Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Good to see a President who finally gets it
Protect the rights of civilians
Build a global coalition
Keep the US in a support role
Don't put our soldiers at risk
Allow the EU to take the lead
Well played President Obama...well played
Exactly. We went to the U.N. on purpose. Whats so hard to understand about that.
It gives our actions legitimacy having the U.N. AND the Arab League behind the decision. U.S. goes in 1st w/ the precision bombing/softening-up Gaddafi then we turn it over to the French/U.K. to enforce the no-fly zone.
Good to see a President who finally gets it
Protect the rights of civilians
Build a global coalition
Keep the US in a support role
Don't put our soldiers at risk
Allow the EU to take the lead
Well played President Obama...well played
Exactly. We went to the U.N. on purpose. Whats so hard to understand about that.
It gives our actions legitimacy having the U.N. AND the Arab League behind the decision. U.S. goes in 1st w/ the precision bombing/softening-up Gaddafi then we turn it over to the French/U.K. to enforce the no-fly zone.
Because the United Nations does NOT override The Sovereignty of the Untied States and it's Constitution.
Got it ACE?
Exactly. We went to the U.N. on purpose. Whats so hard to understand about that.
It gives our actions legitimacy having the U.N. AND the Arab League behind the decision. U.S. goes in 1st w/ the precision bombing/softening-up Gaddafi then we turn it over to the French/U.K. to enforce the no-fly zone.
Because the United Nations does NOT override The Sovereignty of the Untied States and it's Constitution.
Got it ACE?
Where has that happened?
What has happened is that US Military actions have legitimacy on the world stage and we get to benefit from international cooperation
No wonder Conservatives hate it
Exactly. We went to the U.N. on purpose. Whats so hard to understand about that.
It gives our actions legitimacy having the U.N. AND the Arab League behind the decision. U.S. goes in 1st w/ the precision bombing/softening-up Gaddafi then we turn it over to the French/U.K. to enforce the no-fly zone.
Because the United Nations does NOT override The Sovereignty of the Untied States and it's Constitution.
Got it ACE?
Where has that happened?
What has happened is that US Military actions have legitimacy on the world stage and we get to benefit from international cooperation
No wonder Conservatives hate it
Because the United Nations does NOT override The Sovereignty of the Untied States and it's Constitution.
Got it ACE?
Where has that happened?
What has happened is that US Military actions have legitimacy on the world stage and we get to benefit from international cooperation
No wonder Conservatives hate it
Thing is? Congressional approval first. Or doesn't the Constitution mean squat to you when we are spending treasure overseas, and not on pet projecs like welfare?
I see how selective you idiots are when it comes to military action.
What we should do, militarily in regard to civil uprisings and civil war in these Arab countries is stay the fuck out of it. Don't we have enough problems here at home without getting involved in another war. If the UN or NATO wants to get involved, fine as long as we don't have a major role.In an effort to keep the OP here a little bit brief, here's the disclaimer. I don't know what my policy would be in the matter of the Middle East uprisings and with regard to Libya (and Egypt, etc). In fairness, therefor, before I discuss what President Obama has been doing and not doing, I confess I do not see any good solutions, either.
The trouble is: we the People elected HIM to be President and he's supposed to chart the course. He could chart a great course (or at least the course that's least bad). Or he could chart a piss-poor course. Either way, at least our foreign policy wouldn't be simply "adrift." At present, I submit we are adrift. And we are adrift because this President lets events (and the U.N.) decide things FOR him rather than trying to take the reins.
In terms of Libya (and this applies to Egypt, too): the problem is very complicated. I don't think there IS a good choice to be made. If we support the people who are rising up against that brutal fuck, Mohammar Kadaffy-fuck, we are essentially providing aid (and munitions?) to a bunch of Muslim "brotherhood" scumbags who will turn out to be al qaeda supported bastards. That does not strike me as sound U.S. foreign policy.
On the other hand, what are we supposed to do? Support that evil prick, Kaddafy-fuck? He murdered lots of our people. He is a low rent monster. If we supported HIM out of fear of who is behind this uprising stuff, the people there would have pretty clear reason to hate our fucking guts. Well, hate us even more, that is. And that could blow up on us, too.
Third option is to be "neutral." But that will only make us look weak and indecisive in the eyes of the leaders of the other nations on our little blue planet. And it will be said (with some justification) that our inaction HELPS the dictator.
Since I can't see a good course to follow, I have some trouble being overly critical of President Obama in this. And yet, it seems to also be true that he wanted the job. He is the one who is supposed to be making these tough choices. And he is doing what? He initially waited for the UN to "act." We then become one of the followers, relinquishing our role as a "leader." And this creates world-wide perceptions. And those perceptions have consequences.
And now he is weakly contemplating arming the rebels even as we learn that they have direct support (including fighting forces) from al qaeda. In short, he seems waffling and weak and indecisive, but when he does finally make a choice, he seems to be making serious mistakes.
I wish we could demand a recall referendum. He and Vice President Biden need to go.
Exactly how Obama is playing it
Why does the US always have to carry the water in UN military actions?
Let France do the heavy work while we provide oversight
Where has that happened?
What has happened is that US Military actions have legitimacy on the world stage and we get to benefit from international cooperation
No wonder Conservatives hate it
Thing is? Congressional approval first. Or doesn't the Constitution mean squat to you when we are spending treasure overseas, and not on pet projecs like welfare?
I see how selective you idiots are when it comes to military action.
The President is given wide latitude in Military engagements.......much like Ron Reagan had when he attacked Libya
Exactly, RW, which is why I've supported Obama on this, despite the reservations I have about him personally. I don't want to undermine our national policy, for partisan advantage. With that said, I have to admit I'm concerned as to whether this administration has a coherent policy here, or is making it up as it goes along (and possibly falling behind the curve). I like the idea of having other nations on board, but I recall that a lot of U.N interventions have been failures, failures that did not serve our nation's interest, which is, after all, the primary objective of our foreign policy .Where has that happened?
What has happened is that US Military actions have legitimacy on the world stage and we get to benefit from international cooperation
No wonder Conservatives hate it
Thing is? Congressional approval first. Or doesn't the Constitution mean squat to you when we are spending treasure overseas, and not on pet projecs like welfare?
I see how selective you idiots are when it comes to military action.
The President is given wide latitude in Military engagements.......much like Ron Reagan had when he attacked Libya
Exactly, RW, which is why I've supported Obama on this, despite the reservations I have about him personally. I don't want to undermine our national policy, for partisan advantage. With that said, I have to admit I'm concerned as to whether this administration has a coherent policy here, or is making it up as it goes along (and possibly falling behind the curve). I like the idea of having other nations on board, but I recall that a lot of U.N interventions have been failures, failures that did not serve our nation's interest, which is, after all, the primary objective of our foreign policy .Thing is? Congressional approval first. Or doesn't the Constitution mean squat to you when we are spending treasure overseas, and not on pet projecs like welfare?
I see how selective you idiots are when it comes to military action.
The President is given wide latitude in Military engagements.......much like Ron Reagan had when he attacked Libya
I hope I'm wrong, but I see a lot of apparent indecision, waffling, and uncertainty, when I'd feel more comfortable with a sure and steady hand at the wheel. I'll remain supportive, for the time being, but I AM concerned.
Actually there is the Libyan opposition we are "supporting" and they are not AQ. I created a thread about it last week but since it didn't say AQ in it nobody cared.A more subtle (and devious and Machiavellian) foreign policy might have been to "secretly" play both ends against the middle. Support the rebels through back channels and so forth. But also arrange to give Kaddafy-fuck a tepid (and unpublicized) demonstration of support. If the rebels win, we take credit for having helped. If Kaddafy-fuck wins, he will know that we were at least giving him some tepid support (and hopefully won't know about our double dealing).
And, here's the trickiest part: the entire time in which we are secretly playing both sides against the middle, we are also secretly working (behind the scenes, of course) towards setting up some alternative "leadership" which will at least remain neutral as far as our international interests in the region.
Given the lack of viable alternative choices, this devious and borderline unethical foreign policy would at least make some effort to secure our own needs. But something tells me this Administration isn't ANYWHERE close to being up for the job.
Actually there is the Libyan opposition we are "supporting" and they are not AQ. I created a thread about it last week but since it didn't say AQ in it nobody cared.A more subtle (and devious and Machiavellian) foreign policy might have been to "secretly" play both ends against the middle. Support the rebels through back channels and so forth. But also arrange to give Kaddafy-fuck a tepid (and unpublicized) demonstration of support. If the rebels win, we take credit for having helped. If Kaddafy-fuck wins, he will know that we were at least giving him some tepid support (and hopefully won't know about our double dealing).
And, here's the trickiest part: the entire time in which we are secretly playing both sides against the middle, we are also secretly working (behind the scenes, of course) towards setting up some alternative "leadership" which will at least remain neutral as far as our international interests in the region.
Given the lack of viable alternative choices, this devious and borderline unethical foreign policy would at least make some effort to secure our own needs. But something tells me this Administration isn't ANYWHERE close to being up for the job.
Sean Hannity Discussion - View Single Post - On Presidential Authority and Lawlessness: Re; Libya
Why the 'indecision' charge?
Bush took 6 MONTHS from the time he got the Iraq authorization until he finally invaded Iraq.
I don't recall any of his cheerleaders then or now labeling that as 'indecision'.
because the tactical situations are entirely different, Libya ala the relative positions of the rebels and force that would have been required a month ago, had flipped. The situation in Iraq was not getting any better or any worse, the situation was not near as fluid.
So 6 months of dithering on Bush's part was insignificant because Saddam was not an imminent threat?
lol, good one.
Why the 'indecision' charge?
Bush took 6 MONTHS from the time he got the Iraq authorization until he finally invaded Iraq.
I don't recall any of his cheerleaders then or now labeling that as 'indecision'.
because the tactical situations are entirely different, Libya ala the relative positions of the rebels and force that would have been required a month ago, had flipped. The situation in Iraq was not getting any better or any worse, the situation was not near as fluid.
Since we have no business there in the first place, the 1 or 2 week delay is immaterial.
Even for those who otherwise support this, going in earlier would have required a unilateral or nearly so action, which would have given the rest of the current coalition a golden opportunity to leave us with the whole mess, or most of it, in other words the same old story.
The criticism of Obama's 'dithering' and 'indecisiveness' is merely a last ditch effort by one set Obama haters (the ones who otherwise support going after Khadaffi) to find fault with Obama somehow.
reagan attacked Libya in response to a Libyan attack on US service personell. Well within the very LIMITTED scope of his authority to engage militarily.Where has that happened?
What has happened is that US Military actions have legitimacy on the world stage and we get to benefit from international cooperation
No wonder Conservatives hate it
Thing is? Congressional approval first. Or doesn't the Constitution mean squat to you when we are spending treasure overseas, and not on pet projecs like welfare?
I see how selective you idiots are when it comes to military action.
The President is given wide latitude in Military engagements.......much like Ron Reagan had when he attacked Libya
I support WHAT we are doing in libya, I do NOT support it being done unlawfully.Exactly, RW, which is why I've supported Obama on this, despite the reservations I have about him personally. I don't want to undermine our national policy, for partisan advantage. With that said, I have to admit I'm concerned as to whether this administration has a coherent policy here, or is making it up as it goes along (and possibly falling behind the curve). I like the idea of having other nations on board, but I recall that a lot of U.N interventions have been failures, failures that did not serve our nation's interest, which is, after all, the primary objective of our foreign policy .Thing is? Congressional approval first. Or doesn't the Constitution mean squat to you when we are spending treasure overseas, and not on pet projecs like welfare?
I see how selective you idiots are when it comes to military action.
The President is given wide latitude in Military engagements.......much like Ron Reagan had when he attacked Libya
I hope I'm wrong, but I see a lot of apparent indecision, waffling, and uncertainty, when I'd feel more comfortable with a sure and steady hand at the wheel. I'll remain supportive, for the time being, but I AM concerned.
I included the wrong link, this is itActually there is the Libyan opposition we are "supporting" and they are not AQ. I created a thread about it last week but since it didn't say AQ in it nobody cared.A more subtle (and devious and Machiavellian) foreign policy might have been to "secretly" play both ends against the middle. Support the rebels through back channels and so forth. But also arrange to give Kaddafy-fuck a tepid (and unpublicized) demonstration of support. If the rebels win, we take credit for having helped. If Kaddafy-fuck wins, he will know that we were at least giving him some tepid support (and hopefully won't know about our double dealing).
And, here's the trickiest part: the entire time in which we are secretly playing both sides against the middle, we are also secretly working (behind the scenes, of course) towards setting up some alternative "leadership" which will at least remain neutral as far as our international interests in the region.
Given the lack of viable alternative choices, this devious and borderline unethical foreign policy would at least make some effort to secure our own needs. But something tells me this Administration isn't ANYWHERE close to being up for the job.
Sean Hannity Discussion - View Single Post - On Presidential Authority and Lawlessness: Re; Libya
I recently saw that some rebel commander, there, acknowledged that the rebels were using outside help, including al qaeda.
Camel's nose under the tent flap.
And, al qaeda aside, the rebels we are helping still have connections to the so-called Muslim Brotherhood. No bargain there, either.
