• 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.

Is Libya a victory for President Obama?

Doppel said:
USA was just one player in this and voluntarily gave up control to NATO months ago.
Click to expand...

I know this but I think it was a good move on by Obama to make it a NATO effort and not another HUGE ass bill for the American taxpayer.
 
Getting rid of a murderous dictator who supported international terrorism without massive loss of American lives, expenditure of trillions of taxpayer money and an indefinite commitment of troops just seems so un-American.
 
Well, as we learned in Iraq, cutting the head off is only about 20% of the equation. I'm pleased that it worked so far, but the devil is in the aftermath.
 
I'm not sure it's a victory, that really depends on what comes after Gaddafi is gone, but it certainly is an enormous improvement over Iraq.
 
Don't think people really give a shit about it.
Its the economy that people care about now, and if its still like this by the time next fall rolls around, watch out Obama.
 
If Libya went badly, everyone would be kicking Mr Obama's ass. So I would say with some people no matter what Mr Obama does, and how good the results are, he can only lose.
 
Theres two ways to look at it. From the left and from the right. The right was all over Obama for not getting involved, then all over him for getting involved.

I don't thik you can call it a victory for Obama. I do think the US involvement was limited to what it should have been. Their entire cost of the operations was about what Iraq costs in a day.

In the end Obama can't win nor do anything right according to some. Whatever he does he should have done the opposite.
 
The libs try and use this as way to deflect all the bad crap that is happening right here in the US. No one give a shit about middle east. People want jobs not you know.
 
Fear No Evil said:
The libs are suddenly a bunch of neocons when it comes to wars against brown people.
Click to expand...

Well, that was really stupid. Just one of the many major differences between Iraq and Libya is that we started the war against Iraq, launching an invasion based on lies about "weapons of mass destruction" and how Iraq was such a "unique and urgent threat." Virtually all of the attacking forces were U.S. And other foreign troops. Libya, in contrast, was an internal revolution, with Libyans fighting Libyans. We supported them, but it was never our war.
 
Jeffg010 said:
The libs try and use this as way to deflect all the bad crap that is happening right here in the US. No one give a shit about middle east. People want jobs not you know.
Click to expand...
I don't think libs are using it to distract. The economy is the most important issue to most people, but there are still other issues worthy of attention.
 
Bowfinger said:
Well, that was really stupid. Just one of the many major differences between Iraq and Libya is that we started the war against Iraq, launching an invasion based on lies about "weapons of mass destruction" and how Iraq was such a "unique and urgent threat." Virtually all of the attacking forces were U.S. And other foreign troops. Libya, in contrast, was an internal revolution, with Libyans fighting Libyans. We supported them, but it was never our war.
Click to expand...

So its OK to kill brown people when they start killing each other first? Does that mean we can get involved in places like Iran? Just trying to figure out the rules of when its OK.
 
Bowfinger said:
Well, that was really stupid. Just one of the many major differences between Iraq and Libya is that we started the war against Iraq, launching an invasion based on lies about "weapons of mass destruction" and how Iraq was such a "unique and urgent threat." Virtually all of the attacking forces were U.S. And other foreign troops. Libya, in contrast, was an internal revolution, with Libyans fighting Libyans. We supported them, but it was never our war.
Click to expand...
Me thinks he's mocking the liberal drivel we've seen in this forum for years....yes, it is really stupid.
 
i'm failing to see how this is a "victory" for obama. he didn't lead the call to arms he let NATO borrow our weapons platforms when they came knocking. the total cost is about 1 billion for US taxpayers, http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...tion-in-libya-cost-at-least-896-million-.html. i see this more as a surprising victory for NATO since it seemed so disorganized after the initial barage.

was the death of OBL a victory for obama?

is lower gas prices a victory for obama?
 
Fear No Evil said:
So its OK to kill brown people when they start killing each other first? Does that mean we can get involved in places like Iran? Just trying to figure out the rules of when its OK.
Click to expand...

Still trying to figure why we are not helping those poor defenseless peaceful civilian protesters that are being brutally murdered by the Syrian government....

After all, that was the excuse that was used to bomb Libya, wasn't it???
 
"Only" $1.1 billion to support an internal revolution that the Libyans feel empowered by - he's had a rather good first term where foreign policy is involved. Ideally all NATO involvement in other nations would be exactly along these lines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top