Forum Thread

How do you think President Obama is handling the situation with Libya?

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 6 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    How do you think President Obama is handling the situation with Libya? Several Democrats are publicly speaking out against him. Of course, so are many Republicans. Not many seem to support him publicly.

    What do you think?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I am a strict non interventionist with regards to my views on foreign policy, not only has Obama completely failed the antiwar voters who got him his job, his snide usage of saying no boots in Libya only to rescind and send CIA agents over makes him treacherous. Any president that fails to get congressional approval for a conflict is an imperialist, the US stood silent with regards to many genocides, deaths, wars so to believe that our tryst in Libya has anything to do with humanitarian concerns is bs.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    This is my dilema for President Obama to address....He went into Libya because Khadafy was killing civilians and bringing in forces outside Libya to fight for him...Well let's see...Syria is killing Civilians...are we going to Bomb Syria...it seems only fair seeing that was his reasoning in Libya...then there is Bahrain...bringing in Saudi Troops to shoot at it's civilians...should he not be bombing Bahrain....and then there is Yeman...Killing and slaughtering civilians...where is President Obama on that...

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Well, I think Obama has pretty much held to his promises thus far.  However, let me first clarify a point that I made in another posting.  The situation in Libya at the time was considerably different in scale from the current protest movements in Bahrain, Yeman and Syria.  Sure civilians have been shot in each of those countries, but Gaddafi was doing much more than that.  He was on the verge of massacreing tens of thousands of his own citizens for crossing him.  He was using his air force to bomb them. I have no doubt that he would have carried out the massacre with a bloody vengence showing no mercy.

    I lived under Gaddaf's autocratic rule in Libya for three years.  I know what he is capable of.  Just ask the families of the Pan Am Lockerbie flight if you have any doubts. He has survived for 41 years because he systematically killed any opponents that dared to challenge his authority. He is a sociopath with no empathy for anyone except his closest family members and tribe.

    Obama has promised to not put any "boots on the ground." Some have suggested that the CIA operatives in Libya are "boots on the ground."  No they are not...that expression refers to troops.  CIA operatives in Libya are most likely Libyan born citizens. Some may even be in positions of power within the government.

    This is a UN sanctioned, NATO-Arab League led effort.  The United States as a part of the NATO effort is contributing their unique capabilities to protect the Libyan citizens, but it will be left to other countries to carry out any ground efforts.  The larger picture is ceratinly unclear, but that shouldn't in anyway suggest that the initial humanitarian effort to stop a blood bath was unwise. Yes the situation is murkey and may drag on for months...but thousands of Libyan citizens owe their lives to Obama and NATO.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I also think President Obama has handled it correctly.  If he sent troops in on the ground, he
    would really hear it, as it is, he will for the money we have had to spend.

    But my big question is, can anyone tell me why John McCain is there sticking in his 2 cents?
    Besides fueling the flames and trying to make President Obama look weak, what is his point?
    If these old men want to go in, let them be the ones leading the way.  We don't need more
    of our military sent to fight someone elses battle.

    Donnakderry
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Donna Wrote: I also think President Obama has handled it correctly. If he sent troops in on the ground, he
    would really hear it, as it is, he will for the money we have had to spend.

    But my big question is, can anyone tell me why John McCain is there sticking in his 2 cents?
    Besides fueling the flames and trying to make President Obama look weak, what is his point?
    If these old men want to go in, let them be the ones leading the way. We don't need more
    of our military sent to fight someone elses battle.

    Donnakderry


    You say he handled it correctly yet you de facto support the billions he'll waste on throwing our military hardware for a tyrant who would've been deposed by the UN sooner or later. As I type this due to efforts engendered by coalition forces Misrata was liberated, and we've effectively wasted millions on another fruitless display of Western military might. Obama was an antiwar president and his actions in Libya and Afghanistan contradict his former non-aggressive plaform.