Taking the time necessary to be right.

Taking the time necessary to be right. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

domiguy -> Taking the time necessary to be right. (3/19/2011 1:05:32 PM)
Here is the essence of what our President said.. "That means all attacks against civilians must stop. Qaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya, and establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas. Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya. Let me be clear, these terms are not negotiable. These terms are not subject to negotiation. If Qaddafi does not comply with the resolution, the international community will impose consequences, and the resolution will be enforced through military action." What does it mean? It means that Libyans can continue to protest in an attempt to remove Qaddafi without the fear of being annihilated. It means that change is coming and that it cannot be stopped. Best part, it means that people like wilbur, tommy and marini will be proven to be wrong about our President and how he chooses to handle things. The only thing that will prevent the removal of Qaddafi is if the people of Libya choose to do nothing.

DomKen -> RE: Taking the time necessary to be right. (3/19/2011 1:06:52 PM)
CNN reports that US and French forces are attacking Libyan forces at this time.

domiguy -> RE: Taking the time necessary to be right. (3/19/2011 1:26:53 PM)
It couldn't be avoided. Right when the president spoke the die was cast.

TheHeretic -> RE: Taking the time necessary to be right. (3/19/2011 2:27:34 PM)
He is, after all, the Decider, right?

DarkSteven -> RE: Taking the time necessary to be right. (3/19/2011 2:31:02 PM)
Kinda reminds me of Bush 41. When he attacked Saddam, he first formed a coalition. And after Saddam was driven out of Kuwait, he got out. Obama is leery of getting in Libya inextricably, and rightly so.

ChiDS -> RE: Taking the time necessary to be right. (3/19/2011 2:44:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy Here is the essence of what our President said.. "That means all attacks against civilians must stop. Qaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya, and establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas. Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya. Let me be clear, these terms are not negotiable. These terms are not subject to negotiation. If Qaddafi does not comply with the resolution, the international community will impose consequences, and the resolution will be enforced through military action." What does it mean? It means that Libyans can continue to protest in an attempt to remove Qaddafi without the fear of being annihilated. It means that change is coming and that it cannot be stopped. Best part, it means that people like wilbur, tommy and marini will be proven to be wrong about our President and how he chooses to handle things. The only thing that will prevent the removal of Qaddafi is if the people of Libya choose to do nothing. Lol? The only reason Obama is siding with the rebels is because of the oil. If the main export was bananas or something of that nature, there would be little care about human rights and us freeing a people from an evil dictator. Hence the revolution in the Ivory Coast getting no US media coverage. If you look back at the beginning we cast our vote for the rebels wayyyy too early in the game. The reason being we figured Gaddafi would topple quickly like preceding revolutions had. So naturally to keep our interests in mind we quickly picked a side. Then all the sudden Gaddafi actually put up a fight. Now you have Obama sitting there thinking to himself perhaps he should have stuck with his original side. Because if you recall Gaddafi and our Gov. go back quite a ways. Now just to clarify I personally do support the rebellion. But if you wanna know who really cast the die. It was France and GB above all. The American people have no taste for further expeditionary action.

TheHeretic -> RE: Taking the time necessary to be right. (3/19/2011 2:49:22 PM)
He gave the "Saddam must go," ultimatum too, Steve. This is different, of course. [;)]

ChiDS -> RE: Taking the time necessary to be right. (3/19/2011 3:19:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic He gave the "Saddam must go," ultimatum too, Steve. This is different, of course. [;)] I really don't see how. Operation Desert Fox and Operation Iraqi Freedom both started with a no-fly-zone as well. Then turned into an expeditionary incursion. I'm fairly certain this will end the same way. The rebels cause will be taken advantage of and WE will put a leader in place. Not the people, like it happened in Egypt. http://www.historyguy.com/no-fly_zone_war.html

DarkSteven -> RE: Taking the time necessary to be right. (3/19/2011 3:39:39 PM)
Well, so far the US involvement is limited to missiles fired from ships. The planes are supplied from other nations. And Obama has pledged to not put in ground troops. HE's limiting the US involvement, and using other nations heavily.

slvemike4u -> RE: Taking the time necessary to be right. (3/19/2011 3:42:29 PM)
So far,so good...despite the carping from the right and the not so sane.

ChiDS -> RE: Taking the time necessary to be right. (3/19/2011 4:31:40 PM)
Indeed, let's hope this trend continues. As usual I would much rather be wrong than right, in these sorts of debates. But I must insist on playing devils advocate. Because I just don't have that kind of faith in the direction and "leadership" of our country.

hlen5 -> RE: Taking the time necessary to be right. (3/19/2011 4:52:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChiDS .................Not the people, like it happened in Egypt. http://www.historyguy.com/no-fly_zone_war.html Egypt isn't democratic yet. I see nothing wrong with the US NOT storming in on our own. Without going into world cop mode, it made others take the opportunity to step up. Arab League approval, French planes bombing air defenses. My ONLY regret with a truly willing coalition is it took sooooo loooong to come together. Let's see: - No US troop involvement, - No way for the Middle East to call this a Christian - Muslim crusade, - True coaliton working TOGETHER to let the Libyans free themselves, - Libyans will get to chart their own course (and guess what, the West might not like that course !) - Operations costs not solely borne by the US. What is wrong with this picture? Nothing.

ChiDS -> RE: Taking the time necessary to be right. (3/19/2011 4:58:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hlen5 Egypt isn't democratic yet. By who's opinion? If your compare it to American democracy then no and they never will be. Just because they don't desire the American form does not mean they cannot adopt their own constitution. Which in fact they are currently doing. In my opinion having a constitution made for the people, by the people, is the first step in Democracy. But right now we are all speculating, only time will reveal the true intentions of the action.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Taking the time necessary to be right. (3/19/2011 4:58:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Well, so far the US involvement is limited to missiles fired from ships. The planes are supplied from other nations. And Obama has pledged to not put in ground troops. HE's limiting the US involvement, and using other nations heavily. He has to, just from an international political standpoint. The last thing in the world we can afford right now is to look to the people of the Middle East as though we're leading the invasion of yet another Muslim country. We're walking an extremely fine line right now in the way that we handle the populist revolts that are sweeping across the MidEast.

hlen5 -> RE: Taking the time necessary to be right. (3/19/2011 5:03:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Well, so far the US involvement is limited to missiles fired from ships. The planes are supplied from other nations. And Obama has pledged to not put in ground troops. HE's limiting the US involvement, and using other nations heavily. He has to, just from an international political standpoint. The last thing in the world we can afford right now is to look to the people of the Middle East as though we're leading the invasion of yet another Muslim country. We're walking an extremely fine line right now in the way that we handle the populist revolts that are sweeping across the MidEast. QFT.

tweakabelle -> RE: Taking the time necessary to be right. (3/19/2011 5:29:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hlen5 I see nothing wrong with the US NOT storming in on our own. Without going into world cop mode, it made others take the opportunity to step up. Arab League approval, French planes bombing air defenses. My ONLY regret with a truly willing coalition is it took sooooo loooong to come together. Let's see: - No US troop involvement, - No way for the Middle East to call this a Christian - Muslim crusade, - True coaliton working TOGETHER to let the Libyans free themselves, - Libyans will get to chart their own course (and guess what, the West might not like that course !) - Operations costs not solely borne by the US. What is wrong with this picture? Nothing. I agree with you hlen. There's nothing wrong with the picture. Though the motivations of some of the participants are suspect, I too support the intervention. Pretty similar conditions exist in Bahrain and Yemen. Despotic autocrats using wanton violence against their own people to suppress perfectly legitimate political expression and demands for democracy. Snipers shooting at peaceful demos. Riot police and foreign armies unleashed to suppress peaceful protesters in Bahrain. Opposition figures 'disappearing'. Sadly I see little or no hope of anyone in the West doing anything meaningful to support the peoples of those countries. Indeed the conservative media here has already started a campaign to discredit Bahraini democrats as puppets of Iran. And, as always, there remains the West's uncritical complicity in Israeli belligerence and criminality. We in the West are in danger of missing a golden opportunity to put right the wrongs of over half a century of misguided policy in the region, and of reconciliation with that world. Libya is a good start, but it's just a start. There's an awful lot of Middle Eastern policy that the West must re-think.

DarkSteven -> RE: Taking the time necessary to be right. (3/19/2011 5:31:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hlen5 Egypt isn't democratic yet. Egypt isn't anything yet. They're still trying to figure out where to go. They haven't even addressed how to get there.

hlen5 -> RE: Taking the time necessary to be right. (3/19/2011 5:32:26 PM)
Unfortunately, one mad dog at a time, tweakabelle!

hlen5 -> RE: Taking the time necessary to be right. (3/19/2011 5:33:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: hlen5 Egypt isn't democratic yet. Egypt isn't anything yet. They're still trying to figure out where to go. They haven't even addressed how to get there. Exactly, it's not time to break out the champaign yet.

Sanity -> RE: Taking the time necessary to be right. (3/19/2011 5:48:13 PM)
Or maybe he knows he will be seen as a (fill in the blank (fool or hypocrite or anti-American far left political hack) for helping the Libyan people now because he participated fully in the demonization of the United States for having helped the Iraqi people quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda He has to, just from an international political standpoint. The last thing in the world we can afford right now is to look to the people of the Middle East as though we're leading the invasion of yet another Muslim country. We're walking an extremely fine line right now in the way that we handle the populist revolts that are sweeping across the MidEast.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875