Why did Obama encourage the Libyan rebels if he wasn’t willing to assist them? Apparently NCAA basketball is more important.
-
Recent Comments
suyts on Hansen 1986 : Earth Living Hel… Mike Bromley the Can… on Hansen 1986 : Earth Living Hel… Marian on How To Recognize A Death … Tourist in Chief on GISS Used To Have An Intellige… Keith Grubb on Connecting The Dots For Jeff… Johnny cash on GISS Shows No Warming Over The… kim2ooo on National Academy Of Sciences 1… keithhasbeenhere on Record Bering Sea Ice Causing … Marian on National Academy Of Sciences 1… Doug Proctor on Hansen : Clueless About D…
You know, this story kinda irks me.
“Every dictator will now know that they can suppress a revolt with violence without fear of retribution. President Obama’s decision to transform America from global policeman to bystander will have consequences for America’s hopes of a more democratic, peaceful world.”
I could probably accept it better if I hadn’t look at the addy. U.K…….ok….so where’s Cameron’s balls? What about Fillon? Does the rest of the world sit back and say “Well, its Obama’s fault!” And by extension the U.S.’ Some of us still have fresh in our minds the beating Bush took in the international press over our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Personally, I’m all for a ‘hands off’ U.S. policy, but were it up to me, I’d made an exception in this particular case. These people saw an opportunity for freedom and we all turned our backs on them. Also, there’s some payback due. Oh, yeh, and a fellow the Brits let go back to Libya. We could probably collect him, too.
Suyts said
“Oh, yeh, and a fellow the Brits let go back to Libya. We could probably collect him, too”
There is a joke over here that he has asked to come back as it is safer
I agree with your general thoughts on this, it is not fair to ask the USA to take the brunt again, especially as it will give Gadaffi more support in the Arab world, he has very little now.
Andy
It’s not a strategic setback at all, just jumping in all guns blazing would create a strategic setback. Besides it should be the UN and or NATO rather than just the USA.
The guy who wrote this want’s to give the impression that it is all over when it is not, Gadaffi doesn’t have the means to capture and hold Benghazi, he’s getting more and more stretched and it will be his forces over time suffering more than the rebels who will have supplies. The no fly zone is still being debated as well, so I don’t know what this person in the Spectator is going on about, they seem to have already written history. Good job he wasn’t around in 1940 in the Britain.
His comment that the USA being a bystander not a policeman not helping democracy is daft. Has he forgotten Egypt and Tunisia already? If he want’s the US to be a policeman than I suppose he wants them to be a policeman with Bahrain ? Or is he forgetting this country at the moment as it is inconvenient?
He must have spent about 2 minutes thinking about that piece before writing it.
Andy
There is unfortunately no easy answer, Andy – just picking the lesser of two evils.
I am afraid we have to be realistic though and accept that the UN will never make a decision in these sort of circumstances. Eventually they will probably agree some form of sanctions but by then it will be much too late to help the rebels, most of whom will probably be dead. Any sanctions will unlikely have any more impact than they do in Iran.
NATO of course won’t do anything without the US permission.
The more time O spends on sports, the better.
The last thing we need is to get involved in another war. Let the Libyans work it out. An Islamic dictatorship will probably take power next in Libya and that will be worse than Gaddafi.
O voted “present”. Anybody who was depending on him to do otherwise is not a great judge of character.
1970s repeat round 4, after the peak oil, swine flu and global warming/cooling hoax, they will start the world is running out of food hoax
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/high-food-prices-feed-unrest-in-developing-world/story-e6frg6zo-1226022066955
I have mixed feelings about the U.S. getting involved in anything over the pond. Seems like we stabbed in the back years later from those we died for.
And we did it for free too.
Honestly, I’m tired of the USA being the police of the world. I don’t care what’s going on in Libya, Egypt, or Bahrain. They’ve always had these type of things happening. The only line I liked from the corny political movie Syriana was this, “100 years ago you were all living in tents cutting each others heads off. And 100 years from now you’ll be doing the same”.
Why is rebel control always assumed to be an arrangement than those they wish to overthrow?
I don’t know why it is always assumed. For instance, Egypt’s situation could take a turn for the worse concerning the west’s interests. However, its difficult to envision much worse occurring with removal Qaddafi.
The thing that really pisses me off, is that the western leaders, including Obummer, dithered. None possessed the fortitude or character to tell these people that no help was coming. At the very least, they should have let them know they were on their own.
Sorry, I have some inserts missing, like “get” and “a better” Must be tired.
“suyts says:
March 16, 2011 at 1:25 pm
The thing that really pisses me off, is that the western leaders, including Obummer, dithered. None possessed the fortitude or character to tell these people that no help was coming. At the very least, they should have let them know they were on their own.”
Not a fan of Gaddafi and see no central organized revolutionary movement to even determine if they would better or worse.
It would have been fine with me if a statement were made stating that neither the USA nor the EU would involve or interject themselves into the internal power struggles within Libya at this time but should the situation change the USA & the EU would evaluate the situation at a latter date.