Obama's handling of conflict in Libya shows weakness?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

Bakerofish wrote:@frazzled

so your point is that George wouldnt have "liberated" N. Korea if it didnt directly affect the US? I can respect that pov

besides...how can you liberate a country who "loves" its great leader in the first place? - again im veering off topic here.

as for the al qaeda... the tragedy here is that the "freedom fighters" were as bad as the oppressors. It was a choice of the lesser of two evils..."hey at least we're backing up our own right?"...two bad the lesser evil got worse over time.

such is life

back to regular programming

-No he would not have been in the fight unless there were US troops already there (which there was). Once stuck in though he would have finished it.
-I could give a

about freedomg fighters. We were after AlQaeda.

the rest of the entire lot.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BuFFo wrote:America helps, foreigners complain that we should stay out.

America doesn't help, foreigners complain that we should intervene.

America needs to go back to its real roots, isolationism. Before Vietnam, it worked well for us. After WWII, well, except for the Korean War, not so much....

I served my time in Iraq as a U.S. Soldier (I am Brasilian). I am straight down the middle on the issue of war. Whether we help or not makes no difference to me. If I have to go again, I will. If I can sit on my ass while a region falls into anarchy, great, at least I still have Nintendo!

I am liking this guy.

Are you making it back home for Carnival boyo?

**Perkustin**

America has to stay in Afghanistan because it was their meddling in the 80's that has turned Afghan into the primitive, unprogressive, dirthole it is today.

**Frazzled**

ShumaGorath wrote:
sexiest_hero wrote:America has a long history of war and conflict. From the civil war to WWII, to Korea and Vietnam to Kuwait, We've given the life and limb of our young men and women in the name of freedom and justice (and yes other things). Hell even even the Iraq war was later renamed "Iraq freedom". Saddam was over thrown out of a stable government. So why does a crazed dictator threaten the united states http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/af_libya and nothing is done about it. A people fighting for freedom call to the US and others for aid and nothing. He couldn't be bother to make a statement until every one else did. Then all he said was " come on guys play nice!" I know Everything the USA stands for may be nothing more than talking points for most people. But for me and most vets, young and old. We believe. That vow to protect the freedoms of all men, that every person has rights, that no man has a right to oppress another. That may not be what drives the political leaders. But that's what drove brother against brother for the sake of my great great grandparents. That's what drove American against German for the sake of Poland and France, and that's what drove us in Desert storm. Maybe he's afraid they will tie him to Islam, maybe it would be politically bad, right when he is picking up a little steam. I don't know are care. As an Black American I feel obligated (and proud) to answer a plea for freedom. I hate to think if the Union thought like people do today and Obama was the president instead of Lincoln "it's not our prob". Our cause is Just. Our leader is a weakling.

This paragraph has fifteen sentences in it and this thread is awful.

And this post raises the bar how?

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
sexiest_hero wrote:America has a long history of war and conflict. From the civil war to WWII, to Korea and Vietnam to Kuwait, We've given the life and limb of our young men and women in the name of freedom and justice (and yes other things). Hell even even the Iraq war was later renamed "Iraq freedom". Saddam was over thrown out of a stable government. So why does a crazed dictator threaten the united states http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/af_libya and nothing is done about it. A people fighting for freedom call to the US and others for aid and nothing. He couldn't be bother to make a statement until every one else did. Then all he said was " come on guys play nice!" I know Everything the USA stands for may be nothing more than talking points for most people. But for me and most vets, young and old. We believe. That vow to protect the freedoms of all men, that every person has rights, that no man has a right to oppress another. That may not be what drives the political leaders. But that's what drove brother against brother for the sake of my great great grandparents. That's what drove American against German for the sake of Poland and France, and that's what drove us in Desert storm. Maybe he's afraid they will tie him to Islam, maybe it would be politically bad, right when he is picking up a little steam. I don't know are care. As an Black American I feel obligated (and proud) to answer a plea for freedom. I hate to think if the Union thought like people do today and Obama was the president instead of Lincoln "it's not our prob". Our cause is Just. Our leader is a weakling.

This paragraph has fifteen sentences in it and this thread is awful.

And this post raises the bar how?

It's not meant to.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Perkustin wrote:America has to stay in Afghanistan because it was their meddling in the 80's that has turned Afghan into the primitive, unprogressive, dirthole it is today.

Rather then what would have happened in the event of a soviet occupation then subsequent rapid withdrawal? No, afghanistan was going to look pretty similar (ethno sectarian strife with competing muslim hardline factions) regardless.

**halonachos**

Bakerofish wrote:@frazzled

so your point is that George wouldnt have "liberated" N. Korea if it didnt directly affect the US? I can respect that pov

I think you're missing the point bro.

After WW2 Korea was split into North Korea and South Korea by the US and the USSR. The USSR got the North while we got the South, at some point in time the North decided to invade the South which our troops were already in. We didn't start the Korean War we only defended what we were supposed to defend due to previous agreements. We never attempted to 'liberate' North Korea we defended South Korea.

Frazzled is saying that if a country was having a civil war George Washington wouldn't of intervened, Korea wasn't having a civil war in this case because one nation was invading another nation.

As to George Washington being for aiding a country being invaded by another I don't think anyone alive can say anything about that. He wanted the French to support us in our Revolution and if he wouldn't do the same for another country that would make the man a hypocrite of the highest calibur.

**biccat**

Karon wrote:3. Yeah, he is weak for not spending even more money to enlarge our fething 13+ trillion deficit.

WHOAAAAAA Lets not get ahead of ourselves here. He is spending more money to enlarge oour 13+ trillion [dollar] deficit. He's just not spending it in Libya.

Mostly he's spending it on social programs that have little purpose but to bloat the federal workforce to create the perception that he's "doing something" about jobs.

**Bakerofish**

@frazzled

isnt that what i said albeit paraphrased? GW would see it through the end if there were US troops. the reason i said this was you were replying to my comment that Washington wouldve been disappointed with N. Korea and the US half assing it. The US really didnt see that conflict out through to a proper conclusion. Yes China did intervene but i agree he wouldve seen that thing through to the bloody end even against China.

the world wouldve burned though if they did :|

as for the afghanistan thing im confused. im referring to the time when the US backed up the Mujahideen (and doing that, backing up Al Qaeda, heck we didnt even know who they were then) against the Soviets.

the Mujahideen were the freedom fighters at that time trying to fight soviet oppression. just sad that the freedom fighters arent any better than the oppressors.

**halonachos**

The Communists didn't oppress women.

**Bakerofish**

halonachos wrote:
Bakerofish wrote:@frazzled

so your point is that George wouldnt have "liberated" N. Korea if it didnt directly affect the US? I can respect that pov

Korea wasn't having a civil war in this case because one nation was invading another nation.

wait wait wait. it WAS a civil war. there was no north and south when the war began. The US booted Japan out of Korea and held the south, the soviets held the north. When they couldnt work out an electoral process thats when the division of the countries happend

prior to world war II there was ONE Korea.

**halonachos**

Yes, but after WW2 it was two Koreas divided at the 38th parallel. The Korean War happened after WW2 you know.

**Bakerofish**

halonachos wrote:The Communists didn't oppress women.

... wait. what? can you elaborate as i find this statement in contrast to what i remember of Women's Rights in China pre WWII

womens rights being "not a lot unless you're rich and even then if youre like the 3rd daughter you might as well be a horse"

**halonachos**

China wasn't communist until 1949.

In soviet russia, everyone was equal in rights of education regardless of sex(although class still remained in the form of rich and everyone else). The communists invading Afghanistan didn't stone women and kill men without beards.

**Stormrider**

Bakerofish wrote:@frazzled

dont get me wrong. I respect ol' george

but hes gonna look at N. Korea and say "Son, you half-assed that one..." specially if you gave McArthur a few more ships and men

McArthur wanted to Nuke the Chinese since they were supplying the Norks and sending troops to the peninsula. He was right, and Truman fired him.

**Frazzled**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
And this post raises the bar how?

It's not meant to.

So you're trolling then.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:The Communists didn't oppress women.

Sure they did. They oppressed everyone.

**biccat**

halonachos wrote:The Communists didn't oppress women.

True. They oppressed everyone equally.

Not sure if this is actually better than only oppressing women.

**Stormrider**

Perkustin wrote:America has to stay in Afghanistan because it was their meddling in the 80's that has turned Afghan into the primitive, unprogressive, dirthole it is today.

When has it not been a dirthole? In 6000 years it's always been a useless dirthole.

**sexiest_hero**

When has it not been a dirthole? In 6000 years it's always been a useless dirthole. Not true.

**Bakerofish**

halonachos wrote:Yes, but after WW2 it was two Koreas divided at the 38th parallel. The Korean War happened after WW2 you know.

yes prior to and during WWII there was one korea albeit held by different factions. the korean war is when the country was split

but the underlying "fight" there was basically a country dividing itself into two. when you have a portion of a country trying to get away from the larger portion I'd call that a civil war.

unless you have a better term for it?

heck if you look at it with the N. Korean POV at that time, the US were the INVADERS...theyre just trying to get their country back. Thats the reason N. Korea hates the US...they blame the US for splitting the country.

**Stormrider**

sexiest_hero wrote:When has it not been a dirthole? In 6000 years it's always been a useless dirthole. Not true.

I'll bite, when?

**halonachos**

biccat wrote:
halonachos wrote:The Communists didn't oppress women.

True. They oppressed everyone equally.

Not sure if this is actually better than only oppressing women.

I would say that it is.

**Bakerofish**

Stormrider wrote:
sexiest_hero wrote:When has it not been a dirthole? In 6000 years it's always been a useless dirthole. Not true.

I'll bite, when?

uhh look up the term "silk road" one time

**halonachos**

Stormrider wrote:
sexiest_hero wrote:When has it not been a dirthole? In 6000 years it's always been a useless dirthole. Not true.

I'll bite, when?

They do make quite a bit of opium.

**Bakerofish**

halonachos wrote:
biccat wrote:
halonachos wrote:The Communists didn't oppress women.

True. They oppressed everyone equally.

Not sure if this is actually better than only oppressing women.

I would say that it is.

so instead of oppressing one group of people you oppress everyone...and thats better?

huh.

i guess when equality is involved its always a good thing to some folks. lol

**halonachos**

Everyone is oppressed economically and religiously, but otherwise everyone is equal. Much better than stoning women in my opinion, unless you would rather stone women than suffer economic oppression.

**Melissia**

Funny, local repugs are opposing Obama saying that he shouldn't get inolved, when Obama is trying to edge towards involvement (a no-fly zone to prevent bombardment for example).

**Bakerofish**

hmm

"lets all suffer equally"

or

"give me that stone"

i think when youre put in that position chucking that stone will look real appealing.

besides, equality in communism is a myth and you know it. hard to believe the rhetoric when "komrade" has no mud on his boots and sipping cognac.

**Melissia**

Why don't we start stoning men instead?

[/troll]

**Frazzled**

halonachos wrote:Everyone is oppressed economically and religiously, but otherwise everyone is equal. Much better than stoning women in my opinion, unless you would rather stone women than suffer economic oppression.

Incorrect. Communists equally kill...everyone. Thats better only in the land of coockoo birds.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Funny, local repugs are opposing Obama saying that he shouldn't get inolved, when Obama is trying to edge towards involvement (a no-fly zone to prevent bombardment for example).

Democrats usually try to get us into wars when we have no interest. With the exception of the Bush Jr. and Sr., Republicans don't get us into wars. Now they are just as bad.

**Melissia**

Frazzled wrote:Democrats usually try to get us into wars when we have no interest. With the exception of the Bush Jr. and Sr., Republicans don't get us into wars.

No, I think it has more to do with "the other guy wants it so it must be bad" in the case of most repugs that oppose preventing the bombing of civilian targets by a ruthless dictatorship.

**Frazzled**

Melissia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Democrats usually try to get us into wars when we have no interest. With the exception of the Bush Jr. and Sr., Republicans don't get us into wars.
No, I think it has more to do with "the other guy wants it so it must be bad" in the case of most repugs that oppose preventing the bombing of civilian targets by a ruthless dictatorship.

You think wrong.