• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

FACT CHECK: How Obama's Libya claims fit the facts

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Doc Savage Fan said:
Sounds familiar doesn't it. I'm no Bush fan but it was ridiculous how the Left took every minute thing he did, magnified it way out of proportion, and then took great joy in hating him for it with every ounce of their being.

Now Obama is getting treated in the same fashion....surprise, surprise.
Click to expand...

Yep, the repubs back then acted like they were above doing that sort of thing.

Guess they're no different from the libs they hate. 🙂
 
Fact check it? You don't need to fact check anything. It was a speech full of double speak and he said one thing that made me know he was just a piece of shit politician like the rest, "we aren't there to force regime change". Then why are we blowing Ghaddafi up and helping the rebels? The only thing the rebels want is forced regime change. Our own leaders have said, in front of the UN, that we want Ghaddafi gone. Our allies leaders have said they want him gone. We're not there to force regime change? That's the ONLY reason we're there.

Fucking disgusting and some of you fall for that shit hook line and sinker.
 
soundforbjt said:
Yep, the repubs back then acted like they were above doing that sort of thing.

Guess they're no different from the libs they hate. 🙂
Click to expand...

And the childish partisan circle goes round, and round, round and round, round and round, the childish partisan circle goes round, and round, round and round.
 
Wait! Wait! I thought it was because of the WMD's, the reconstituted nuclear program, and support for Terrarists! Because fighting them over there means we won't be fighting them over here.. Because a brutal dictator tried to kill his Daddy and because of 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11!

Or maybe I'm confused as to which war we're talking about? I mean, I thought is was all the great Crusade against Islam, anyway...
 
Think of all the money we would have saved and the Republican/so-called Christians that would be happier if we let Libya slide into being another Rwanda or Sudan. It was patently obvious that GoneDaffy was on the verge of a massive bloodletting-by his very own words and actions-until the allies stepped in and blocked him.

The USA should not be ashamed of taking the correct path. Our actions in Libya will go a lot further towards reforming the MidEast and toning down the jihad against the USA than the trillions of dollars, and thousands of lives, dissipated in Iraq and Afganistan.
 
Anybody got a good link to a time line and/or force breakdown on the Libya kerfuffle? It's looking like all my assumptions have been wrong. I've been assuming that France and the UK have interests in taking down Gadaffi and have been the leaders, with the USA supporting them with our greater capabilities (as in my opinion we should.) But Obama's speech was custom made for his own "I love me" wall, with scant mention of allies except "Aren't I great for having them?" It appears to be almost completely a US show, with the occasional French plane shooting a taxiing warplane and the occasional British ship lobbing a missile.

I have to think I'm missing something crucial to his whole decision to go in. (Which is not Obama's fault; I've been assuming that he knows what he is doing rather than really educating myself as time and access allow.)
 
The entire double-speak line that we aren't going for regime change is the biggest load of crap I've heard so far. The fact that a few people are clinging to this idea is beyond incredible considering the actual events which have occurred so far.

Oh and the rebels are being pushed back but you can bet that we will be expanding our role in this REGIME CHANGE once the dust settles.

"Top diplomats agree that Libya's Gadhafi must go"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/af_libya...jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA3JlbGF0ZWQ-


"Gaddafi troops reverse Libyan rebel advance"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110329...zZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNnYWRkYWZpdHJvb3A-

PS. Obama "Middle-Ground" comment on military action is about as stupid a comment as one could make. In a war one either fights to WIN or they pack their bags and go home. There is no "middle-ground" unless you're a politician who is trying to have your political cake and eat it at the same time.
 
Last edited:
werepossum said:
-snip-
I have to think I'm missing something crucial to his whole decision to go in. (Which is not Obama's fault; I've been assuming that he knows what he is doing rather than really educating myself as time and access allow.)
Click to expand...

IMO, the only thing that's clear is that it's entirely UNclear why we are in Libya.

Even if you buy into the whole 'humanitarian' thing it's still unclear as to why Libya and not some other county also (e.g., Ivory Coast). No plausible explanation for that has been provided yet.

And in all of this I find myself wondering if this is going to actually save any lives. We're boming and strafing Libyian troops, they're dead. And this allows the rebels to prolong the fighting, meaning more will be dead. I wonder if we're just changing the ratio of deaths. Without our help it would have been more rebels killed, and less Libyian troops, now it's changed to more Libyian troops and less rebels (or perhaps a more equal amount).

Fern
 
This thread is totally funny, the same folks who advocated GWB in invading Iraq are the same folks criticizing Obama now.

Note Obama waited until the Arab League asked for international help, and Nato is only using air power and not boots on the ground.

But in the of a sea change in Arab youth movement thought that has spread from Tunisia to Yemen with remarkable speed, how things get resolved is really the international crucial question.

Maybe the thing to mainly note, is that many Arab Armies refused to follow their dictator because it would make them complicit in murdering their own people. Making Mubarak some what of a classic case. Mubarak tried to get his army to brutally suppress the rebellion, and when his army refused, he tried using oil workers, thugs, and his police. When that did not work he tried weak concessions instead, but by then ole Hosni had lost all credibility. Which explains why ole Hosni gone.

On the other hand King Abdullah of Jordan may weather the storm because he tried to get out in front before the reform demand came. Sadly Assad in Syria is using his military against his own people, but its only really started in the past three weeks or so.
So its too early to tell what will happen or if the Arab League will ask for international help.

But Gadhafi in Libya is really where the use your own army against your own people principle will probably be decided. Because when Gadhafi went to his army and asked for their help in murdering their fellow Libyans, a good part of his army joined the rebels instead. Not only is it clear that Libya is at risk for a huge bloodbath of a civil war, Gadhafi cheated by hiring large numbers of foreign mercenaries. Who have no a ties to Libya and do it only for the money. To a certain extent that is an Arab League problem, because any neighboring nation can use those same mercenaries to make war on other countries.

So color me as someone that thinks Obama is doing the right thing, hopefully Libya can avoid a huge bloodbath of a civil war, he can rebuild USA Arab cred already badly damaged by the past decade of American foreign policy. At the same time old line Arab governments are waking up to the fact they have to do more for their people.

How it all turns out is impossible to predict, but doing nothing would probably be the greater US risk. As long as Obama follows the Arab League lead, instead of telling the Arab League what to do, the Obama action will be almost certainly prove out as the right thing to do. Hopefully Gadhafi will soon fall, then let the UN and EU act as the police. Until a popular Libyan leader can be found to unite the nation.
 
Here is a FACT for you

Only USA generals have "stars" A Canadian Forces Generals ranks is modeled on the British system.

Re: "A Canadian three-star general was selected to be in charge of all NATO operations in Libya."


Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard of Canada is the General...and you silly yanks, its pronounced Leff-tenant... not Loo-tenant 🙂
 
Last edited:
PeshakJang said:
Speaking of which... what have we done about Rwanda or the Sudan?
Click to expand...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe exactly what Thump was referring too, because we can do little for Rwanda or the Sudan, while we have have the bulk of our boots on the ground army locked up in Afghanistan and Iraq. But we can US air power to stop Gadhafi, hopefully change Arab thought in terms of solving Iraq and Afghanistan, and then the Arab, Africans, and the larger world can then address problems in Rwanda and the Sudan.

In short, a rising tide of better ideas lifts all boats, an added bloodbath in Libya would drop all boats.

We must remember that Europe used to be a hot bed of internecine wars. And now European regional prosperity is based on avoiding those wars.
 
Lemon law said:
This thread is totally funny, the same folks who advocated GWB in invading Iraq are the same folks criticizing Obama now.
Click to expand...

What many are criticizing is the lack of clear policy.

Iraq had clear policy, might have been built upon some falacies, but it was clear.

Lemon law said:
How it all turns out is impossible to predict, but doing nothing would probably be the greater US risk.
Click to expand...

Please explain how it would be a greater risk.

Lemon law said:
As long as Obama follows the Arab League lead....
Click to expand...

By all accounts I've seen, they bailed on this long ago.

Fern
 
Fern said:
What many are criticizing is the lack of clear policy.

Iraq had clear policy, might have been built upon some falacies, but it was clear.

SNIP
Please explain how it would be a greater risk.
SNIP
Fern
Click to expand...
Duh, Obama might lose re-election! What greater risk could there be? LOL

I'm still assuming there is some logical reason for this adventure, based on Obama's intel. Honestly, I don't see it - I thought we were there to assist our allies, but apparently not - but I'm still assuming he has good and sufficient reasons for committing our armed forces in exactly the way both he and Biden said a President should NOT commit our armed forces. I believe in giving the President enough rope to either hang himself, or make something useful.

Also, Qadaffi is a state sponsor of terrorism which has killed Americans, so removing him has some value to us even if we have no real national interests in doing so. There are definitely worse places the Messiah could have taken interest. Nations like the Ivory Coast and the Congo are actually much better fits for why he SAID we're in Libya, but we wouldn't be removing a dictator who actually supported terrorists killing Americans.
 
soundforbjt said:
Clear policy, LOL!! They changed the reason for being there every month it seemed. 😱
Click to expand...

We're talking about the policy to begin or launch military action.

In Iraq:

1. Violating ceasefire provisions etc of Gulf War I

2. Illegally pursing WMD programs

3. Violating UN resolutions.

So Bush's policy was pretty clear. You do the above things, we go in. In fact it got Khaddafy to drop his WMD programs.

Now, with Obama's policy (so far) no one has any idea of when, where, or why we might intervene. No real guidelines have been laid down.

Somewhere in all this I think it needs to be stated that we here in the US are likely looking at a future full of wars:

- When the Repubs are office, we attack for defensive (Afgan) or preemptive (Iraq) purposes.

- When Dems are in office, we attack for humanitarian purposes.

If this keeps up, we're always going to have wars.

Fern
 
DucatiMonster696 said:
Correction WAS a state sponsor of terrorism until he renounced it and turned on the jihadist. Hence the numerous suicide bomber attempts by fundamentalist groups in Libya against him.
Click to expand...
Meh. He also renounced terrorism when Reagan bombed his ass and forced him to flee in women's clothing. (Although I'm not sure how women's clothing would possibly differ from his current attire.) Kadaffi's conversions are skin deep and last only until his perceived danger passes. If the Messiah fails to (help) remove him, I've no doubt that he'll return to sponsoring terrorism as soon as he can stick his head up out the ground and not see his shadow. (Six more weeks of air strikes y'know.)
 
Fern said:
We're talking about the policy to begin or launch military action.

In Iraq:

1. Violating ceasefire provisions etc of Gulf War I

2. Illegally pursing WMD programs

3. Violating UN resolutions.

So Bush's policy was pretty clear. You do the above things, we go in. In fact it got Khaddafy to drop his WMD programs.

Now, with Obama's policy (so far) no one has any idea of when, where, or why we might intervene. No real guidelines have been laid down.

Somewhere in all this I think it needs to be stated that we here in the US are likely looking at a future full of wars:

- When the Repubs are office, we attack for defensive (Afgan) or preemptive (Iraq) purposes.

- When Dems are in office, we attack for humanitarian purposes.

If this keeps up, we're always going to have wars.

Fern
Click to expand...

UN resolution
 
btw I realize Obama probably wasn't extremely happy about going into Libya and that it isn't totally his fault, but the double speak non-sense from him is bs. he preached transparency and he would have been against this in the past. imo most the blame is on Hillary for saying that bullshit in front of the UN basically committing us to the rebels cause.
 
McWatt said:
Just because "the Constitution does not recognize a higher legality" doesn't make it nonexistent. If you choose not to recognize any state laws that doesn't mean they don't apply to you. The same goes for federal and international law. Clearly, however, the UN has less direct and lower precision enforcement of international law than the US does of federal law.
Click to expand...

Both federal and state governments are provided for by the Constitution. We can have treaties and such, but they are invalid if they conflict with the Constitution, which is the document the President is sworn to uphold. If the UN were to construct a rule that conflicts with our supreme document and a President were to enforce it then he would have committed treason.

Within the US, there is no higher binding authority. Good luck to anyone who tries to deprive us of our rights as US citizens within our borders. They'll need it when they get to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top