What Should Be Obama's Next Move Concerning Libya?

So, Obama is supplying them with weapons. Do you feel that Obama's supporters may turn against him now that he's taken military action? After all, Libya didn't invade the U.S. and Obama is wanting a regime change in Libya. Obama stated that when "a leader’s only means of staying in power is to use mass violence against his own people, he has lost the legitimacy to rule and needs to do what is right for his country by leaving now." I don't know how much clearer he could be about regime change except for sending in Tomahawk missiles.

Of course, during these extremely tough economic times at home, there's still the monetary cost of this war to consider: An independent report released this month by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments estimated that the no-fly zone would cost at least $400 million to set up, and up to $100 million per week to enforce. Each Tomahawk missile costs more than $500,000, bringing the total price for Saturday night's initial volley to at least $55 million. I don't think Americans are interested in attacking a country, being one of the world's policemen, financing the associated costs nor running the risk of the potential loss of American lives in Libya.

It remains to be seen whether or not Obama has made the biggest mistake of his presidency.

 

To break it down in simple terms, the military industrial complex makes money selling other countries weapons. When one of those countries misbehaves we go over and bomb them with weapons the military industrial complex has sold to us via the tax payers. I wouldn't say Obama is supplying the weapons because it wouldn't matter who was in office, the situation wouldn't change. The simple fact is that the military industrial complex is calling the shots. Our number one export is weapons. Presidents are complicit in the relationship at a minimum or completely supportive of the relationship but pretty much irrelevant to the eventual outcome. I could go on but I can see your eye glazing over from here.

 

Oh, please... peddle your drivel somewhere else. Tell Cindy Sheehan that it's the military complex calling the shots or that the president is complicit "at a minimum". Regardless, the point is not who is supplying the weapons, it's a matter of us using them. And please don't tell me that Obama had little to do with this; he's the Commander-in-Chief and all military decisions have to cross his desk. He could have just as easily said "no" to the bombing of Libya and there's not one damned thing the military complex could have done about it. Now, the situation is that Obama has entered into military conflict with Libya, but many of his supporters don't support military options. I think those people will either abandon Obama or turn the other cheek, as it were. I believe many people feel as if the situation should be handled by countries in the region (or by Libya alone) and that the U.S. shouldn't be the world's policeman.

 

If we actually pull back in a few days and hand the operation off, I will judge him ok. But, if this no fly zone drags on for years and years and we stay involved (like in the Iraq no fly zones that lasted for a decade and were only ended because of war), I will be none too happy.

 

The world would be so much easier to understand if I was as naive as you are but the world is complicated and easy answers satiate the dull intellect. Don't sell me your spoon-fed answers and expect me to swallow the same crap you eat. If it gives you comfort to march in lockstep with the rest of the lemmings that is your business. It matters a great deal who makes the weapons. If we stopped selling them, our economy would collapse. So certainly it matters who is making them. If you don't like the truth, or can't stand reality, turn your head away and believe what you want.

 

You're still going back to the "who made the weapons" argument. It's neither here nor there. You're still skirting the issues and avoiding the questions, but I expect no less from you. If you wish to avoid giving an opinion, answering a question or presenting an argument then please feel free to not respond. I asked for the liberal members of this forum to respond to the fact that Obama has launched military action against Libya and what the consequences of those actions might be not only for him but for the U.S. If I wanted to know who manufactured the weapons Obama is using, I'll access the DOD website or other databases that have that information. The same goes for the fact that the military industrial complex makes money selling weapons, your assertion that the military industrial complex is "calling the shots" and that our number one export is weapons. Try focusing....

 

If you don't like what I post, stop responding to them.

 

I enjoy the fact that you respond, but please respond to the focus of the thread. Otherwise, it just exposes your ignorance. Thus far, we've still received nothing from you...

 

One of Obama's supporters, Louis Farrakhan speaks out against Obama's actions in Libya. Farrakhan asks Obama, "Who the hell do you think you are?":




Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) calls Obama's actions an act of war (see video at 4:50):




How will the Democratic base respond to this:

 

I know this was a few posts ago OKC but are you confident in what these people have to say on the matter? After all, you're quoting a loon (dictator), communists and another dictator. At least they're not Socialists.
Hell, Chavez was probably closest to the truth even though we (the U.S.) gets little of their (Libyan) oil.

Just askin.

 

Ron Paul says we have no moral right to bomb Libya and the U.S. has no constitutional authority to do so:




Even Defense Secretary Gates said that any future Defense Secretary who advises the president to send a land army into (The Middle East, Africa) should have his head examined:

 

Just repeating what they said. You (the reader) must decide what you believe. I believe they said it whether or not the facts are true.

 

Well,

What do YOU (the reader) think? You're tossing up some nice video and Gadaffi quotes amongst other things.
Personally I'm pretty sure ol Gadaffi did say these things and some other stuff as well. He doesn't seem to be camera shy.

Pretty lame dodge OKC. You cite/quote the Libyan military, China, Russia and Hugo Chavez like it's gospel in one context then backtrack when called upon it.
After all, if you believe they said it (whether or not the facts are true) and a reader must decide why didn't you say that?

Now that we have that aside. What do YOU think President Obama's next move should be? Why or why not were his first moves wrong? How would you have done it differently?

 

Read the post, clembo. I said that you (the reader, meaning any reader, all readers) must decide. Then I said that I believed it was said. Now, how much clearer can that be? You're making a mountain out of molehill.

Now, that I've been asked what I think Obama's next move should be, I'll answer it (unlike some other members of this forum). Initially, I asked the question before Obama made the decision to bomb Libya. My recommendation would have been to stay out of it. However, now that he's bombed Libya, he's going to have to see it all the way through. He's said that his goal is only to keep the civilians safe, but he's going to have to continue until Ghadafi is removed by any means necessary. If Ghadafi stays in power, will the civilians be safe? Hardly. If the fighting turns into civil war, it will become a haven for terrorists similar to what's happened in Somalia.
First, I think it was the wrong move for Obama to go into Libya.
Second, I think it was a terrible decision to show our hand by saying that we wouldn't send in ground troops (this lets Ghadafi know that he'll only have to deal with air power unless Obama goes back on his word in which case he'll lose credibility with the American people).
Third, if American lives are at stake, Obama should take the lead in this war instead of handing it off to France, Britain, etc.
Fourth, objectives were not set before going into the war. At this point, Obama has said he's going to turn over the operation to other nations "within a few days". The other nations are dumbfounded by this and are wondering who is going to take the lead. No nation has stepped forward to take responsibility yet.
Fifth, with war in Libya imminent, Obama should have cancelled his trip to Rio de Janeiro, stayed in Washington and focused on on the situation with his military advisers and heads-of-state of the involved nations.
Sixth, I have to ask why in the world are we in Libya when Obama turned a blind eye to the revolt in Iran in 2009 and is currently turning a blind eye on Yemen, Somalia and Bahrain? It makes him look like a war monger and I don't think his supporters will end up backing him.
Seventh, even if Ghadafi is toppled, the U.S. will put a leader in who is perceived by the Arab World as a puppet government so, in that case, it's really a no win situation. The Middle East will feel about Libya the way they do about the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan - not good.
Eighth, if Ghadafi is not toppled, it will be a slap in the face to American might (to say nothing of France and Britain) and will strengthen the resolve of our enemies.

I've been against the bombing of Libya by U.S. forces and still feel the same way. Now that we're in though, we need to get out ASAP. I think Obama has made a HUGE mistake!

BTW, I quoted Chavez since he's a friend of Obama's and even he sees that the bombing was the wrong thing to do.

View attachment 147

 

Is everyone who disagrees with you naive and intellectually unable to understand the issue at hand? Is everyone who disagrees with you a lemming and slave to fox news?

Before you the answer those questions, consider that you just stated that our economy would collapse if we stop selling weapons on the international market! Do you see what happens when you try think? You sound even dumber than you do when you regurgitate left wing propaganda.

 

The hypocrisy on the left never ceases to amaze.
Here we have the Nobel Peace prize-winning BO taking military action against a foreign country & calling for the ouster of other world leaders. Is this the same guy (& the same party) who criticized Bush for doing the same thing?

 

Well, just let me exactly how you'd like me to respond and I'll see what I can do.

 

It is interesting how the Right wingers in this country are actively undermining our war effort in Libya. Actually it's kind of un-American.

 

That comment speaks volumes. Do you pull the wings off butterflies?

 

Turn-about kind of hurts eh?