftermath that problems really started to arise.

You're kidding, right? Maybe not "enemies" at first, although Bush tried really hard when he said "those who are not with us are against us!" and most of our allies said. . ."go ahead, make a fool of yourself in Iraq!"


So, either you are unable to answer the question of what national interest did we have at stake or you are dodging it...why?

I just do not believe that we have to have a "national interest" to do the right thing. . .and OIL is not so much "national interest" than it is "big oil industry interest," another way we tried to "subsidize" big oil industry!

Even if there was a perceived national interest (even if it turned out to be wrong, ie Iraq) it would have made more sense than the argument we heard.

For you, maybe, not for me. The unstability created by a crazy dictator was enough of a time bomb to make many countries uncomfortable. . .and we didn't even have to lie about "weapons of mass destruction!"

So it is wrong to attempt to make the best of a bad situation?

It's wrong to be "profiters" after the fact. It's wrong to have so little integrity that one criticize the same person over and over again, then tries to take advantage of his accomplishment. A little honesty would help!

This is irrelavent since NATO is leading the mission, and we have a say in NATO.

Yep, now at least, under Obama, we can be SUCCESSFUL PARTICIPANTS instead of ISOLATED BULLIES!


Don't you even want to see the outcome before you slap yourself on the back and call it "well planned"?

As you said yourself, it was planned by NATO, as a support for the PEOPLE. And it was successful to this point. This is more than what we can say about IraQ.

Again, take off the Obama blinders and attempt to comprehend why I oppose action in Libya. It has nothing to do with who is in the White House. If it was a Republican I would be saying the exact same thing....apparently you are too blinded to see past the "everyone hates Obama" rhetoric. Sad.



Are you going to sit here and tell me that Libyans selling oil is not in their interest?

That aside, you are damn right if something is in our interest and opposes Libyan interests then I would still support it.



And the Left called Grandma and Granpa Smith "terrorists". So what? People say stupid things...try to see past it.[/QUOTE]