Obama's Foreign policy and National Security Part 2

If Obaminable gets the credit for the results, he gets credit for the process.

WE was trumpeting Gaddafi's assassination as an Obama victory. WE seemed pretty damn proud of that accomplishment. So it's very difficult to see how you can reconcile WE's obvious braying as WE's way of championing Gaddafi's violated civil rights. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Bottomline you guys bitch and complained saying this is a 3rd war and we had no right- but I promise you had Obama did nothing and Khaddafi killed a lot of people like he said he was you guys would have said :"Shame on Obama for allowing these massacres to happen under his watch" or had Obama done nothing and Khaddafi crushed the rebels you guys would have been saying how bad Obama handled the situation.. I assure you had this been the Bush Administration they would have lied to the Americans and said Libya is harboring terrorist and that Khadaffi is eveil and may have his hands on a nuke one day and Bush would have sent troops in- Obama did the right thing- end result zero American casualties- a dictator ousted in 7 months at a cost of 1 billion dollars versus George Bush Iraq war- 7 years- over 4000 dead Americans and a cost of 1 trillion dollars- now you tell me which result is more ideal?
Again I say this was a good win for Obama because the Republicans said it was the wrong move- some said he should be impeached- now look who got egg on their face?

They could have taken him alive, just as they could have taken OBL alive. This policy of killing anyone we don't like is not good policy. And then to brag about it on the world stage is ridiculous. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

looks like it was the rebels who killed him:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RtdM...watch_response
You live by the sword you die by the sword

Yeah. Uh, what did we win, exactly? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

"We" did not win anything but NATO seemed to score a significant victory. I, for one, am glad they did! While it was clearly a NATO mission, it appears that the Obama Administration played a significant role in the eventual outcome. Most importantly, there were no Americans who loss their life!

Way to go Mr. President!

don't forget the somali pirate campaign

I never took it as WE championing anyone's civil rights. I was.

Stevie, pal, listen carefully. President Obama would be just as big a failure and disaster if he were white, Latino or Asian. His incompetence is not based on his race. It is based solely on his ignorance and screwed up ideology.

Bottomline you guys bitch and complained saying this is a 3rd war and we had no right- Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Still wrong! The "real world" kicked your guy in the ass, and he found out what it means to be President of the U.S. He discovered he can no longer sit on the sidelines, kibitz and vote "present". Now he is in the untenable position of doing exactly the same things he criticized Bush for doing, and y'all are squirming to support him . . . and the hypocrisy - by you and the Obominable One - is hilarious!

but I promise you had Obama did nothing and Khaddafi killed a lot of people like he said he was you guys would have said :"Shame on Obama for allowing these massacres to happen under his watch" or had Obama done nothing and Khaddafi crushed the rebels you guys would have been saying how bad Obama handled the situation.. I assure you had this been the Bush Administration they would have lied to the Americans and said Libya is harboring terrorist and that Khadaffi is eveil and may have his hands on a nuke one day and Bush would have sent troops in- Obama did the right thing- end result zero American casualties- a dictator ousted in 7 months at a cost of 1 billion dollars versus George Bush Iraq war- 7 years- over 4000 dead Americans and a cost of 1 trillion dollars- now you tell me which result is more ideal?
Again I say this was a good win for Obama because the Republicans said it was the wrong move- some said he should be impeached- now look who got egg on their face? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

You pretend like it's over. It's not over. Who is going to take Gaddafi's place? Have all of Libya's MANPADS been accounted for? If not, who has the ones that are missing? BTW, where's the "democratic rule" in Egypt? It's far from over.

Ok, the rebels killed him. The US didn't. Can't control that, but I also won't blame Obama if the US wasn't a part of it, so I will take back anything against Obama pertaining to this issue.

NATO and the US are synonymous. President Obama hid behind NATO in order to violate the War Powers Act. An impeachable offense, but unless it involves a blow job in the oval office, no one cares.

They could have taken him alive, just as they could have taken OBL alive. This policy of killing anyone we don't like is not good policy. And then to brag about it on the world stage is ridiculous. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Hear, hear!!!

Common ground, TTH, common ground.

They could have taken him alive, just as they could have taken OBL alive. This policy of killing anyone we don't like is not good policy. And then to brag about it on the world stage is ridiculous. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

+1 However, BBC reported he was shot in the head during a fire-fight between anti- and pro-Gaddfi forces. The truth may never be known.

I never took it as WE championing anyone's civil rights. I was. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I stand corrected.

“The War of the Three Henrys”: an interesting tale about the role of assassination in politics.

“The War of the Three Henrys”: an interesting tale about the role of assassination in politics.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

interesting account of a 3 way battle (which btw is very rare occurrence)

the reference to the 3 Henry's were a bit confusing in the later entries.

Qaddafi may be gone, but the U.S & Europe still had no business getting involved in what was apparently an early stage of a civil war. it should have between the rebels & Qaddafi, 3rd parties need not apply directly

if they wanted to support somebody in that war, send some weapons to them instead of supporting them directly as their air force. That what we used to do in the 70's, and 80's.

Now that's throw out the wazoo with their interventionist kick.

we still don't know who these libyan leaders are and what they claim to represent.

alot of them are extereme Islamist who viewed Qaddafi with disdain as they didn't consider him to be faithful muslim.

Heck one of the leaders is Al Quaida or nominally has ties to them which may bolster the late Qaddafi's claim of Al Quaida penetration.

How funny.....if Shrub were responsible for these killings, the republicans would be joyfully waving the flag. Originally Posted by timpage

The fact remains that we will never know the accuracy of the above statement. Will we?

In the aftermath of 9/11 the Shrub wasn't able to find his ass with both hands, even if he had a friggin' mirror. If he had not left office in January 2009, the most unpopular (and incompetent) POTUS in modern history would still be trying to locate those mysterious WMD's! Dub gets an "F" for his failed foreign and economic policy agenda and an "F-" for competence!

Dubya had plenty of followers in the Houston Political Forums! LexusLover, Gnadfly and their merry band of blind "neo-cons" were 'high-fivin' the Wilted Shrub every step of the way! Even after the cost of Iraq reached $1 trillion and 4000 American lives (and 0 WMD's) these guys were still slobbering over Dub!

"Wanted, Dead or Alive," my ass!