Khadafi Deposed - Does Obama get any Credit?

He ran off.. pages ago because of this information.

 

No they did not and I never claimed as much. By the way the Italians weren't the last foreign controllers, it was divided between the French and British, along tribal lines. The French had one region and the British had two.

Yet none of what you say disputes my assertion that there is not one unified Libyan identity that has been requisite in the creation of successful nation states since their core inception in the times of Richelieu. Of course this is Western-centric as one could argue the merits of East Asian nation states having existed far earlier and in a much stronger sense.

 

Margot, I'm sorry your brother killed himself. Please leave me alone.

 

Not buying it.

I think Obama really wanted to stay out of it 100% and that's why he waited so long. Eventually European oil consumers turned him.

Also, the UN mandate was all about civilians. It's not some gratuitous slam on my part. That was all of it. Regime change wasn't mentioned.

 

Is it requisite?

How much inter tribal warfare has there been over the past 50 years?

 

But he it sure does seem he's trying his hardest too:

The Census Bureau says 43.6 million Americans are now living in poverty....





http://www.businessinsider.com/deindustrialization-factory-closing-2010-9?op=1






When the USA is hurting, why is Obama trying to take credit for Libya? Shouldn't he be focusing 110% on getting Americans employed? A better life for AMERICANS?

 

They also didn't want to be inundated with Libyan refugees.

Europe has already experienced that.

 

Yes, it is requisite, Richelieu's model has stood for almost 400 years. All of Europe and the West is based upon it. The very same concepts worked in Eastern Asia as well. When there is national identity nation states can form. When it lacks there is strife and disarray. Can Libya succeed? Yes, but they must find a single identity if they want it to really work out for themselves.

In Libya, not much, but then again I haven't done a in-depth research or analysis. I'll not contest your claim on that though. I see it in many other places across the globe though, and that is not something that can be disputed.

 

Guess you have forgotten about all the European wars..

The key is if they will swear allegiance to the new Libya and have their chosen representatives.

 

You're not really denying the strategic logic about the engagement that I presented. You're arguing the completely different point when you talk of the go/no go calculus.

Whole different story. On the go/no go calculus, I agree with you. It was about oil or we wouldn't have gotten involved.

 

The population of Libya is 6 million. Much easier to fix the problems of 6 million than 300 million... though even that is sure to prove hard enough. Regardless, it's best to just enjoy whatever victories we get these days as they are few and far between.

 

One thing everyone sees with his own eyes is that lefties have perverted way of thinking. Generally it is up side down and through the rectum. can you even try a straight way?

 

Which Terrorist supporting Dictator, Khadafi or BoBo?

 

Good post..

Libya's problems may be easier to solve than Egypt's. Egypt's economy is a long standing problem.

The conversation is currently about reconciliation rather than reprisals... I am keeping my fingers crossed for them.

 

They weren't tribal were they? We can explore that, if you'd like. What you will see is the nation states that developed and their power moves against various other areas that sought to achieve such status. The Germanic lands were a killing field between the nation states for a reason, they did not want a unified German nation state. All the major players used the Germanic lands and did everything possible to keep them from unification. Paying off one prince and pitting Protestants and Catholics against each other. We can get more specific if you'd like and detail certain wars, or even broader time frames in which multiple wars occurred, its up to you. I could go on for pages.

So you are saying they must agree to become a nation state unified under the concept of a single Libyan identity? Isn't that exactly what I've been saying?

 

They weren't tribal but they fought each other anyway over borders and religion and power.

I can't predict what will happen in the future of Libya..

 

I thought we were discussing the tribal aspects of Libya? The European wars was probably not the best counter move. You must think I am vastly more ignorant than I am.

Nobody can predict the future with perfection, but there are plenty of models from the past that can be used as indicators to predict likely outcomes.

 

Europe has a long history of warfare.. I think its a bit myopic to focus solely on Tribes.... unless its about skin color.

God knows the US isn't one people but we have achieved a national identity.

Meanwhile:

http://www.politicalforum.com/lates...ies-defect-declare-game-over.html#post4371992

 

The reason for air strikes were to protect the defenseless people in Bin Ghazi not to cause a regime change. Stopping genocide does not require congress approval.

 

Congress would still be sitting on the fence too afraid to make a decision.

They want outcomes guaranteed.....


http://www.politicalforum.com/lates...ies-defect-declare-game-over.html#post4371992

 

We were discussing tribes. Europe is a completely different animal, and I'd think you'd know by know my low opinion of them today. I'd be happy to bash on them for a while. Open up that conversation, I'd really enjoy it.

Yes, we have a national identity, we have divisions on various levels from economic, political, religious and other areas, the vast majority of Americans will always consider themselves to be just that AMERICANS.

An interesting article. It can be taken in a few ways. Self-preservation, genuine loyalty to the nation state concept, or simply following the winds of change for their own benefit. We'll see how that pans out.

 

Let's see,

Obama got Bin Laden, something Bush and his inept conservative foreign policy team couldn't do in 8 years of trying.

Bush spent $3T to depose Saddam a dictator Reagan supported; Obama spent less than a billion to depose Gaddafi (a dictator supported by George Bush).

Bush got the US invovled in two failed wars, with thousands of US casualties. Obama has avoided any invasion, and hasn't started any conflict with US casualties. He is ending Bush's mess in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Consclusion: yep, he'll get credit and make mincemeat out the GOP candidate come the election.

 

Bashing Europeans isn't my bag.. I really love Europe.

Yes we do consider ourselves Americans and what a mixed bag of mutts from so many cultures we are... See. there is hope.

Remember when we went into Iraq and dismissed the military, the police and the civil servants.

We are smarter than that now.. and the Libyans are well aware of the Iraqi model.

Not everybody who had a government job loved Saddam Hussein.. and they don't love Khadafi.

Libya needs those institutions to survive.

 

Credit from whom? If you mean credit from all the people who blame him for starting us in a third war, of course not. Those people are a negative ratchet, only bad things are Obama's fault and only good things are because of the tea party.

 

How about your hypocrisy when attacking Obama and praising anything he wasnt involved in no matter how stupid. I think your critcism is baseless because of your hypocrisy.. its why it was brought up.. to disqualify your partisan opinion.. not because it was a debatable topic.

I do not agree with the way Obama went about doing it any more than I agree with the disasters G.W and crew got us into.. but I cant deny that seems to have worked for Lybia as far as getting Qadaffi out of power and avoiding the massacre's ala Syria.. the motives remain suspect to me.