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.
Dreadwinter wrote: Could we get a mod ruling on all these alleged violations of Rule #1? Without it, Frazzled will continue to use it as a way of derailing the thread and baiting people in to actually breaking the rule.
I've just been reporting them for trolling as that is all they are.
I like that. Argue groups are being attacked on this thread and you report them for trolling.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
skyth wrote: I don't really think Obama was a weak foreign policy president. More of a case of most of his attention (rightfully) was devoted domestically. I can't recall any crisis's that went horribly sideways under his watch. There were small scale things that went sideways, but that's true under any president.
Libya certainly comes to mind as a foreign policy failure under Obama.
I'm not sure I would classify it that way. Had a more neutral outcome. They didn't like us before...they don't like us after. Status quo. And Libya is a very minor player on the international scene.
We bombed a sovereign nation, disposed their government and let them in shambles for spurious reasoning and no practical benefit to the US and it was all done by executive fiat without the consent of Congress.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: I'm sure we've been over how Libya was a French venture, followed by David Cameron, who the promised a quick and easy campaign or somesuch if the US would help.
Then what with us all being military friends you did.
Then it was Obama's fault.
Thanks Sarcozy
It's not all Obama's fault, it's just his fault for letting himself and the US get suckered into doing the dirty work for the EU. It certainly hasn't netted any positive benefits for the US.
Positive benefits:
Did something for/with our allies
Negative result:
None really for the US. Libya was pretty much in shambles beforehand as well.
skyth wrote: I don't really think Obama was a weak foreign policy president. More of a case of most of his attention (rightfully) was devoted domestically. I can't recall any crisis's that went horribly sideways under his watch. There were small scale things that went sideways, but that's true under any president.
Libya certainly comes to mind as a foreign policy failure under Obama.
Syria
Ukraine
China Sea
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
skyth wrote: I don't really think Obama was a weak foreign policy president. More of a case of most of his attention (rightfully) was devoted domestically. I can't recall any crisis's that went horribly sideways under his watch. There were small scale things that went sideways, but that's true under any president.
Libya certainly comes to mind as a foreign policy failure under Obama.
Syria
Ukraine
China Sea
Ukraine addressed with crippling sanctions on aggressor. And that's a failure? K...
China Sea is a territorial matter between several countries, none of which include the USA. Unless, of course, you'd like to see a super power military showdown over some coral reefs on the other side of the world?
Syria is a CIVIL WAR. I don't like being involved in it, but the ISIS spillover seems to act like a magnet for us. I don't see this as a failure or a win. It's just a mess.
As you view these as failures, Frazz, how would you have seen us act differently to bring them to the success side of the table?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/20 17:53:53
skyth wrote: I don't really think Obama was a weak foreign policy president. More of a case of most of his attention (rightfully) was devoted domestically. I can't recall any crisis's that went horribly sideways under his watch. There were small scale things that went sideways, but that's true under any president.
Libya certainly comes to mind as a foreign policy failure under Obama.
I'm not sure I would classify it that way. Had a more neutral outcome. They didn't like us before...they don't like us after. Status quo. And Libya is a very minor player on the international scene.
We bombed a sovereign nation, disposed their government and let them in shambles for spurious reasoning and no practical benefit to the US and it was all done by executive fiat without the consent of Congress.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: I'm sure we've been over how Libya was a French venture, followed by David Cameron, who the promised a quick and easy campaign or somesuch if the US would help.
Then what with us all being military friends you did.
Then it was Obama's fault.
Thanks Sarcozy
It's not all Obama's fault, it's just his fault for letting himself and the US get suckered into doing the dirty work for the EU. It certainly hasn't netted any positive benefits for the US.
Positive benefits:
Did something for/with our allies
Negative result:
None really for the US. Libya was pretty much in shambles beforehand as well.
Obama's Foreign policy was largely speak softly, and sometimes(?) show your stick.
Libya was a total failure of foreign policy. It was what everyone likes to point out in Iraq, but even worse handled. We ensured a leader that we didn't like was disposed, and then did absolutely nothing to help ensure a stable regime took over. Even now, six years later, the country is effectively split in two.
It is hard to say what would have happened without our intervention, if the civil war would have led to his overthrow or not, but we can say that what we did, did nothing to improve the situation, and that is a failure.
Here is at least one noted academic who feels that Obama's foreign policy strategy was a failure.
skyth wrote: I don't really think Obama was a weak foreign policy president. More of a case of most of his attention (rightfully) was devoted domestically. I can't recall any crisis's that went horribly sideways under his watch. There were small scale things that went sideways, but that's true under any president.
Libya certainly comes to mind as a foreign policy failure under Obama.
I'm not sure I would classify it that way. Had a more neutral outcome. They didn't like us before...they don't like us after. Status quo. And Libya is a very minor player on the international scene.
We bombed a sovereign nation, disposed their government and let them in shambles for spurious reasoning and no practical benefit to the US and it was all done by executive fiat without the consent of Congress.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: I'm sure we've been over how Libya was a French venture, followed by David Cameron, who the promised a quick and easy campaign or somesuch if the US would help.
Then what with us all being military friends you did.
Then it was Obama's fault.
Thanks Sarcozy
It's not all Obama's fault, it's just his fault for letting himself and the US get suckered into doing the dirty work for the EU. It certainly hasn't netted any positive benefits for the US.
Positive benefits:
Did something for/with our allies
Negative result:
None really for the US. Libya was pretty much in shambles beforehand as well.
Negatives: Shows the world that Obama, and the US, are a weak, gullible nation that can be easily swayed to start wars with other nations based solely on a third party's say so. In the absence of an existential threat or even a credible threat of any significance we shouldn't be starting wars with other nations and we absolutely shouldn't start wars with other nations without getting a declaration of war approved by Congress. The War Powers Act never should have been passed and needs to be repealed. All the lives lost and money spent on military action against Libya was a complete waste that didn't accomplish anything.
There's a huge difference between 'third party's' and 'ally'. It has nothing to do with being gullible, as we just assisted an ally that asked.
Weak? I don't think that word means what you think it means... Being able to bomb the heck out of a country isn't exactly what I would call 'weak'. Kind of the opposite really. Alternate fact?
Was Libya a smashing success? No. Does it really matter to US interests in the long run? Nope. End result is roughly what the beginning was. It's not a huge disaster, any more than Beruit was for Reagan.
lonestarr777 wrote: You know Frazzled for a guy who goes off on crazy 'joke' tangents about killing people because they like cats or whatever to annoy you, like being from another state. You sure as gak can't take one. That glass house of yours is probably pretty close to falling in with all the rocks you huck.
Not relevant. Unless you're a radioactive mutie from New Mexico of course. ANd I never said Cat Lovers should be killed, just that they have no souls because they are hollow inside. I am not reporting the thread, I am noting how it is violating, and advise conservatives to stay off of it to avoid being gang tackled.
How does one get "gang tackled" on a forum? This is a place of bits and bytes. There's no corporeal bodies that can subjugate others by weight and numbers.
Are you saying people should avoid participating in a discussion thread if they happen to be in the minority? That kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it.
Yes I am saying that, unless one likes abuse. Thats why there aren't Democrats posting on Townhall or rightwingers on Slate/Salon.
What abuse?
Would it be abusive of me to say it just looks like you want to pick up some martyr-points?
This whole Libyan debate is a bad penny that just keeps showing up. "It's a failure.", "It accomplished nothing."...bullgak! A terrorist sponsoring, genocidal dictator is gone. Bravo! Genocidal response by said dictator stopped. Bravo! A coalition government IS making progress. Bravo! Still, it's a mess because the country is being used as a chew toy between factions that split after the revolution and are being backed by rival foreign national sponsors to further their agenda in the theatre. Throwing this on Obama or Clinton or NATO or the UN is just gak! This isn't WWII, there isn't a pretty and neat finish and so it's a failure. Oh, grow up! Wake up to the reality of that area of the world and realize we can only impact so much and as such, are probably not going to be getting the nice and tidy results some fantasy-hoping critics think are possible.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/20 19:50:16
skyth wrote: There's a huge difference between 'third party's' and 'ally'. It has nothing to do with being gullible, as we just assisted an ally that asked.
Weak? I don't think that word means what you think it means... Being able to bomb the heck out of a country isn't exactly what I would call 'weak'. Kind of the opposite really. Alternate fact?
Was Libya a smashing success? No. Does it really matter to US interests in the long run? Nope. End result is roughly what the beginning was. It's not a huge disaster, any more than Beruit was for Reagan.
No I'm using the word correctly. Did the US have anything to gain from bombing Libya? No. Did France want Libya to be bombed? Yes. Did France want to be on the hook for doing the bombing themselves? No. Did France get the US to do the dirty work for them? Yes. That makes us a patsy and makes us look weak. If France wants to start a war with another nation they can do it themselves. We shouldn't let ourselves be used as the muscle for other nation's foreign policy agendas, being somebody else's tool is a very weak positon. By your argument we should go bomb Iran right now. Israel wants us to bomb their Iran's nuclear program and Israel is an ally and the regime in Iran already doesn't like us so there's no downside. Trump should order a pre-emptive strike against Iran right now.
Did you just equate Dakka with Townhall and Slate?
Typical dog person equivocation.
Hey, you leave canines out of this.
Canines are tolerant of all, barring those in their yard without permission.
Personally, I've been exceedingly amused by the people in my life who are following this hearing with bated breath. They didn't have time for Clinton's testimony on Benghazi because "we already know what she'll lie about" or other nonsensical excuses, but suddenly they're all tuned in to C-Span watching intently.
Hey now, I love dogs! I'm just saying exclusively dog people are most likely soulless empty husks programmed solely for delivery of belly-rubs and bacon treats.
At least those of us with cats have the toxoplasma gondii to fill up all those empty spaces!
On topic, I like the string of rage-Trump-tweets this morning. Seriously. He's going to break his phone.
You I like. I thin I will pop over to Townhall and see if Comey is being called a traitor or what...
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
BigWaaagh wrote: This whole Libyan debate is a bad penny that just keeps showing up. "It's a failure.", "It accomplished nothing."...bullgak! A terrorist sponsoring, genocidal dictator is gone. Bravo! Genocidal response by said dictator stopped. Bravo! A coalition government IS making progress. Bravo! Still, it's a mess because the country is being used as a chew toy between factions that split from after the revolution and are being backed by rival foreign national sponsors to further their agenda in the theatre. Throwing this on Obama or Clinton or NATO or the UN is just gak! This isn't WWII, there isn't a pretty and neat finish and so it's a failure. Oh, grow up! Wake up to the reality of that area of the world and realize we can only impact so much and as such, are probably not going to be getting the nice and tidy results some fantasy-hoping critics think are possible.
Going around the world starting wars with sovereign nations because we've decided that their political leaders are bad people, bombing their infrastructure, creating a power vacuum and leaving that nation a shambolic, bloody mess in the throes of civil conflict isn't my idea of a reasonable, necessary and beneficial foreign policy. There are plenty of governments out there that sponsor terrorism, there are regimes that conduct genocidal pogroms, ethnic cleansing and massive human rights abuses right now, should Trump start dispatching carrier groups around the glob to remove those governments with bombing campaigns and then leave the surviving populace to fend for themselves as best they can?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: You keep on using that word like you know what it means. I do not think it means what you think it means.
*shrug* Then we've reached a fundamental misunderstanding and failure to communicate.
You use ally, as if that doesn't mean a partner in a mutually beneficially alliance but instead means one country can use another to go perpetuate a bombing campaign on somebody the way a manager sends an intern out to get coffee. The US is not the errand boy or leg breaker for our "allies." We don't just go hurt people so that politicians in other nations can keep their hands clean of the mess they want us to create. There was no existential threat to anyone in Libya that needed to be eliminated, it was just EU politicians wanting to flex some muscle that they let go to flab decades ago so they asked us to do it for them and consequently made our PotUS look like a chump.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/20 18:22:14
skyth wrote: I don't really think Obama was a weak foreign policy president. More of a case of most of his attention (rightfully) was devoted domestically. I can't recall any crisis's that went horribly sideways under his watch. There were small scale things that went sideways, but that's true under any president.
Libya certainly comes to mind as a foreign policy failure under Obama.
I'm not sure I would classify it that way. Had a more neutral outcome. They didn't like us before...they don't like us after. Status quo. And Libya is a very minor player on the international scene.
We bombed a sovereign nation, disposed their government and let them in shambles for spurious reasoning and no practical benefit to the US and it was all done by executive fiat without the consent of Congress.
Hey, I thought Conservatives hated nation-building anyway and preferred the president as Comander-in-Chief?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/20 19:08:12
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
BigWaaagh wrote: This whole Libyan debate is a bad penny that just keeps showing up. "It's a failure.", "It accomplished nothing."...bullgak! A terrorist sponsoring, genocidal dictator is gone. Bravo! Genocidal response by said dictator stopped. Bravo! A coalition government IS making progress. Bravo! Still, it's a mess because the country is being used as a chew toy between factions that split from after the revolution and are being backed by rival foreign national sponsors to further their agenda in the theatre. Throwing this on Obama or Clinton or NATO or the UN is just gak! This isn't WWII, there isn't a pretty and neat finish and so it's a failure. Oh, grow up! Wake up to the reality of that area of the world and realize we can only impact so much and as such, are probably not going to be getting the nice and tidy results some fantasy-hoping critics think are possible.
Going around the world starting wars with sovereign nations because we've decided that their political leaders are bad people, bombing their infrastructure, creating a power vacuum and leaving that nation a shambolic, bloody mess in the throes of civil conflict isn't my idea of a reasonable, necessary and beneficial foreign policy. There are plenty of governments out there that sponsor terrorism, there are regimes that conduct genocidal pogroms, ethnic cleansing and massive human rights abuses right now, should Trump start dispatching carrier groups around the glob to remove those governments with bombing campaigns and then leave the surviving populace to fend for themselves as best they can?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: You keep on using that word like you know what it means. I do not think it means what you think it means.
*shrug* Then we've reached a fundamental misunderstanding and failure to communicate.
You use ally, as if that doesn't mean a partner in a mutually beneficially alliance but instead means one country can use another to go perpetuate a bombing campaign on somebody the way a manager sends an intern out to get coffee. The US is not the errand boy or leg breaker for our "allies." We don't just go hurt people so that politicians in other nations can keep their hands clean of the mess they want us to create. There was no existential threat to anyone in Libya that needed to be eliminated, it was just EU politicians wanting to flex some muscle that they let go to flab decades ago so they asked us to do it for them and consequently made our PotUS look like a chump.
But that's the rub, isn't it? If in Syria, just for example, had we just said, "Civil War, it's Syria's to deal with." Obama, or whoever, would have been lambasted as weak on terror, a failure for not standing up to the Russians and a monster for not doing something to alleviate the outrageous suffering of the populace. On the other hand, should it be, "Mobilize the War Machine and let's get the Middle East road show to visit Syria.", in which case we'd be in a clusterfeth and probably hated by even our most moderate Muslim allies. It's a no-win. That's why I find much of this armchair quarterbacking as little more than a means for partisan cheap shots. Obama walked a line of gradual involvement in a situation that had no good guys, LOTS of bad guys and a humanitarian disaster that's still being felt in the West. Doing nothing was not an option and that left us with only a bad or worse option to try and manage.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/20 20:01:26
skyth wrote: I don't really think Obama was a weak foreign policy president. More of a case of most of his attention (rightfully) was devoted domestically. I can't recall any crisis's that went horribly sideways under his watch. There were small scale things that went sideways, but that's true under any president.
Libya certainly comes to mind as a foreign policy failure under Obama.
I'm not sure I would classify it that way. Had a more neutral outcome. They didn't like us before...they don't like us after. Status quo. And Libya is a very minor player on the international scene.
We bombed a sovereign nation, disposed their government and let them in shambles for spurious reasoning and no practical benefit to the US and it was all done by executive fiat without the consent of Congress.
Hey, I thought Conservatives hated nation-building anyway and preferred the president as Comander-in-Chief?
I can only speak for myself and I dislike nation Building and the War Powers Act. Not sure where that would place me on the political spectrum, I generally vote libertarian whenever possible.
But that's the rub, isn't it? If in Syria, just for example, had we just said, "Civil War, it's Syria's to deal with." Obama, or whoever, would have been lambasted as weak on terror, a failure for not standing up to the Russians and a monster for not doing something to alleviate the outrageous suffering of the populace. On the other hand, should it be, "Mobilize the War Machine and let's get the Middle East road show to visit Syria.", in which case we'd be in a clusterfeth and probably hated by even our most moderate Muslim allies. It's a no-win. That's why I find much of this armchair quarterbacking as little more than a means for partisan cheap shots. Obama walked a line of gradual involvement in a situation that had no good guys, LOTS of bad guys and a humanitarian disaster that's still being felt in the West. Doing nothing was not an option and that left us with a bad or worse option to try and manage.
Obama's choice was to declare Red Lines, then pretty much ignore when they were crossed. That definitely made us look weak. After that, he implemented limited strikes with massively restrictive ROEs and permission chains going all the way to the White House for targets/target sets which the theater commander should have been too high a level for approval. Basically he declared objectives yet tied the hands of the folks he tasked to achieve those objectives, again, making us look weak. He also picked the wrong guys to send support to in many cases, in large part because of how difficult his policies made it to run decent source/HUMINT ops in theater. Frankly, it would have been hard for him to feth it up much more.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
BigWaaagh wrote: This whole Libyan debate is a bad penny that just keeps showing up. "It's a failure.", "It accomplished nothing."...bullgak! A terrorist sponsoring, genocidal dictator is gone. Bravo! Genocidal response by said dictator stopped. Bravo! A coalition government IS making progress. Bravo! Still, it's a mess because the country is being used as a chew toy between factions that split from after the revolution and are being backed by rival foreign national sponsors to further their agenda in the theatre. Throwing this on Obama or Clinton or NATO or the UN is just gak! This isn't WWII, there isn't a pretty and neat finish and so it's a failure. Oh, grow up! Wake up to the reality of that area of the world and realize we can only impact so much and as such, are probably not going to be getting the nice and tidy results some fantasy-hoping critics think are possible.
Going around the world starting wars with sovereign nations because we've decided that their political leaders are bad people, bombing their infrastructure, creating a power vacuum and leaving that nation a shambolic, bloody mess in the throes of civil conflict isn't my idea of a reasonable, necessary and beneficial foreign policy. There are plenty of governments out there that sponsor terrorism, there are regimes that conduct genocidal pogroms, ethnic cleansing and massive human rights abuses right now, should Trump start dispatching carrier groups around the glob to remove those governments with bombing campaigns and then leave the surviving populace to fend for themselves as best they can?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: You keep on using that word like you know what it means. I do not think it means what you think it means.
*shrug* Then we've reached a fundamental misunderstanding and failure to communicate.
You use ally, as if that doesn't mean a partner in a mutually beneficially alliance but instead means one country can use another to go perpetuate a bombing campaign on somebody the way a manager sends an intern out to get coffee. The US is not the errand boy or leg breaker for our "allies." We don't just go hurt people so that politicians in other nations can keep their hands clean of the mess they want us to create. There was no existential threat to anyone in Libya that needed to be eliminated, it was just EU politicians wanting to flex some muscle that they let go to flab decades ago so they asked us to do it for them and consequently made our PotUS look like a chump.
But that's the rub, isn't it? If in Syria, just for example, had we just said, "Civil War, it's Syria's to deal with." Obama, or whoever, would have been lambasted as weak on terror, a failure for not standing up to the Russians and a monster for not doing something to alleviate the outrageous suffering of the populace. On the other hand, should it be, "Mobilize the War Machine and let's get the Middle East road show to visit Syria.", in which case we'd be in a clusterfeth and probably hated by even our most moderate Muslim allies. It's a no-win. That's why I find much of this armchair quarterbacking as little more than a means for partisan cheap shots. Obama walked a line of gradual involvement in a situation that had no good guys, LOTS of bad guys and a humanitarian disaster that's still being felt in the West. Doing nothing was not an option and that left us with only a bad or worse option to try and manage.
You're changing the subject to Syria to counter an argument against Obama getting us involved in Libya.
If the primary reason for getting us involved in a Syrian civil war is because the Republicans would have criticized Obama if he hadn't then that's really an argument against getting involved at all. It certainly doesn't cast Obama on a good light if he got us militarily involved in Syria just to appease Republicans. Russia is going to support Assad, they have to because they need Assad in power to protect Russian/Gasprom interests and oppose the Qatari pipeline. We're not going to fight a war with aRussia just to get rid of Assad so we shouldn't waste our time money and lives on half measures. We didn't cause the civil war there and we can't stop it so I don't feel like we have any obligation to the Syrian people and I'm not willing to go to war for them.
The thing is, Libya isn't that big of a deal. We didn't lose a lot of lives (Not sure if we lost any...) and the current result isn't any worse than it was previously for us.
It's similar to Beruit for Reagan...And not many people can claim that Reagan was bad on foreign policy.
skyth wrote: I don't really think Obama was a weak foreign policy president. More of a case of most of his attention (rightfully) was devoted domestically. I can't recall any crisis's that went horribly sideways under his watch. There were small scale things that went sideways, but that's true under any president.
Libya certainly comes to mind as a foreign policy failure under Obama.
I'm not sure I would classify it that way. Had a more neutral outcome. They didn't like us before...they don't like us after. Status quo. And Libya is a very minor player on the international scene.
We bombed a sovereign nation, disposed their government and let them in shambles for spurious reasoning and no practical benefit to the US and it was all done by executive fiat without the consent of Congress.
Hey, I thought Conservatives hated nation-building anyway and preferred the president as Comander-in-Chief?
I can only speak for myself and I dislike nation Building and the War Powers Act. Not sure where that would place me on the political spectrum, I generally vote libertarian whenever possible.
How do you feel about preemptive war? Do you think military action should only be taken with an act of congress unless under direct attack from a foreign power?
BigWaaagh wrote: This whole Libyan debate is a bad penny that just keeps showing up. "It's a failure.", "It accomplished nothing."...bullgak! A terrorist sponsoring, genocidal dictator is gone. Bravo! Genocidal response by said dictator stopped. Bravo! A coalition government IS making progress. Bravo! Still, it's a mess because the country is being used as a chew toy between factions that split from after the revolution and are being backed by rival foreign national sponsors to further their agenda in the theatre. Throwing this on Obama or Clinton or NATO or the UN is just gak! This isn't WWII, there isn't a pretty and neat finish and so it's a failure. Oh, grow up! Wake up to the reality of that area of the world and realize we can only impact so much and as such, are probably not going to be getting the nice and tidy results some fantasy-hoping critics think are possible.
Going around the world starting wars with sovereign nations because we've decided that their political leaders are bad people, bombing their infrastructure, creating a power vacuum and leaving that nation a shambolic, bloody mess in the throes of civil conflict isn't my idea of a reasonable, necessary and beneficial foreign policy. There are plenty of governments out there that sponsor terrorism, there are regimes that conduct genocidal pogroms, ethnic cleansing and massive human rights abuses right now, should Trump start dispatching carrier groups around the glob to remove those governments with bombing campaigns and then leave the surviving populace to fend for themselves as best they can?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: You keep on using that word like you know what it means. I do not think it means what you think it means.
*shrug* Then we've reached a fundamental misunderstanding and failure to communicate.
You use ally, as if that doesn't mean a partner in a mutually beneficially alliance but instead means one country can use another to go perpetuate a bombing campaign on somebody the way a manager sends an intern out to get coffee. The US is not the errand boy or leg breaker for our "allies." We don't just go hurt people so that politicians in other nations can keep their hands clean of the mess they want us to create. There was no existential threat to anyone in Libya that needed to be eliminated, it was just EU politicians wanting to flex some muscle that they let go to flab decades ago so they asked us to do it for them and consequently made our PotUS look like a chump.
But that's the rub, isn't it? If in Syria, just for example, had we just said, "Civil War, it's Syria's to deal with." Obama, or whoever, would have been lambasted as weak on terror, a failure for not standing up to the Russians and a monster for not doing something to alleviate the outrageous suffering of the populace. On the other hand, should it be, "Mobilize the War Machine and let's get the Middle East road show to visit Syria.", in which case we'd be in a clusterfeth and probably hated by even our most moderate Muslim allies. It's a no-win. That's why I find much of this armchair quarterbacking as little more than a means for partisan cheap shots. Obama walked a line of gradual involvement in a situation that had no good guys, LOTS of bad guys and a humanitarian disaster that's still being felt in the West. Doing nothing was not an option and that left us with only a bad or worse option to try and manage.
You're changing the subject to Syria to counter an argument against Obama getting us involved in Libya.
If the primary reason for getting us involved in a Syrian civil war is because the Republicans would have criticized Obama if he hadn't then that's really an argument against getting involved at all. It certainly doesn't cast Obama on a good light if he got us militarily involved in Syria just to appease Republicans. Russia is going to support Assad, they have to because they need Assad in power to protect Russian/Gasprom interests and oppose the Qatari pipeline. We're not going to fight a war with aRussia just to get rid of Assad so we shouldn't waste our time money and lives on half measures. We didn't cause the civil war there and we can't stop it so I don't feel like we have any obligation to the Syrian people and I'm not willing to go to war for them.
We got involved with Syria because we couldn't avoid getting involved in Syria. Obama wanted to get the fetch out of town, hence the massive withdrawal from Iraq covered by a good excuse -a lack of a force of arms agreement. When the gak started hitting the fan, then he had no choice but to get involve unless he wanted it to look like Iraq was a complete waste (which it was).
But that's the rub, isn't it? If in Syria, just for example, had we just said, "Civil War, it's Syria's to deal with." Obama, or whoever, would have been lambasted as weak on terror, a failure for not standing up to the Russians and a monster for not doing something to alleviate the outrageous suffering of the populace. On the other hand, should it be, "Mobilize the War Machine and let's get the Middle East road show to visit Syria.", in which case we'd be in a clusterfeth and probably hated by even our most moderate Muslim allies. It's a no-win. That's why I find much of this armchair quarterbacking as little more than a means for partisan cheap shots. Obama walked a line of gradual involvement in a situation that had no good guys, LOTS of bad guys and a humanitarian disaster that's still being felt in the West. Doing nothing was not an option and that left us with a bad or worse option to try and manage.
Obama's choice was to declare Red Lines, then pretty much ignore when they were crossed. That definitely made us look weak. After that, he implemented limited strikes with massively restrictive ROEs and permission chains going all the way to the White House for targets/target sets which the theater commander should have been too high a level for approval. Basically he declared objectives yet tied the hands of the folks he tasked to achieve those objectives, again, making us look weak. He also picked the wrong guys to send support to in many cases, in large part because of how difficult his policies made it to run decent source/HUMINT ops in theater. Frankly, it would have been hard for him to feth it up much more.
Using restraint when the use of military force is being exercised on a foreign, sovereign nation...particularly when there is another Super Power involved...is hardly "weak". It's called prudence and I think you need to learn the difference.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/20 20:29:18
apparently people/news networks etc etc are looking into it...
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever." 
.
