[scottwww]

More than two months ago, Obama said that the conflict in Libya would take "days, not weeks, not months".

So, how is that working out for us?

Obama said this morning, "This is going to be a slow, steady process in which we are able to wear down the regime."

Is this guy confused?

In the not too distant past, didn't Obama speak out forcefully against violating the War Powers Resolution (War Powers Act)?

[hks786]

He is full of shit. He said Guantanamo Bay was going to be closed too. What I find interesting is that noone seems to care about the situation in Libya. It was on front page news everyday but recently it has been forgotten about. I think this shows how desensitised we are becoming to war. Even Iraq and Afghanistan are forgotten about.

[KGB7]

Since when did we start believing anything Obama tells us?

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by KGB7

Since when did we start believing anything Obama tells us?

Some did believe. They even sang hymns to Obama and prayed in his name. I bet there are still some believers out there.

[1997gtx]

Didn't he say the US would be in Libya that long? Not that the whole ordeal would only take that long?

He was saying that US troops wouldn't be there longer than weeks.

[11Series]

Originally Posted by 1997gtx

Didn't he say the US would be in Libya that long? Not that the whole ordeal would only take that long?

Correct, Obama wasn't refering to the entire ordeal, just the initial phase of US being completely in charge (operational control). Obama was talking about the timeline for the UN taking operational control over from the US, which has already happened. The transitioned occured between March 24th and March 30th.

But facts will never penetrate the minds of those who intentionally blind themselves to them.


What I'm wondering is what will the right be saying IF (and that's a big IF) -- IF Gadhafi agrees to step down from power, ending the conflict? What will the right say if Obama gets rid of a notrious dictator in a matter of months without getting the US involved in a decade long trillion dollar land war?

Will they say that Obama did it wrong, or will they just try to figure out a way to claim that Bush should get credit for it (like they did with Bin Laden).

[Echo M3]

Originally Posted by scottwww

More than two months ago, Obama said that the conflict in Libya would take "days, not weeks, not months".

So, how is that working out for us?

Obama said this morning, "This is going to be a slow, steady process in which we are able to wear down the regime."

Is this guy confused?

In the not too distant past, didn't Obama speak out forcefully against violating the War Powers Resolution (War Powers Act)?

I'd have to say that I agree on this one. He hasn't kept his promise, nor has he (to my knowledge) authorized his war in Congress. Disappointing considering that Obama ran for President on the premise of representing change. To me, it just seems to be more of the same in this regard.

[1997gtx]

Wouldn't 'more of the same' been to invade, overthrow the dictator, and stay for years and years and years?

[OldArmy]

Originally Posted by 1997gtx

Wouldn't 'more of the same' been to invade, overthrow the dictator, and stay for years and years and years?

Nobama's not good enough to execute that option.

[hks786]

Whether we stay for years in Libya like Iraq/Afghanistan or execute a quick operation makes little difference. Obviously I would like to see them out of Libya because IMO they should never have been in there in the first place, but the point remains that there are wars all over the world, corruption, poverty etc. and America/Britain choose to ignore what they want to. Their interests lie only in what they can benefit from and they will say anything to justify what they do.

[1997gtx]

Originally Posted by OldArmy

Nobama's not good enough to execute that option.

You can use whatever 'cute' excuse you want for not 'executing' that option, the fact is still true. He didn't invade a country, overthrow its' leader, and stay for years and years.

[mfeltiii]

Originally Posted by 1997gtx

You can use whatever 'cute' excuse you want for not 'executing' that option, the fact is still true. He didn't invade a country, overthrow its' leader, and stay for years and years.

Ya, we should have just shelled Saddam's house from the Mediterranean... oh wait....

[1997gtx]

^ I'm not sure what you mean by that?

[OldArmy]

Originally Posted by 1997gtx

You can use whatever 'cute' excuse you want for not 'executing' that option, the fact is still true. He didn't invade a country, overthrow its' leader, and stay for years and years.

Actually you miss the point entirely. Invasion, overthrow and sustaining a strong presence in Indian country is a GOOD THING.

..and he's not good enough to get the job done. Hell, he and his team can't even execute what he wants to do, much less design, execute and sustain the actions necessary to secure this country.

[1997gtx]

Originally Posted by OldArmy

Actually you miss the point entirely. Invasion, overthrow and sustaining a strong presence in Indian country is a GOOD THING.

..and he's not good enough to get the job done. Hell, he and his team can't even execute what he wants to do, much less design, execute and sustain the actions necessary to secure this country.

Based upon what evidence?

Let me guess, you're one of those 'old' guys who says that getting Bin Laden was pure luck and if not for torture under GWB, we never would have gotten him?!

ps - I'm pretty sure I can't think of ANY recent President that could design, execute and sustain the actions necessary...In fact, I can think of the WORST one in recent memory: GWB (9/11, FAILED war, etc...)

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by mfeltiii

Ya, we should have just shelled Saddam's house from the Mediterranean... oh wait....

Originally Posted by 1997gtx

^ I'm not sure what you mean by that?

I don't know if it is what he meant, but I took it as this is not so dissimilar to what George H.W. Bush did in the first war with Iraq, thought Desert Storm was a much bigger operation.

[11Series]

Originally Posted by scottwww

I don't know if it is what he meant, but I took it as this is not so dissimilar to what George H.W. Bush did in the first war with Iraq, thought Desert Storm was a much bigger operation.

How so? If anything, Libya is the exact polar opposite of Gulf War I.

Herbert left the dictator (Sadam) in power, while still committing the US to leading a massively expensive land invasion, using mostly US ground forces on the front line on the ground.

How is that anything like what NATO is doing in Libya? I swear you have no ability to logically think through anything.

[OldArmy]

Originally Posted by 1997gtx

Based upon what evidence?

Let me guess, you're one of those 'old' guys who says that getting Bin Laden was pure luck and if not for torture under GWB, we never would have gotten him?!

ps - I'm pretty sure I can't think of ANY recent President that could design, execute and sustain the actions necessary...In fact, I can think of the WORST one in recent memory: GWB (9/11, FAILED war, etc...)

If that's your best guess it is uninformed and a low speed attempt at a comeback retort. Not successful.

Judge Nobama's effectiveness at executing his personal agenda by how happy the people are that voted for him...they aren't.

Clue--President Bush is no longer in office. I know you miss him but the nation's miseries belong to you know who. But he's already been derailed by changes in the congress and very soon the rest will get fixed.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by 11Series

How so? If anything, Libya is the exact polar opposite of Gulf War I.

Herbert left the dictator (Sadam) in power, while still committing the US to leading a massively expensive land invasion, using mostly US ground forces on the front line on the ground.

How is that anything like what NATO is doing in Libya? I swear you have no ability to logically think through anything.

The first war with Iraq was not waged to actively depose Saddam Hussein. The idea was to do serious damage to Saddam's power so that he would fall from within. He did not fall. It required another president a decade later to do it. This is the parallel.

Has Obama deposed Kadaffi? If it happens, then much of the comparison fizzles. If Gaddafi remains in power (or another bad actor), then it could be in ten years that we are back to Libya with a much more costly action, something like the second war in Iraq.

You didn't understand what mfeltiii meant in his comment. I thought I might have been able to clear it up for you.

In fewer words, we tried to get in and get out quick in Iraq 1990. We did that, but had to go back and finish the job. It didn't go so well the first time, though at the time, it was highly regarded. This comes to oldarmy's point about doing the full job.

You seem to want to take a comparison reasonably made and turn it into something nobody ever intended.

[11Series]

Originally Posted by scottwww

The first war with Iraq was not waged to actively depose Saddam Hussein. The idea was to do serious damage to Saddam's power so that he would fall from within. He did not fall. It required another president a decade later to do it. This is the parallel.

Has Obama deposed Kadaffi? If it happens, then much of the comparison fizzles. If Gaddafi remains in power (or another bad actor), then it could be in ten years that we are back to Libya with a much more costly action, something like the second war in Iraq.

You didn't understand what mfeltiii meant in his comment. I thought I might have been able to clear it up for you.

In fewer words, we tried to get in and get out quick in Iraq 1990. We did that, but had to go back and finish the job. It didn't go so well the first time, though at the time, it was highly regarded. This comes to oldarmy's point about doing the full job.

You seem to want to take a comparison reasonably made and turn it into something nobody ever intended.

You seem to be suffering from a delusional view of history. The US attacked Iraq to drive them out of Kuwait, not to depose Saddam Hussein. The US went in to drive one UN member nation out of another UN member nation that was being unlawfully occupied, not to depose a dictator.

If you are going to make historical comparisons, you need to first know your history. Get a clue.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by 11Series

You seem to be suffering from a delusional view of history. The US attacked Iraq to drive them out of Kuwait, not to depose Saddam Hussein. The US went in to drive one UN member nation out of another UN member nation that was being unlawfully occupied, not to depose a dictator.

If you are going to make historical comparisons, you need to first know your history. Get a clue.

Read my first sentence in what you quoted. You are reaching for an argument that doesn't exist. And though there was not action taken to depose Saddam, his fall from within was very much what was talked about everywhere. Did you live in that era?

You are still very rude in your condescending comments.

[11Series]

Originally Posted by scottwww

Read my first sentence in what you quoted. You are reaching for an argument that doesn't exist. And though there was not action taken to depose Saddam, his fall from within was very much what was talked about everywhere. Did you live in that era?

You are still very rude in your condescending comments.

Stop trying to phish for personal information, and stop trying to play the refs. We all know the rules here.

When you are wrong about why we went to war in Iraq, just say it instead of crying about it.