Similar sayings about Iraq and Saddam. Don't think it is our business. But either way, it will be better than a long war with a ground invasion against the will of the majority of the world.
Please. Everything O-bomb-a reads has been through about 4 different marketing and polling filters, including his own.
More news on the Kinetic Military Action that you won't see on FoxNews, MSNBC, or in the pages of the NYT. Meanwhile, in what must have been a mistake, the WaPo is reporting that the O-bomb-a administration is sending out people on the ground in Libya to find out exactly who we are, er, I mean NATO is, funding. What a clusterfuck. http://somalilandpress.com/libya-rebels-execute-black-immigrants-while-forces-kidnap-others-20586
Yeah, I've been thinking a lot about past conflicts the past few weeks. Grenada, Panama, Kosovo, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Gulf War, Somalia. The recurring theme I see in these is that the short ones (aside from Somalia) were popular, the long ones weren't. The ones where we were clearly on the side of people on the streets where the fighting happened (Kosovo, Panama, Gulf War) were popular, but where there was much ambiguity, they weren't popular among the American public. Libya may wind up being protracted, but Obama seems pretty clear in his intent not to get sucked into putting boots on the ground. Which means the lions share of our headline-grabbing involvement may span a few weeks. From what the media tells me, we seem to be on the side of the people on the street in Libya. So that's a good omen too. Given that I live on the other side of the globe and don't know the area, I'm really just speculating. But it seems like this should fall more on the Grenada/Panama/Kosovo side of the spectrum than the Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan side.
Does anyone else think Barack Obama would be happiest as the UN Secretary General? I think that would be a terrific job for him.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-2002-toppling-brutal-dictator-dumb President Barack Obama, as an Illinois state senator in 2002, said that using military force to topple a murderous dictator amounted to a “dumb war” and should be opposed. because Iraq posed no “direct threat” to the United States. Obama also cited Iraq’s weakened economy and the fact that it was still possible to contain Saddam’s aggression, repudiating the Bush administration’s rationale that Saddam posed too great a threat to American interests and his own people to be left in power. “But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military is a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history,” said Sen. Obama. Obama, in his 2002 speech, said that instead of deposing Saddam through force, America should “fight” for democratic reforms in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, stronger international nuclear safeguards, and energy independence. “Those are the battles that we need to fight,” Obama said in 2002. “Those are the battles that we willingly join – the battles against ignorance and intolerance, corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.”
Is there much precedent for that? Has the US ever sent troops into a war zone because the UN or NATO ordered it against the will of a president? Truth is that in this day and age, regardless of what the constitution or the UN or NATO says, war happens where the president says it's going to happen. I take Obama at his word that he's not interested in a boots-on-the-ground operation. Mostly because he can see the same evidence I do about the likely political outcome. Americans are sick of it.
Well, there were numerous news stories about Hillary quitting (end of 1st term at the latest) over Obama dragging his feet before giving the "go" order. That would indicate he wasn't all that willing until the UN voted that we should go bomb Libya. Or that he wanted war beyond a no fly zone. http://www.salon.com/news/media_cri...2011/03/22/women_forced_obama_to_war_open2011 Was Obama henpecked into war? http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0311/Boys_against_girls_over_Libya.html?showall As has been reported, the crucial decisions were made at a pair of meetings Tuesday, which an Administration official said were far from the showdowns depicted in some accounts. Power, for instance, was present at a 4:10 p.m. meeting but didn't speak, an official said; Clinton, overseas, wasn't patched in to that meeting. Obama, told a no-fly zone wouldn't be enough to stop Qadhafi, sent Donilon to draw up other political and military options in the Situation Room, the official said; Donilon brought his notes to a 9:00 p.m. principals' meeting, at which the course was set.
Thanks for that info, and also for warheads-on-foreheads, which I haven't heard before - I like that one. barfo
NATO (and surprisingly, the Obomba administation - I though they gave up control??) is now considering bombing the "rebels" that we're supposed to be siding with. Heckuva job, Barry. The comments to the actual article would be funny, if this entire clusterfuck weren't so sad.
So, as I read it, NATO/Obomba are now just going to bomb any Muslims who don't follow their orders? How can anybody not consider this an absolute disaster at this point?
You mean Brian is going to share more military lingo? Bring it on, Brian. Especially ones that rhyme, like warheads on foreheads. barfo
we have to remember them somehow. And some of us aren't smart enough to even spell mnemonic, much less know what it means.
So if the male advisers had won out, would you be saying now that Obama was cock blocked from going into war? I hate to put on my crandc hat, but the whole gender thing seems silly. Sometimes some people have more convincing arguments than others. Sometimes those smarter people happen to have vaginas. And I don't see how the presence or absence of vaginas of his staff impacts his decision to follow lockstep with whatever the UN or NATO says. Anyway, even the writer of that article disagrees with your point:
Mook My point wasn't about the gender thing but about how people in the State Dept. were upset with Obama dragging his feet before acting. If you want to argue Obama is a warmonger chomping on the bit to get us into war in Libya, I'll concede your point. Though he should have acted weeks earlier if his objectives are what he claims. Why give ghadaffi 2 weeks notice so he can do his worst?
Sorry. I saw you type "henpecked" and it sounded pretty sexist to me. Turns out it's a gender-neutral term. I guess hens can be boys or girls. Go figure. (Side note: I need to tell my sons some bad news about their pet chickens. ) Weird that you'd concede the point that he's a "warmonger" in one sentence and a war procrastinator in the next. I don't get that. Anyway, I don't think he's really either. I think the delay came from trying to figure out what the hell to do, and then building an international consensus. It took a couple of weeks. I don't know that the delay was worth it, or that I'll ever know. *shrug* This stuff isn't easy. I do know that pretty much every other operation I listed earlier took several weeks to a year to get moving.
Not much news out of either Libya or Egypt, or have things taken a turn for the worse? Is Qadaffi still running Libya? Are the "rebels" still slaughtering citizens?
