Obama - incompetent policy in tatters, Libya in chaos

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Obama - incompetent policy in tatters, Libya in chaos

    Of course this story will be ignored by the US media that most  leftwingers glom onto, but Libya is in turmoil.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/special-report-we-all-thought-libya-had-moved-on--it-has-but-into-lawlessness-and-ruin-8797041.html

    Lawlessness and ruin? Awesome! Egypt in chaos? No that can't be true! Obama sure is doing a great job supporting the creation of dysfunctional, extremist states! 

    Obama policies in the Middle East are a total failure, unless of course you are looking at it from some perspective otrher than what is good for the US.

    Could there be any coincidence between Al Qaeda/Al Nusrah terrorists getting caught making Sarin and Mustard gases in Iraq and their appearance in Syria by those very same organizations?

    Are we forking stupid or what?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Obama - incompetent policy in tatters, Libya in chaos


    How many more regimes will Obama topple before people realize his particular slant on nation building is perhaps worse than Bush's?

    The big question is:  How many wars do you get to be involved in before your Nobel Peace prize gets yanked?

    The hypocricy (and incompetency) of the peacenik left is on full display.

    Liberas cannot be trusted with matters of national defence or foriegn policy. they are simply are incompetent in these areas.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Obama - incompetent policy in tatters, Libya in chaos

    In response to skeeter20's comment:


    How many more regimes will Obama topple before people realize his particular slant on nation building is perhaps worse than Bush's?

    The big question is:  How many wars do you get to be involved in before your Nobel Peace prize gets yanked?

    The hypocricy (and incompetency) of the peacenik left is on full display.

    Liberas cannot be trusted with matters of national defence or foriegn policy. they are simply are incompetent in these areas.




    Incompetent .. that's a big word coming from a neo-con and something they know all about..... again explain your statement about how liberals can't be trusted on National Defense or Foriegn Policy and please don't use the dubya's years as Commander in Chief as your example of the way the neo-cons are experts on National Defense and Foriegn Policy .

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: Obama - incompetent policy in tatters, Libya in chaos

    President Obama has been forced to play mop-up to the imperialistic wars launched by the Bush administration. To the extent that he's been "activist", it has been to support fledgling democracies in arab states in northern Africa--but he has not tried to export American democracy like his predeccessor.

    If I were to use any word to describe Mr. Obama's foreign policy it would have to be, "pragmatism."  It fits because he is essentially a very pragmatic President. I like the mix of Hagel and Brennan as being able to bridge the transition from flamboyant preemptive intervention to cautious, calculated assessment of the risk and rewards in any foreign policy decision.

    A President who thinks first, and shoots second.  Imagine that. 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: Obama - incompetent policy in tatters, Libya in chaos

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

    Are we forking stupid or what?

     




    Do you have a frog in your pocket?

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Obama - incompetent policy in tatters, Libya in chaos

    Hard to argue with!

    Putin said it was "ludicrous" that the government of President Bashar Assad - a staunch ally of Russia - would use chemical weapons at a time when it was holding sway against the rebels.

     

    "From our viewpoint, it seems absolutely absurd that the armed forces, the regular armed forces, which are on the offensive today and in some areas have encircled the so-called rebels and are finishing them off, that in these conditions they would start using forbidden chemical weapons while realizing quite well that it could serve as a pretext for applying sanctions against them, including the use of force," he said.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Obama - incompetent policy in tatters, Libya in chaos

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    How many more regimes will Obama topple before people realize his particular slant on nation building is perhaps worse than Bush's?

    The big question is:  How many wars do you get to be involved in before your Nobel Peace prize gets yanked?

    The hypocricy (and incompetency) of the peacenik left is on full display.

    Liberas cannot be trusted with matters of national defence or foriegn policy. they are simply are incompetent in these areas.

     




    Incompetent .. that's a big word coming from a neo-con and something they know all about..... again explain your statement about how liberals can't be trusted on National Defense or Foriegn Policy and please don't use the dubya's years as Commander in Chief as your example of the way the neo-cons are experts on National Defense and Foriegn Policy .

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Explain my statement that liberals can't be trusted with national defence or foriegn policy?  Have you been asleep for the last five years?

    The mid east is in tatters, largely due to Obama's apology tour and regime change policy.

    Our allies don't trust us.

    Our enemies don't fear us.

     

    Is that clear enough for you?

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: Obama - incompetent policy in tatters, Libya in chaos

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    Hard to argue with!

    Putin said it was "ludicrous" that the government of President Bashar Assad - a staunch ally of Russia - would use chemical weapons at a time when it was holding sway against the rebels.

     

    "From our viewpoint, it seems absolutely absurd that the armed forces, the regular armed forces, which are on the offensive today and in some areas have encircled the so-called rebels and are finishing them off, that in these conditions they would start using forbidden chemical weapons while realizing quite well that it could serve as a pretext for applying sanctions against them, including the use of force," he said.



    It may be true that Assad did not gas his people, but he is far from winning this 'war'. 

    Assad’s forces have scored some recent victories,  but the reality is that the war has entered a stalemate, and Assad only presides over a small fraction of Syria.

    Syria has long been a secular society, but Assad's violent reaction to the uprising has led to a largely sectarian conflict between the majority Sunni Muslims and his small minority of Alawites (Shiite).

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Obama - incompetent policy in tatters, Libya in chaos

    In response to UserName99's comment:

     

    Putin said it was "ludicrous" that the government of President Bashar Assad - a staunch ally of Russia - would use chemical weapons at a time when it was holding sway against the rebels.

    "From our viewpoint, it seems absolutely absurd that the armed forces, the regular armed forces, which are on the offensive today and in some areas have encircled the so-called rebels and are finishing them off, that in these conditions they would start using forbidden chemical weapons while realizing quite well that it could serve as a pretext for applying sanctions against them, including the use of force," he said.

     



    It may be true that Assad did not gas his people, but he is far from winning this 'war'. 

     

    Assad’s forces have scored some recent victories,  but the reality is that the war has entered a stalemate, and Assad only presides over a small fraction of Syria.

    Syria has long been a secular society, but Assad's violent reaction to the uprising has led to a largely sectarian conflict between the majority Sunni Muslims and his small minority of Alawites (Shiite).

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Uh according to all reports; the rebels while they do control some neighborhoods do not control any significant infrastructure, ie: energy, medical, rail, water ports, Airports etc.

    Think about this from Press.TV

    Someone wants to get the United States into a war with Syria very, very badly. Cui bono is an old Latin phrase that is still commonly used, and it roughly means “to whose benefit?” The key to figuring out who is really behind the push for war is to look at who will benefit from that war.



    If a full-blown war erupts between the United States and Syria, it will not be good for the United States, it will not be good for Israel, it will not be good for Syria, it will not be good for Iran and it will not be good for Hezbollah. The party that stands to benefit the most is Saudi Arabia, and they won’t even be doing any of the fighting. They have been pouring billions of dollars into the conflict in Syria, but so far they have not been successful in their attempts to overthrow the Assad regime. Now the Saudis are trying to play their trump card - the U.S. military. If the Saudis are successful, they will get to pit the two greatest long-term strategic enemies of Sunni Islam against each other - the U.S. and Israel on one side and Shia Islam on the other. In such a scenario, the more damage that both sides do to each other the happier the Sunnis will be.

    There would be other winners from a U.S. war with Syria as well. For example, it is well-known that Qatar wants to run a natural gas pipeline out of the Persian Gulf, through Syria and into Europe. That is why Qatar has also been pouring billions of dollars into the civil war in Syria.

    So if it is really Saudi Arabia and Qatar that want to overthrow the Assad regime, why does the United States have to do the fighting?

    Someone should ask Barack Obama why it is necessary for the U.S. military to do the dirty work of his Sunni Muslim friends.

    Obama is promising that the upcoming attack will only be a “limited military strike” and that we will not be getting into a full-blown war with Syria.

    The only way that will work is if Syria, Hezbollah and Iran all sit on their hands and do nothing to respond to the upcoming U.S. attack.

    Could that happen?

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Obama - incompetent policy in tatters, Libya in chaos

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:


    How many more regimes will Obama topple before people realize his particular slant on nation building is perhaps worse than Bush's?



    Obama didn't topple Gadaffi and the point wasn't nation building. But I'm glad hindsight provides you with all the information you need to critisize him.

     Gadaffi was a murderous dictator. Libyans rebelled. We gave pretty limited help to them.

      Should we have helped Gadaffi instead?

    [/QUOTE]

    Libyans are still rebeling but, now we dont care if there is chaos and murder. why is that?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Obama - incompetent policy in tatters, Libya in chaos

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

     


    How many more regimes will Obama topple before people realize his particular slant on nation building is perhaps worse than Bush's?

    The big question is:  How many wars do you get to be involved in before your Nobel Peace prize gets yanked?

    The hypocricy (and incompetency) of the peacenik left is on full display.

    Liberas cannot be trusted with matters of national defence or foriegn policy. they are simply are incompetent in these areas.

     

     

     




    Incompetent .. that's a big word coming from a neo-con and something they know all about..... again explain your statement about how liberals can't be trusted on National Defense or Foriegn Policy and please don't use the dubya's years as Commander in Chief as your example of the way the neo-cons are experts on National Defense and Foriegn Policy .

     

     

     

     

     



    Explain my statement that liberals can't be trusted with national defence or foriegn policy?  Have you been asleep for the last five years?

     

     

    The mid east is in tatters, largely due to Obama's apology tour and regime change policy.

    Our allies don't trust us.

    Our enemies don't fear us.

     

    Is that clear enough for you?

     

     



    Hilarious.  Reagan sells arms to Iran to fund groups in South American that congress forbid the US from involvment and all we hear about is him telling Gorby to tear down a wall.  Bush Jr starts a war with a country on the premise of its WMD program only he apparently mispelled Iran so we ended up in Iraq - for over 10 years.  He went into Afganistan to bring OBL to justice and then gave up after a few years because it was hard work and besides we needed to focus on winning the war we started with the wrong country.  

     

    The mideast is in tatters because decades of autocratic rule in multiple countries has begun to crumble and the people in those places have determined they can do better on their own than under the thumb of dictators like Assad, Qaddafi, Mubarak, etc.  The US did not sign up to rebuild these countries and instead put the onus on the global community to step up and help.  

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Obama - incompetent policy in tatters, Libya in chaos

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    I guess no one remembers Bush's speech to the National Endowment for Democracy:

     

     President Bush laid out a broad vision Thursday of an American mission to spread democracy throughout the Middle East and the rest of the world, saying, "Freedom can be the future of every nation."

    "...removing Saddam and holding elections would make Iraq a shining beacon that would provoke a transformation of the region."

    "The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution."

     



    It was headed that way until 09 when we pulled out.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Obama - incompetent policy in tatters, Libya in chaos

    In response to UserName99's comment:

     

    President Obama has been forced to play mop-up to the imperialistic wars launched by the Bush administration. To the extent that he's been "activist", it has been to support fledgling democracies in arab states in northern Africa--but he has not tried to export American democracy like his predeccessor.

    If I were to use any word to describe Mr. Obama's foreign policy it would have to be, "pragmatism."  It fits because he is essentially a very pragmatic President. I like the mix of Hagel and Brennan as being able to bridge the transition from flamboyant preemptive intervention to cautious, calculated assessment of the risk and rewards in any foreign policy decision.

    A President who thinks first, and shoots second.  Imagine that. 

     



    I might agree with you if there were actually any evidence that Obama thought about anything before he stared shooting in the Middle East.

     

    Perhaps you are intelligent to notice what Obama apparently hasn't - that for the most part the countries in the Middle East go from some kind of secular dictator like Mubarak, Assad, Hussein to some kind of theocratic authoritarian state like Iran or Afghaistan.

    Ironically, the only situation which seems even remotely democratic is Iraq, but the future of democracy there is dubious. There are some people that think all you need for a democracy is elections. So far what have the elections shown us in the Middle East? That they are happy to elect islamic extremists. Democracy is also institutions, culture and rule of law (except for Obama of course).

    So what good is Obama's policy for US?? The only reason we care about the Middle East is oil. And when we have a chance to become energy independent,Obama puts the brakes on that by not approving the Keystone pipeline and by stalling exploration on federal lands. If we could truly by independent of middle east oil, we could leave them alone to do what they want, even if it is to gas each other.

    Obama's policies are just turning the Middle East into a bunch of despotic theocracies. His actions in Syria have only downside for us, no upside.

    He is doing better for the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda than he is for us.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Obama - incompetent policy in tatters, Libya in chaos

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     


    How many more regimes will Obama topple before people realize his particular slant on nation building is perhaps worse than Bush's?

     



    Obama didn't topple Gadaffi and the point wasn't nation building. But I'm glad hindsight provides you with all the information you need to critisize him.

     

     

     

    Gadaffi was a murderous dictator. Libyans rebelled. We gave pretty limited help to them.

     

     

    Should we have helped Gadaffi instead?

    [/QUOTE]

    Why did we get involved with NATO in attacking Libya? Wasn't it to give the rebels a chance to defeat Khadaffy? Could the rebels have done it without the help of NATO? I doubt it. They were not having much success in Syria either.

    It is not a binary decision either. We can decide to stay out of these countries and let them deal with their problems. That would be better than throwing in a few bombs and letting chaos take over. It would be  better than a full fledged war trying to force democracy upon an unwilling population.

    What good has happened becasue of our intervention? Not for the Libyans, but for US who have t o deal with the effects of Obama's interventions. I am guessing, but I bet you would be howling in protest if a Republican directed these activities.

    In the meantime, several Americans were killed in Benghazi, possibly with weapons we provided assisting their efforts. 

    We are doing the same dumba55 thing in Syria.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Obama - incompetent policy in tatters, Libya in chaos

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

     

    1. I felt (and argued with family/friends at the time) that even if Saddam possessed WMDs, he was not a threat to U.S. national security - and that was what the war was sold to the public on (despite whatever tvoter might dig up from a resolution signed after the selling was completely).

    The truth is state of the union speeches and remarks do not mean anything until congress gave the apporval and the reasons for war which only one of the many was about WMD's

    you hate that and try to make it sound inconsequencial but, it was all that matter except to the hard left that ignored the congressional reasons for war and goes with sound bites instead.

    2. He completely mismanaged it, most spectacularly in letting the Iraqi army simply disband - 400,000 PO'd people with guns but no jobs? That'll work out, creating a mess we didn't need.

    Fallujia and releasing the army into the public was serious error I agree and bad advice was gave and bad decision was made.

    3. There weren't any WMDs. We were easily 15-20 years too late. 

     Yea and there weren't any in syria either! lol




     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Obama - incompetent policy in tatters, Libya in chaos

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Hansori: And how do you know Obama didn't think? How do you know he didn't think intelligently about the situation?

    I think the bottom line is that you are much more upset with the results than you are with the decisions that were made at the time. I don't see any reason to believe that you, Romney, McCain, or anyone else would have come up with a better approach. None of these situations had a clear right answer, and each of them could have been expensive with or without intervention, depending on how things turned out.

     

     

     

     

    Libyan rebels rise up against an evil dictator. What should Obama do? Nothing? Help the dictator? Limited intervention?

    He chose limited intervention.

     

    Egyptian civilians rise up against evil dictator. What should Obama do? Nothing? Help the dictator? Limitated intervention?

    He gave a speech or two.

     

    Iranian civilians rise up against evil government. What should Obama do? Nothing? Help the government? Limited intervention?

    He gave a speech or two.

     

     

     

    So what really is your gripe? That speeches for Iran/Egypt, and some weapons/advice for libya was too much? Was it too little?

    What is actually wrong with what Obama did and how would you have done it better?

     



    Valid questions.

    If  you look back at our policies and actions in the Middle East, they appear to be a total clusterfork.

    We help one side in a conflict out of self-interest. For the most part that self-interest is to make sure that there is access to oil at market prices. Without the oil, I don't think anyone would be so concerned about what happens in the Middle East, do you?

    We along with the British, arrange for the Shah to take power in Iran. That was in the 50s. 25 years later Carter abandons him and we get the despotic islamic theocracy that resulted in numerous energy shortages and now Iran with nuclear weapons or close to it. 

    Was it a good thing for us to see the Shah toppled? 

    So what should our policy be? Should we support the secular dictators to keep the peace and maintain access to oil or should we arrange to have them toppled to risk access to oil and see these countries go to chaos with the islamic extremists taking over?

    Look at Afghanistan. We help the Mujahadeen harass the Russians, then we leave it in a power vacuum that ends up with people we help (bin Laden, etc) attacking us. 

    In Libya, we aid the rebels. In the process we lied to the UN and ticked off the Russians and CHinese and it is possible that some of the weapons used in Benghazi came from US!

    In Syria we are helping the rebels, who,if they were in Iraq, would be arrested if not killed in battle. And what have they been arrested for? Making chemical weapons - Sarin and mustard gas.

    I'd rather have the secular dictators in place seeing as though the alternatives have never worked out at all. Only downside.

     

    And now we are going to lob a few bombs in SYria? for what? what  isin it for us but the threat of retaliation?

    What should have Obama done? Either nothing or found a way to keep Khaddaffy in charge. That is what is better for us. The libyans are no better off for what we have done.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Obama - incompetent policy in tatters, Libya in chaos

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    What were you even trying to say?




    The leaked secret US govt information over last year is quite interesting (at least parts of it), you should read some of it since it indicates as was assumed that saddam has his chemical arsenal shipped to his sunni/bath party brethen in syria in the weeks before the invasion. He intended to reclaim it once the US was embarassed and left but, that didnt work out for him.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Obama - incompetent policy in tatters, Libya in chaos

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    I think the lessons in these examples are mainly that proxy wars tend to screw everything up.

    I agree

    As for dictators, the trouble is that things can go bad for us just as easily without intervention.

    If, we do not know we can make a difference we should not attack anyone

    What did we do in Egypt except give a couple speeches and continue to back the army, which is the secular force?

    We spent over 100 million on the effort!

    Nothing. And what happened? Well, first the civilians throw out Mubarak and elect Morsi, and now the army has thrown out Morsi.

    We had no clear objective.

    There are no good answers here, but I don't know if I can accept the notion that we and our allies should sit on our hands and make no efforts when a people rise against a dictator.

    If it was about helping people risiing up against a dictator we shopuld have got involved before alqeida became the fighting wing of the opposition.

    Given the extremely limited nature of Obama's involvements in the Middle East, I can't really see how we can  say anything was made anything worse for certain.

    Thats exactly how you can say  it; he did nothing to help shape things in a part of the world mostly controlled by people with no respect for human or civl rights and we got chaos! 




     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Obama - incompetent policy in tatters, Libya in chaos

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

    Given the extremely limited nature of Obama's involvements in the Middle East, I can't really see how we can  say anything was made anything worse for certain.

    Thats exactly how you can say  it; he did nothing to help shape things in a part of the world mostly controlled by people with no respect for human or civl rights and we got chaos! 

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The way I see it, is that chaos was inevitable either way and what Obama did was to place a hedged bet on the chance for the better. But a hedged bet is all they were, and they have yet to pay off for the better. Then again, we didn't lose a whole lot either.

     


    Compared to our GDP/Revenue, he basically bought a few $20 scratch tickets and lost.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Limited involvement? Really?

    In the first five months of 2009:

    two major speeches in the Mideast, turkey and Cairo. I.e. the apology tour.

    a televised statement to the people of Iran.

    a significant section of innaugeration dedicated to working with the Middle East.

     

    also consider he failed to support the Iranian people when they stood up to the mullahs.  I guess he was limited in that action.  Other than that, he basically supported the rise of the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt, handed Libya over to alQaeda. He got kicked out of Iraq, and he has muddled the effort in Afghanistan.

    his involvement isn't limited, it is destructive.

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Obama - incompetent policy in tatters, Libya in chaos

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     


    How many more regimes will Obama topple before people realize his particular slant on nation building is perhaps worse than Bush's?

     



    Obama didn't topple Gadaffi and the point wasn't nation building. But I'm glad hindsight provides you with all the information you need to critisize him.

     

     

     

    Gadaffi was a murderous dictator. Libyans rebelled. We gave pretty limited help to them.

     

     

    Should we have helped Gadaffi instead?

    [/QUOTE]

    Really? You aren't armed with any facts.

    i guess our involvement in Libya didn't topple quadaffi. Eye roll.

    stop being so dense.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Obama - incompetent policy in tatters, Libya in chaos

    I guess if I was trying to support a president who's policy has left the Mid East in tatters, as Obama's efforts have, I would be trying to paint his involvement as "limited".

    unfortunately, for the historical revisionists here, we have a body of work, including action in the Middle East as a major plank in his innaugeratuiion address, a dead ambassador, a speech that focused on a blame America first apology, and a rising tide of control of the Mid East by alqueda.

    some success story, a "limited" success story.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Obama - incompetent policy in tatters, Libya in chaos

    Can you righties tell me what Obama policies are in the middle east and what would you do differently

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share