Is Libya a victory for Obama?

[VampDude]

Why are the U.S. even in Libya? For some reason the Taliban are currently the good guys, or as the news are calling them "rebels". Which makes completely no sense whatsoever, only the fact that there is very much to be answered.

I don't think there has been a single war that the U.S. has been in, within the past 20-40 years that has been 100% viable. The same goes for the UK, except possibly the Falklands (which could have been handed back to Argentina many years prior).

 

[emceeemcee]

Why are the U.S. even in Libya?

creating demand for US arms manufacturers, trying to exert control over the flow of oil (primarily to keep china out I imagine)

 

[lurkingdirk]

There aren't American troops in Libya, are there?

 

[1ManRevolution]

The air support, weapons, equipment and cash wasn't free. Price: one shiny new base to add to the empire.



There has been US/Euro troops on the ground since this thing kicked off.

Last that I heard is that we, the USA had sent 1 frigate.

BTW, what base are we building there?

 

[E-Ann-Hilden]

I think if the Neocons need to take credit for the surge, I think they need to give some credit to Obama for working within NATO to achieve victory. All I heard back in the day is that by not installing missles in Eastern europe we were not supporting NATO. Now we work within the system and all the flack! 1/2 the Republicans wanted us to take control other 1/2 wanted us not to get involved. They didnt bat a lash starting the Afghanistan or Iraq war. Now when most americans want the troops all home, working with in a system with zero U.S. casualities is now a bad thing, but putting them in harms was needed?

 

[Straight Shooter]

economy's in the shitter
one Trident missle cost? $66,000,000

how many of those did the US lob at Libya over the summer?
what was the return on our investment?

Were you complaining about the cost when we launched the Iraq War and Af-Pak War?

 

[Ulysses31]

There aren't American troops in Libya, are there?

Dead or alive

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...irst-Barbary-shores-Tripoli-War-returned.html

 

[VampDude]

creating demand for US arms manufacturers, trying to exert control over the flow of oil (primarily to keep china out I imagine)

Makes sense, although it's becoming an old reason for the U.S. to militarize countries in order to take control of the oil and other exports.

There aren't American troops in Libya, are there?

Not on the ground (to my knowledge), but the U.S. Army/Navy and NATO control the skies. The U.S. are smarter than to actually step foot on Libyan soil, but the sky is limitless to possibilities of attacking ground targets.

 

[Trident1]

We should listen to Farrakhan and put Daffy and his Black Power Brigade back in power.

 

[ragincaucasian]

Were you complaining about the cost when we launched the Iraq War and Af-Pak War?

are you new here?

 

[emceeemcee]

I love it. We chastise Gaddafi for using foreign mercenaries to fight the rebels (which turned out to be exaggerated) and then we find out British mercs are helping run the show for the rebels.

 

[No_Man]

For Obama (or anyone else) to consider Libya a victory would be a huge "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" blunder. All we've done is take a country with a long history of sponsoring terrorism and 1) force them into a civil war, 2) bomb their leadership out of existence, 3) hand them massive quantities of weapons, and 4) not put a single soldier on the ground to help clean up the mess we've made. Iraq may have been a mistake, but at least it was a mistake we had the good sense to try and fix. Libya is a mistake that we're going to naively walk away from, all while comforting ourselves with the arrogant notion that, "At least Americans didn't die."

W. tried to police the world. Obama just likes to sucker punch it.

 

[Hot Mega]

For Obama (or anyone else) to consider Libya a victory would be a huge "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" blunder. All we've done is take a country with a long history of sponsoring terrorism and 1) force them into a civil war, 2) bomb their leadership out of existence, 3) hand them massive quantities of weapons, and 4) not put a single soldier on the ground to help clean up the mess we've made. Iraq may have been a mistake, but at least it was a mistake we had the good sense to try and fix. Libya is a mistake that we're going to naively walk away from, all while comforting ourselves with the arrogant notion that, "At least Americans didn't die."

W. tried to police the world. Obama just likes to sucker punch it.

Wow.

Uh...if it's the case that the gadfly is gone now...this would be almost completely different and extraordinarily more successful by comparison to the effort in Iraq right now before we know anything else.

NATO (and US) intervened in March, 6 months later the gadfly is gone and we don't have any troops on the ground there (to speak of). By comparison, Iraq has at least 3 times less land mass than Libya, was already weakened by two previous wars and under pre-existing no fly zones but still took us years under GWB's strategy to declare....what, there is less violence than at some point when it was extremely high?:dunno:

The gadfly appears to be gone in 6 months in spite of all that and we barely broke a fingernail doing it...

Think about that for a second...Again, I disagreed with the policy but for those who agreed with it...this amounts to be incredibly successful by comparisons.

Since it was primarily an indigenous effort....one would think the civil war part of the thing has already passed the summit since one indigenous side is preparing to declare victory and not US.

Now here's the thing.....if this were a Republican administration and the previous administration was Demo and had GWB's record in Iraq, GOPers would be lined up ALL OVER every cable news channel and all of the weekend talking head shows resoundingly and triumphantly hyping the comparisons and hailing the prowess of their president's achievement in stark contrasts to what they would be terming as failure of the Demo in Iraq. And 'failure' would be the buzzword throughout the echo chamber.

But since that's not the case, watch what happens. The same GOPers who would have been lauding their president will now spew never ending cynicism...talk about the cost, etc., etc. And Demos will either cower or tacitly agree with GOPers on it...

 

[busenbust]

For Obama (or anyone else) to consider Libya a victory would be a huge "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" blunder. All we've done is take a country with a long history of sponsoring terrorism and 1) force them into a civil war, 2) bomb their leadership out of existence, 3) hand them massive quantities of weapons, and 4) not put a single soldier on the ground to help clean up the mess we've made. Iraq may have been a mistake, but at least it was a mistake we had the good sense to try and fix. Libya is a mistake that we're going to naively walk away from, all while comforting ourselves with the arrogant notion that, "At least Americans didn't die."

W. tried to police the world. Obama just likes to sucker punch it.

:goodpost: :yesyes:

 

[Hot Mega]

:goodpost: :yesyes:

More like GWB signed up to fight an unnecessary bout with a washed up beer can when he had the number one contender lined up then carried the bum for 12 rounds to a split decision thereby nearly blowing the fight lined up with the no. 1 contender.

Obama by comparison would appear to have lined up an easy mark and dispatched him accordingly by boxing him around the ring then finishing him with a right jab, right jab, left hook combo in the beginning of the second round.

 

[busenbust]

More like GWB signed up to fight an unnecessary bout with a washed up beer can when he had the number one contender lined up then carried the bum for 12 rounds to a split decision thereby nearly blowing the fight lined up with the no. 1 contender.

Obama by comparison would appear to have lined up an easy mark and dispatched him accordingly by boxing him around the ring then finishing him with a right jab, right jab, left hook combo in the beginning of the second round.

^^:wtf: this makes no sense :rofl2:

 

[ragincaucasian]

sounds like Hot Mega is appealling to the logic of neocons (if you liked Bush, you'll love Obama)

i would agree with him, Republicans SHOULD be voting for Obama

 

[Hot Mega]

^^:wtf: this makes no sense :rofl2:

Yeah...busen. I think I did give you too much credit.

The kindergarten version:

Bush took 10 times as long to beat a lesser opponent in Saddam with far more effort.

Obama took 10 times less to beat presumably a greater opponent with far less.

sounds like Hot Mega is appealling to the logic of neocons (if you liked Bush, you'll love Obama)

i would agree with him, Republicans SHOULD be voting for Obama

I'm not appealing or at least I wasn't attempting to appeal.

I could see where you would see it that way but all I was saying is whether you disagree with a policy or not sometimes it is possible to distinguish whether it was comparatively successful or not irrespective of whether you don't like it.

I didn't agree with Bush's intervention in Iraq either AND it was fairly unsuccessful (putting it mildly). But now we can see just how unsuccessful it was because we have some circumstance (albeit an imperfect comparison) to compare it to.

Bottom line, if we're just holding up Obama for comparisons of near-like circumstances to his predecessors....Obama was able to ventilate OBL in two years whereas his predecessors were unsuccessful when they apparently had opportunities.

Obama by all accounts inherited the worst economy of any president since the depression but has outperformed Reagan just on sheer numerical comparisons given Reagan inherited something similar.

And now by comparisons Obama's attempt and strategy for regime change in some country (leaving aside agreement or disagreement with the policy as I disagree with the policy) = 6 months, limited casualties and a clear exit strategy leaving no American footprint to speak of...

..To GWB's attempt and strategy incurring a massive military footprint (eventually after scoffing at the suggestion earlier in the planning), allot more casualties, rudderless exit strategy that leaves still 50K American forces there and many more in little DC, Baghdad aka US embassy Iraq.

I know for you (and me) the point of being successful in a disagreeable policy probably equals zero but for someone...maybe even neocorns as you said...there is a measure for success in it.

 

[fathomite]

The US lost the second Gulf War. End of story. Iraq is a failed state. US citizens can't even walk around the city without an armored convoy, they all stay trembling and blubbering like crybaby pussies inside the so called "Green Zone." There are regular suicide bombings which kill hundreds of people at a shot nearly every day somewhere in Iraq. That in itself is the definition of a failed state.

 

[busenbust]

The US lost the second Gulf War. End of story. Iraq is a failed state. US citizens can't even walk around the city without an armored convoy, they all stay trembling and blubbering like crybaby pussies inside the so called "Green Zone." There are regular suicide bombings which kill hundreds of people at a shot nearly every day somewhere in Iraq. That in itself is the definition of a failed state.

:goodpost: this is what's in store for Libya ...after the oil, the exits .