• 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?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
yllus said:
"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.
Click to expand...

Ideally unicorns would fly around and shit golden coins for everyone.. unfortunately the world isn't ideal. The results in Libya are promising but this is far from over. We could end up with something much worse than what we had. Short of putting troops on the ground there is little we can do but sit and watch.
 
Libya was done far better than what we've seen in a long time, but people aren't going to care when their financial livelihood is the main concern.
 
We haven't even seen the fallout from Libya yet and what these rebels are going to do to the nation once they actually get control. They haven't yet. Maybe there will be flowers and parades and people will dance for peace. If history has taught us anything is we're going to be fighting those same rebels in the future after they've gone and killed, raped and tortured every Kaddafi supporter in Libya.
 
I'm reserving judgement until I see what the government/leader that takes control after Gaddafi. It could be a new stronghold for Al Qaeda and terrorists in a perfect location to inflict damage on the same people who have forced Gaddafi out of power..
 
Ausm said:
Mission Accomplished suck it Repugs!
Click to expand...

so i take it that you think that OBL is obama's victory? does that mean that we are going to leave afganiland like obama promised?

also, what is a repug? i still don't get it...what's the point?
 
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...

We went in under the premise of "humanitarian" reasons to enforce a no fly zone. Within hours we were strafing troops, cities,droping special forces in to pick targets, and attacking C&C. That reason and what we were told we were doing was clearly a lie.
 
Last edited:
My Thoughts:

* He should have been required to receive authorization from congress before declaring war

* The Colonel has been showing photos of all of the innocent women / children (supposedly) killed in NATO airstrikes, making people hate us more. Difficult to avoid civilian deaths, especially if the enemy is mixed in with civilians. But, we should have done a better job silencing his propaganda horns.

* While I would not mind seeing The Colonel hang for terrorism, genocide and war crimes, I fear what might replace him, but I would rather see him go and take a chance at a better Libya.

* Obama should not have promised "no boots on the ground" only to have one of his advisers let it slip that we have ground forces aiding the rebels in Libya (which is a no brainer, targets to not pick themselves and drones can only do so much):
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2186645

* Meanwhile, Syria's dictator has slaughtered 7x as many Arab civilians killed in The Gaza War and no one seems to care:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2181869
 
I too with hold judgment until things stabilize. But if things do stabilize satisfactorily, it will get Libyan oil back on the world markets, help lower the price of oil, and since capital markets hate uncertainty, it can help create jobs.

The day when the USA is the pivot all economies rotate around is long ended, and now, what ever happens on the earth will impact the USA financially.
 
amish said:
so i take it that you think that OBL is obama's victory? does that mean that we are going to leave afganiland like obama promised?

also, what is a repug? i still don't get it...what's the point?
Click to expand...

I hope we do leave the sandpit from hell on time and Repug is a term to describe the Right without using profanity :twisted:
 
matt0611 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, time for the federal government to rebuild America's infrastructure. Oh wait..........
 
It was a total failure - none of the merchants of death made much money off of this.

Dear GAWD, how DARE he, this President of these United States of America, allow the job creators NOT to profit off of war, death and destruction?! He should be impeached post haste!

Quickly, before he starts rounding up more white women!!!
 
Macamus Prime said:
It was a total failure - none of the merchants of death made much money off of this.

Dear GAWD, how DARE he, this President of these United States of America, allow the job creators NOT to profit off of war, death and destruction?! He should be impeached post haste!

Quickly, before he starts rounding up more white women!!!
Click to expand...

You mean Darth Cheney won't have enough cash to redecorate his bunker or pay for another artery Rotor Rooter job? 🙁
 
Schadenfroh said:
* Obama should not have promised "no boots on the ground" only to have one of his advisers let it slip that we have ground forces aiding the rebels in Libya (which is a no brainer, targets to not pick themselves and drones can only do so much):
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2186645
Click to expand...

I responded in greater depth in the other thread, but "boots on the ground" refers strictly to combat soldiers. Obama has not placed combat troops in Libya, but has most certainly relied on intelligence agencies and their operatives for both information about targets, but also information about the composition of the rebels.

All that being said, there is a surprising amount that can be done with electronic surveillance aircraft and drones when it comes to finding targets. If target hunting was as easy as placing guys on the ground with radios, the French, who most certainly DO have "boots on the ground" would have no need for American e-war aircraft and drones.

As for the OP's larger question, I don't think Libya is a victory for anyone until the entire situation has been resolved. Politically, the US has supported Libya operations to hide the growing cracks in the NATO alliance and to cover up the military incompetence of France and Britain. If anything, Obama has spent most of his time downplaying the American role in Libya. He talks in broad terms about how ridding the world of another dictator is a good thing, but he has done nothing to take any credit away from Britain and France, despite the fact that American aircraft are flying 40% of the sorties and supplying the infrastructure necessary to keep this campaign alive.
 
Going to war is good for the economy. Staying in war for too long is bad for the economy.

Our economy could have used Libya as a springboard to financial recovery. It's no alien invasion but Krugman would have been happy nonetheless.
 
Meaningless in terms of politics. The GOP can say whatever they want and most of their base will applaud them. As said many times in this thread, this shit is FAR from over. The "bad guy" is still in power.
 
Schadenfroh said:
My Thoughts:

* He should have been required to receive authorization from congress before declaring war

* The Colonel has been showing photos of all of the innocent women / children (supposedly) killed in NATO airstrikes, making people hate us more. Difficult to avoid civilian deaths, especially if the enemy is mixed in with civilians. But, we should have done a better job silencing his propaganda horns.

* While I would not mind seeing The Colonel hang for terrorism, genocide and war crimes, I fear what might replace him, but I would rather see him go and take a chance at a better Libya.

* Obama should not have promised "no boots on the ground" only to have one of his advisers let it slip that we have ground forces aiding the rebels in Libya (which is a no brainer, targets to not pick themselves and drones can only do so much):
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2186645

* Meanwhile, Syria's dictator has slaughtered 7x as many Arab civilians killed in The Gaza War and no one seems to care:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2181869
Click to expand...
Pretty much this. I do think it's a victory of sorts for Obama, in support of NATO's European partners. Of course, Gaddafi's being replaced by a Sharia-based government, but a (relatively) free democracy is still better. If nothing else, at least when we go to war with Libya next time it will be because of the actions of the majority and not just those of one dictator. Democracy ensures that you get the leadership you deserve.

Interestingly, out of all the last decade's Muslim regime changes only Iraq is emerging as a non-Sharia-based democracy.
 
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...

Uh... by "supported" you mean "bombed the shit out of Gaddaffi"? This is really no different than Iraq. We went in on bullshit and are trying to change a country based on bullshit. We, the western nations, went into Libya because our leaders are morons. Sarkozy was a good friend of Gaddaffi, telling the rest of us to support him just a few years ago. Letting the world know Gaddaffi was on our side now fighting against Al Qaeda. Now he's the enemy because he's fighting back against rebels? People were quick to jump the gun because of Egypt and Tunisia. Libya was a mistake and mistakes aren't victories.
 
momeNt said:
Going to war is good for the economy. Staying in war for too long is bad for the economy.

Our economy could have used Libya as a springboard to financial recovery. It's no alien invasion but Krugman would have been happy nonetheless.
Click to expand...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An interesting observation, but wait, this Libya thing is just another war in the middle of two much longer unfinished wars, so is it good or bad for the economy?

But wait, the economy was in the Sewer before the Nato bombing of Libya, and now that its ending, the economy is still in the Sewer.
 
Lemon law said:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An interesting observation, but wait, this Libya thing is just another war in the middle of two much longer unfinished wars, so is it good or bad for the economy?

But wait, the economy was in the Sewer before the Nato bombing of Libya, and now that its ending, the economy is still in the Sewer.
Click to expand...

They took a conservative approach. There was no mass build-up and invasion!

And perhaps you are right, perhaps only a recession can end once the stale wars have been ended, and a completely new one starts after you've shrunk down the military spending already for a year or so. If that is the case, Libya was never the cure. If we get our troops out two wars, shrink the military spending for a year or so, we still have N. Korea and Iran that we could use to spur our economy.

I have to go brush my teeth now I've been spewing too much Keynesian shit to stomach it any longer.
 
Republicans HATE that Obama is so skilled at foreign affairs. The rebels were failing at their goal a few months ago...badly. I fully suspect Obama gave them the help they needed, quietly, either by arms or supplies. Some things are kept top secret. Unlike a former GW that plastered a banner up every time he felt like victory was at hand.
The real help we (Obama) gave the rebels that turned the tide we will probably never know.

Now... as too the economy... The republicans have and still are screwing that up.
They are to blame, both past and present office holders.
The problem never was Obama or his policies.
So there you have it... Obama is #1 in foreign affairs, and he has the right ideas as far as the economy goes.

They goal is not to put more republicans in power. The goal is to remove those now in power, by putting democrats back in power, and let Obama do his magic.
As long as republicans control the house and the tea baggers control the republicans, it doesn't matter which republican might get elected, everything will still go to hell in a hand basket.

Cutting taxes for the super rich, while socking it to the middle class (the republican scheme) has never created jobs or a healthy economy. Not one single time in our history.
Obama has the right ideas. The problem is, his ideas have never been put to task.
Republicans either kill his every attempt, or water it down so much that nothing ever changes for the better.

A strong foreign policy? A strong economy? More job creation?
Simple solution.... VOTE OUT REPUBLICANS IN 2012.
A 4 year old child could figure that one out.....
 
Last edited:
Schadenfroh said:
My Thoughts:

* He should have been required to receive authorization from congress before declaring war

* The Colonel has been showing photos of all of the innocent women / children (supposedly) killed in NATO airstrikes, making people hate us more. Difficult to avoid civilian deaths, especially if the enemy is mixed in with civilians. But, we should have done a better job silencing his propaganda horns.

* While I would not mind seeing The Colonel hang for terrorism, genocide and war crimes, I fear what might replace him, but I would rather see him go and take a chance at a better Libya.

* Obama should not have promised "no boots on the ground" only to have one of his advisers let it slip that we have ground forces aiding the rebels in Libya (which is a no brainer, targets to not pick themselves and drones can only do so much):
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2186645

* Meanwhile, Syria's dictator has slaughtered 7x as many Arab civilians killed in The Gaza War and no one seems to care:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2181869
Click to expand...

My take on the whole thing, NATO (more specifically the UK and US, with a bit of France thrown in) saw this as a great opportunity to pay Ghaddafi back for the Lockerbie bombing and at the same time help Europe with more oil in the future. If the new regime is grateful for the help it received in overthrowing Ghaddafi.

It also explains why Syria is essentially being ignored, no need for revenge, and no oil.
 
sportage said:
Republicans HATE that Obama is so skilled at foreign affairs. The rebels were failing at their goal a few months ago...badly. I fully suspect Obama gave them the help they needed, quietly, either by arms or supplies. Some things are kept top secret. Unlike a former GW that plastered a banner up every time he felt like victory was at hand.
The real help we (Obama) gave the rebels that turned the tide we will probably never know.

Now... as too the economy... The republicans have and still are screwing that up.
They are to blame, both past and present office holders.
The problem never was Obama or his policies.
So there you have it... Obama is #1 in foreign affairs, and he has the right ideas as far as the economy goes.

They goal is not to put more republicans in power. The goal is to remove those now in power, by putting democrats back in power, and let Obama do his magic.
As long as republicans control the house and the tea baggers control the republicans, it doesn't matter which republican might get elected, everything will still go to hell in a hand basket.

Cutting taxes for the super rich, while socking it to the middle class (the republican scheme) has never created jobs or a healthy economy. Not one single time in our history.
Obama has the right ideas. The problem is, his ideas have never been put to task.
Republicans either kill his every attempt, or water it down so much that nothing ever changes for the better.

A strong foreign policy? A strong economy? More job creation?
Simple solution.... VOTE OUT REPUBLICANS IN 2012.
A 4 year old child could figure that one out.....
Click to expand...


What color is the sky in your world?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top