Obama's Libya strategy a failure

[genpop]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43198089...deast_n_africa

NOPE, I dont think so. Obama was heavily criticized on this forum for meddling with Libya and/or not striking hard enough. He was also criticized for allowing the Europeans to take the lead. Well that strategy of letting others take the lead is paying off as NATO's bombing campaign is hurting Ghaddafi and now even Russia says he must go. Eventually Ghadaffi will go and guess what...

It wont cost a trillion dollars and American lives like Iraq!

[JuBru]

Of course not, it's Libya. You know there are a few countries between the two and they are on two different continents, right?

But why aren't you mad about this war for oil here (where it actually is for that) like you are/were for Iraq (where it wasn't)???

[genpop]

Of course not, it's Libya. You know there are a few countries between the two and they are on two different continents, right?

But why aren't you mad about this

war for oil

here (where it actually is for that) like you are/were for Iraq (where it wasn't)???

That's news to me. Why/How is it a war for oil?

[JuBru]

Really? Are you that damn stupid? You hear more about the oil in Libya than you do Gaddafhi and the rebels. Hell, did you read your own link?

Russia may also be eyeing Libya's oil and gas

There is no maybe. It is the ONLY reason they and the rest of Europe are involved.

[genpop]

Really? Are you that damn stupid? You hear more about the oil in Libya than you do Gaddafhi and the rebels. Hell, did you read your own link? There is no maybe. It is the ONLY reason they and the rest of Europe are involved.

OUR President did NOT send us to Libya to fight for oil. We have no control over what other countries choose to do. Why is it Obama's fault? On the other hand, Bush DID send us to IRAQ and it wasn't to so call FREE Iraqis. Bush didn't give a damn about the Iraqi people.

[T_Won]

OUR President did NOT send us to Libya to fight for oil. We have no control over what other countries choose to do. Why is it Obama's fault? On the other hand, Bush DID send us to IRAQ and it wasn't to so call FREE Iraqis. Bush didn't give a damn about the Iraqi people.

There were a couple of reasons for Libya. The oil is very important for our European allies. Hillary said they were there to help us out in Iraq, so we kind of owed them this.

Second (Beck's research): It was to set a new precedent for interventions across the globe. It's a sovereignty issue. Samantha Power wrote a book "A Problem from Hell." She laid out in it that America has a moral obligation to intervene in such situations as Libya. Her book was eventually adopted by the UN as "the Responsibility to Protect Clause:" "If a state fails to protect its citizens from "genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity," it becomes the international community's responsibility to do so."

The problem is that it is being used selectively and politically... why Libya and not Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, etc...?

Beck's concern: This is really about how the US can go at Israel to protect the Palestinians.

[RhythmDawg]

OUR President did NOT send us to Libya to fight for oil. We have no control over what other countries choose to do. Why is it Obama's fault? On the other hand, Bush DID send us to IRAQ and it wasn't to so call FREE Iraqis. Bush didn't give a damn about the Iraqi people.

And how do you KNOW any of that? You don't.

[JuBru]

OUR President did NOT send us to Libya to fight for oil. We have no control over what other countries choose to do. Why is it Obama's fault? On the other hand, Bush DID send us to IRAQ and it wasn't to so call FREE Iraqis. Bush didn't give a damn about the Iraqi people.

Even though I didn't say that, he did by proxy since he supported the Europeans cause (oil). I'm not blaming Obama for going in Libya, I agree with his decision to go in. My gripe has always been the manner in which the mission has been conducted, and now add the fact he's blatantly going against the Constitution and War Powers Act (something Bush never actually did).

Maybe the whole reason to go into Iraq was to settle a grudge with Hussein, no one knows. But our mission was indeed to free the Iraqi people, finally punish him after a decade of being slapped on the wrist, to pursue WMDs, and a host of other reasons you'll never comprehend. (Let's not get into your failed lies on this one, again.) But WHY even bring Bush up? Just shut the hell up about him because you never have the faintest of clue of what you are talking about.

[genpop]

Even though I didn't say that, he did by proxy since he supported the Europeans cause (oil). I'm not blaming Obama for going in Libya, I agree with his decision to go in. My gripe has always been the manner in which the mission has been conducted, and now add the fact he's blatantly going against the Constitution and War Powers Act (something Bush never actually did).

Maybe the whole reason to go into Iraq was to settle a grudge with Hussein, no one knows.

But our mission was indeed to free the Iraqi people, finally punish him after a decade of being slapped on the wrist

, to pursue WMDs, and a host of other reasons you'll never comprehend. (Let's not get into your failed lies on this one, again.) But WHY even bring Bush up? Just shut the hell up about him because you never have the faintest of clue of what you are talking about.

That is a lie, but even if what you are saying is true, it would be a shame if young American boys and girls had to pay the ultimate sacrifice over a grudge. You make yourselves look so stupid when you try to hold Obama to this impossible standard but give Bush a pass in the most aggregious circumstances.

[mildawg]

And how do you KNOW any of that? You don't.

Because he's a libtard and makes up his own facts and reality. That's how they always come up with the shit they spew. I can't believe anyone would actually engage this douchebag in a conversation.

[mildawg]

That is a lie, but even if what you are saying is true, it would be a shame if young American boys and girls had to pay the ultimate sacrifice over a grudge. You make yourselves look so stupid when you try to hold Obama to this impossible standard but give Bush a pass in the most aggregious circumstances.

First things first, dumbass -- it's egregious. As for the rest of the post, we can plainly see who's making himself look stupid.

[JuBru]

That is a lie, but even if what you are saying is true, it would be a shame if young American boys and girls had to pay the ultimate sacrifice over a grudge. You make yourselves look so stupid when you try to hold Obama to this impossible standard but give Bush a pass in the most aggregious circumstances.

The amount of stupid coming from your post rivals the radiation at Chernobyl.

I take it you've never been in a debate class or had to argue against anyone before, because you ate absolutely horrible at making an argument.

Bush and Obama ****ed up- can't get much more plain or "fair" than that.

[genpop]

The amount of stupid coming from your post rivals the radiation at Chernobyl.

I take it you've never been in a debate class or had to argue against anyone before, because you ate absolutely horrible at making an argument.

Bush ****ed up- can't get much more plain or "fair" than that.

We actually agree.

[JuBru]

You edited out Obama- you make yourself look so stupid when you try to hold Bush to this impossible standard but give Obama a pass in the most aggregious circumstances.

[genpop]

You edited out Obama- you make yourself look so stupid when you try to hold Bush to this impossible standard but give Obama a pass in the most aggregious circumstances.

Obama has had more accomplishments in his first 2 1/2 years than Bush in his whole presidency and with a whole lot less death of America's soldiers. You as a supposed soldier should be honoring that instead of praising Bush's follies.