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

[BigRob]

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

So again...you assert "victory" really only means "cheaper"?

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

I suggest you evaluate the history of the region before making uniformed statements such as the one above.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that there was no internal rebellion in Iraq before we invaded? That is a total distortion of reality.

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!

Why you keep harping on failure in Iraq as if that somehow makes Libya automatically a success is beyond me.

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 measure success by the protection and furthering of our interests. A nation hardly has to be a "pet" to accomplish this.

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!"

Again, you are examining actions in Iraq in 2003 through a lens of 2011. As for "most of our allies" opposing Iraq...that is simply a lie again.

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!

Stability in oil markets is in our national interest. There is really no denying that at this point.

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!"

Every argument made for intervention in Libya could have easily applied to Iraq...

If Bush said we are intervening in Iraq to rid the world of a dictator who kills his own people and creates instability in the region would you have supported it? Odds are you would not...yet here you are supporting Obama's intervention in Libya on those exact grounds.

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!

No it's not. It is like a bill going through Congress. A member may hate the bill and want it to fail, but if it has the votes to pass, they might as well try to negotiate something to be included that benefits their district etc.

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

I know this is yet another swipe at Iraq, I suggest you examine how many countries actually were involved in that operation before dismissing them all as irrelevant.

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.

It is quite clear you somehow equate success to anything that is not Iraq. That is probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard. By that "logic" we could fail totally in a foreign policy endeavor, and you will call it a success because "it is not 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.

 

[clarkatticus]

Well, we could list other accomplishments. Like the fact that Bush in 8 years killed 59 known terrorists in Pakistan (compared to 5000+ by Obama). Obama also exposed Pakistan for what they really are, a money pit that cannot control it's own security services and military. It doesn't matter what happened in Iraq as long as we leave. No result there, good or bad, was worth the death of one American soldier, not to mention the tens of thousands of innocent Iraq civilians. With the resulting governments in Egypt, Tunesia, Yemen (soon) et al the good thing is that we will be dealing with governments that have the best interest of their people (at least somewhat). And other countries (Saudi Arabia, Morrocco) will liberalize their governments. Hate it all you want, Obama has done a GREAT job in foreign affairs. Oh, and if you think the French did most the flights over Libya, you might want to look that up.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

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



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.



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?



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?



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.



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.



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



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



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



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.

YOur not going to be happy with any wins in the middle east, since it seems your far more happy with bad Dictators who help the US..then people who may actuly listen to there own people...aka Democracy. And if the Evil Dictator falls, if a Republican pro American leader is not Elected in hours you start calling it a Failure.

 

[BigRob]

YOur not going to be happy with any wins in the middle east, since it seems your far more happy with bad Dictators who help the US..then people who may actuly listen to there own people...aka Democracy. And if the Evil Dictator falls, if a Republican pro American leader is not Elected in hours you start calling it a Failure.

I did not call it a failure, I simply think it is not a victory. The question you should always ask in terms of foreign policy is "what next.". Great, a dictator is gone....what next? No one has been able to answer that question with anything concrete. Frankly our track record on these scenarios is poor.

That aside, yes, I think there are times when promoting democracy is not in our interest. I have always been clear on that point.

 

[steveox]

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. . .

And Obama didnt get permisson from Congress to attack Libya,,Should been Impeached though,,,Bush got permisson to attack IRAQ.

 

[clarkatticus]

We gave Bush the keys to the car, we didn't tell him to drive it off a cliff.