Khadafi Deposed - Does Obama get any Credit?

That's weird.....I could have sworn he was in the situation room during the whole thing......




Where you getting your info? The "White House Insider" again?

 

At this point it appears it may be a glorious victory. If only his victories on the domestic front were as promising but oh wait I forgot he is only responsible as long as things are going good. I wonder who will be to blame if Lybia turns out the same as the glorious summer recovery, stimulus, Obamacare, QE ect.

 

The jury is out...yes. But Khadafi is gone.

This is a tricky thing when a leader is deposed.....especially a Strong Man. If you ask people in Iraq if they are better off, some would say "no" and that, though they hated Saddam, there was stability.....there was electricity.

If things don't settle as far as the leadership of Libya goes, it could definitely be a mess as well.

I would contend that Obama is responsible for whatever the outcome is....because we did call for and support Khadafi's ouster.

 

One of the reasons touted by the Bush administration for going into Iraq was to "liberate" the Iraqis. I'm sure you remember Cheney saying we'd be "greeted as liberators and Iraqis will be throwing flowers and dancing in the streets"?

Iraqis started dying with Shock and Awe and have continued to die and be maimed all these years until today along with tens of millions displaced and their country blown to rubble. THAT is EPIC FAIL and (*)(*)(*)(*) POOR LEADERSHIP and you KNOW it or you wouldn't be criticizing Obama for getting bin Laden and deposing Khadafi. Giving Obama credit for ANYTHING just points up what an absolutely miserable failure Bush really was, doesn't it?

 

With one of the worst economic climates in generations. With one of the highest unemployment in years.....

When Americans are looking for a leader, what is Obama doing in Libya???









Credit??? Credit for helping Americans or credit for helping Arabs overthrow a dictator and making way for another despot???? America needs a leader, not a "want to be warrior"....

 

They covered us in Iraq, too, where many died - some by the "friendly fire" of the U.S.

Screw military hardware - putting their lives on the line for their friends and neighbors is what counts and they have certainly done that over and over again and they were right there when most of the rest of the world turned us down. I can't believe you can't remember that.

 

BS.

The decision stands or falls on THE DECISION and its internal logic. Obama couldn't lead, couldn't decide. And civilians died.

If I decide to put my life's savings on red at roulette AND WIN it's still an awful decision.

 

Idris was going to abdicate his throne to his selected heir as he bore no sons that survived childhood, the coup occurred the very night before. The case you should be making is that the US should have intervened to put Hasan as-Senussi on the throne in 1969. That's here nor there, as Khadafi took power, which is why looking back in the manner we are, while a fun exercise in sharing knowledge and perspective, cannot change what did occur.

Getting back to my original point, which was the separations of the tribal aspects of Libya, it still goes directly back to foreign occupation, whether by the Ottomans, Italians, French or British. There was never a real unity. Even when Libya was granted independence there were still three autonomous regions that Idris ruled over. Not the unity you seem to be describing or we wouldn't be seeing the tribal breaks we see today.

 

Do you think he really knew what he would get on 3/22/11 when he decided to enter the war? I don't.

 

Isn't that what allies do? Help their allies (minus Israel of course)? Its not like Canada has been going it alone in the past century, they do nothing without the US. So when called upon to actually be an ally, why should they be given special treatment? They didn't cover us, they earned their keep for decades of living under our nuclear umbrella.

 

if he violated the law then the GOP congress can start impeachment proceedings whenever they see fit.

so you want to keep the terrorist...out of fear the next guys will be terrorists?

we KNOW what khaddafi is/was....its worth rolling the dice considering how much influence europe already has there

 

That's right Idris had no heirs and chose Hasan, but Hasan wasn't strong enough to prevent the military coup... which was bloodless.

Tribes are never unified except by common interests.


Here's some information on the Tribes..

http://m.news24.com/news24/Africa/News/Fears-of-Libyan-tribal-war-exaggerated-20110824

 

It's nice to know that you care so deeply for the anonymous Libyan civilians who died in this.....

Obama's logic was clear from the outset. He wanted the best of both worlds.....

1)- To actively shape the outcome in Libya

2)- To avoid casualties and blowback.....by letting NATO take the lead....by not putting boots on the ground......by avoiding being responsible for nation building and protracted military engagement.


It's a tightrope strategy, but all indications are that we've been successful on both counts so far. I still would have preferred that we never got involved in Libya in the first place, but given the reality that we have, a bloodless war that has seemingly achieved the objective looks pretty good.

 

no, but he knew what we had with Khaddafi....and that was probably enough

 

We still don't know what we're going to get at this point. I was not contending that he did know.

All we know is that it's not going to be Khadafi. Judging from other recent uprisings in that region, the leadership vacuum is not easily filled. We always hold the delusion that our own brand of democracy will materialize. At least in this case, it's happening somewhat organically. I'd say they stand a decent chance, but it will take a while and be very messy at the very least.

 

Obama will take credit for what he wants to take credit for. But after the worms start crawling out,he will blame someone.

 

An interesting read, but underscored by tribal divisions within the rebels. That goes back to my original point. The divisions within Libya are the very thing that create the threat of continued strife. While urban dwellers are less tribal, the fact remains that there is no true Libyan identity across the nation as a whole. That is the whole point of nation states, whether under Idris or Khadafi that was never accomplished in a meaningful manner. That all stems back to the previous foreign occupiers.

 

No. Involvement in Libya hasn't gained anything for America in any sense. Libya has been an expensive distraction. America's business is strictly at home. Besides the curtain has not come down on the final act of the affair in Libya. Obama is like Bush. Mission Accomplished. How preposterous!

 

The Italians didn't create the Libyan tribes..

Whether the Libyans succeed or fail is up to them..

I'd like to see a parliament of some sort based on this new moderate Islamic constitution they have drafted... with a sense of Shura Council..

Maybe each tribe and region could choose a representative ..

Its do-able if they want it.

 

How much do you earn to offset the US deficit?

American business is worldwide.

 

You're the enemy, not Gadhafi. The old man in Libya didn't threaten to transform my America out of existence. That's what the American left is attempting to do. The struggle is here and now. Not overseas.

 

We learned from our mistakes.

 

Don't engage her.

 

That's pretty melodramatic.. Obama isn't going to transform the US out of existence.

 

Previously I had feared the rebellion had failed but I just read that the French forces have their boots on the ground so this should be over quickly. Yet another oil rich nation liberated by the selfless western nations with the help of strong democratic nations such as Jordan and Qatar who like many western allies are shining examples of freedom and democracy.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/08/24/libya.foreign.forces/index.html?hpt=hp_t2