world

Obama defends U.S. military action in Libya

56 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

56 Comments
Login to comment

Gadhafi is toast.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When you cast a ballot for a politician in a US election, you're deluded if you think you're voting for someone who wants to go to Washington to look out for the best interests of the country. The government has been hijacked by the military-industrial complex, and they're the ones (sorry, but I can't resist this one) who call the shots. The Vietnam war peace movement's slogan "War is good business -- invest your sons" is as relevant now as it was four decades ago.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I support the US servicemen risking their lives everywhere in the Middle East - and unlike too many self proclaimed patriots on the Left - I support the president and military and will not try to undermine their efforts. That said, President Obama's speech was incoherent. There is no way that you can say that you will not sit around and watch civilians get slaughtered and then say that you must get the UN's stamp of approval or you will not do anything. Does he not remember what happened in Rwanda? He has also set a precedent in Libya that will be compared to all future situations that are even remotely similar.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AC-130H Spectre Gunship , if you have one of these after your butt, your toast.

Do a Goolge image search and you will see.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AC-130H Spectre Gunship , if you have one of these after your butt, your toast.

Ooooooooooo...Gadhafi better buy some running shoes....and run very very fast. LOL!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama defends military action, didnt he get prize for peace? so sad, disappointed in him, he is not different than most war loving american presidents. yes, and it is related to oil again and again...greedy greedy

0 ( +0 / -0 )

IMHO Obama's doctrine is "limited engagement, limited interest, limited goal, ....limited of limited; but extreme deficit spending". Please someone take the lead, for Obama will follow for to places such as Yemen, Syria, Iran,N.Korea since they all need civilian protection from slaughters in the name of humanity crisis.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bombing from the air like a self-righteous coward is always a bad idea unless the other side is doing it to you. All it takes is a few civilian deaths to make you a pariah.

Just arm the rebels with weapons stamped with the American flag and let them take their own country back. America has enough blood on its hands.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mangaman: "Bombing from the air like a self-righteous coward is always a bad idea unless the other side is doing it to you."

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but this is what Ghadafi was doing before the international forces joined in the fray to stop his air-force.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am not down on shooting down other planes per se. Its the bombing in civilian areas that bothers me. The targets may be tanks, but you can't tell what civlians will be slaughtered. Even after the fact, the truth will be buried if possible.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The US has even less justification for this action than they did for Iraq. Obama's speech could have been copied&pasted from GWBush's.

What a joke.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So... When we going into Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So... When we going into Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran?

Apparently Sudan, Ivory Coast, and everywhere else brutal dictators are oppressing their people are the unspoken exceptions to Obama's broad ploclamation that the US' goal is to liberate people?

And since when is democracy by military force the foreign policy of the United States? Never, until Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He worries about the stability of an entire region and - despite what has been learned in Iraq and Afghanistan - goes andn does this? He really isn't the bright spark we all thought he was. Nor the peacemonger.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We must "Liberate" all the African nations from their resources. We must all bow down to the Great Dictator Obama.

Obama says they are not attacking Gadhafi directly --> yet routinely send missles at his residences --> hard to get more direct than that. Hopefully the armed people of Libya can stop this violence and arm the Egyptians to overthrow their military junta that has now ruled protests illegal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Having arrived late for the last two world wars, the USA seems to be determined to arrive early for the next one.

Way to go Obama.

Continue the good work of your predecessor.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is just following the schedule. He doesn't have the power not to. He needed to use the anti war rhetoric to get into the position, essentially pulling the wool over people's eyes. The minority support his actions and an even smaller minority will benefit from them. I'm surprised less people haven't woken up to all the double speak. Peace is the new war. Protect is to new harm.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well guys you maybe not know this, but this is how the USA that we know and loved, that great country that had the greatest president in history (JFK) will meet it end.

remember!, give a few years, and the only way the US will survive will be true war!, no other country truest then anymore, so sad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LoveUSA: "didnt he get prize for peace? sad, so disappointed in him"

The Libyan rebels and civilians who are tired of Gadhafi's 41-year rule ( most Libyans ) and especially those have had family members and friends killed by his forces are not disappointed in Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge how do you know that? or you just listening to the US propaganda machines?

remember Iraq weapon and of mass distractions? ops! i mean destruction.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The True - Are you saying that most Libyans actually support Gadhafi at this point?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge:

" Are you saying that most Libyans actually support Gadhafi at this point? "

Nobody knows who "most Libyans" support. But it is clear as day that Gaddafi has his own supporters and that the Eastern tribes for who Obama now plays airforce do not represent "all Libyans".

This bombing campaign is absurd, and Obamas supporters have now thoroughly discredited themselves here as having blatant double standards.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is at least one person in Libya that doesn't like Gadhafi, but I bet you most support him, and all don't want Obama uranium bombing their houses. The problem the whole world faces is that we are all going to die someday, but have no idea what happens that day, and therefore have to make the long hard decision on how to go out, like a Religious person, or like an Atheist, and suffer the consequences both in this world now, as well as after. There is no other bottom line.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, one thing is for sure and that is that Al Quaeda is cheering on the Libyan rebels. They have repeatedly said so, and we are already reading interviews with AE commanders fresh from killing Americans in Afghanistan now fighting against Gaddafi.

And with US air support this time.

There are no words to describe such insanity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obamas supporters have now thoroughly discredited themselves here as having blatant double standards

I think a lot of Obama supporters were horrified when he increased troop numbers in Afghanistan. He took ownership of the war then and there. Many of his supporters were tired of badly-handled, nation-bankrupting, illegal wars. The same people felt betrayed and many have given up their support on Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Dentshop:

" The same people felt betrayed and many have given up their support on Obama. "

Why not all?? For those who still defend the Potus, their message is clear: They are not anti-war, they are pro-whatever their great leader does. Pathetic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think a lot of Obama supporters were horrified when he increased troop numbers in Afghanistan.

Not really. He campaigned on the concept that the Iraq war was a terrible blunder (it was) and Afghanistan was the "right war" that had to have more resources dedicated to doing it right.

For those who still defend the Potus, their message is clear: They are not anti-war, they are pro-whatever their great leader does.

I can defend President Obama's decision on Libya, as I defended President Bush's decision to go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, as well as his father's actions taken against Iraq after they invaded Kuwait. I guess that makes me anti-"stupid-war" and pro-common-sense.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As one wag put it, "We apologize for the interruption of NATO bombing in the Arab world. Service has now been restored."

I agree that Gadhafi is pond scum and I would like to see him gone - which is what Britain and France are pushing for. But I have to wonder if the US has the capacity to intervene in straightening out the government in every despotic country. Is this just because there was an organized resistance that was going to be slaughtered? Maybe China should start to help. Oh, wait, they're part of the problem....

I guess I agree with Obama on this but I'm not all that keen on stretching the budget even farther. Where does this end? The world wonders.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It does not end. It is pure insanity. Just how many Arab dictatorships does he intend to bomb, and what does he expect the new rulers for which he is playing useful idiot with his airplanes now? Gratitude?? That deserves an icon for "explosive laughter".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Boo hoo Cry ALL you want the Earth Does NOT change by people/ countries doing NOTHING!! its funny that some people thought the world was gonna be "Peacefull" once Obama took office, VERY Foolish to think so. i voted for him BUT knew there was gonna be many conflicts ahead. Hey i want peace also But its not gonna happen. and just Because "the US isn't involed" you Can't say things are "peacefull" very strange there can be Massacares & Bloodbaths and as long as the US isn't there its OK to EVERYONE in the world NO one says anything.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why Russia and China are so smart these days? It cost them nothing to stay ouside and just wait for opportunities of businesses in Libya.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tclh at 05:00 AM JST - 30th March. Why Russia and China are so smart these days? It cost them nothing to stay ouside and just wait for opportunities of businesses in Libya.

China is actually might be in the losing end of the deal with over $4 billion in amount owed by the Gadhafi's Libyan goverment. They have evacuated 36,000 Chinese and they these workers might not return. If the new goverment in Libya is formed, NATO will have leverage with oil fields and distribution demands. No wonder U.S., British, French, and the Italians are working non-stop for the rebels to take over.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Maybe, maybe not. But five years ago, The National Association of Realtors, had already sent up the red flags about the amount of houses coming on the market vs. housing starts. One of the reasons, according to the housing experts, at HUD reported that each year six million people will turn 65 and that 7 out of 10 persons over 65 will have a debilitating accident that will leave them temporarily or permanently with a mobility issue. So that people who thought they were building the last home they would grow old in was not accessible for them. Living in a two story or split-level house with kitchens and baths that were no longer usable for them. Steps and stairways that prohibited them from using with a walker or wheelchair. Did you also know that 70% of all Americans have one type of disability or another? Ranging from the slight, such as vision, hearing or complications from obesity, to the most severe. So what were their choices? Extensive and very costly remodeling, selling their home and building a barrier free home plan or moving into a retirement community with barrier free home plans. That is why Architectural Designers are designing plans that are usable today as well as anticipating tomorrows needs. Whether you call them barrier free plans, universal design plans, lifestyle homes, wheelchair plans, aging in place home plans, accessible home plans. They all fall under the same specifications established by the Center for Universal Design (CUD) at North Carolina State University. The Universal Design Studio draws custom home plans that are perfect for today and accommodate your needs as you grow older. As well, we specialize in barrier free designs for people that already have special needs. How do we know Barrier Free Designs? All the people associated with the Universal Design Studio have one type of disability or another!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would say that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been more persuasive.President Obama's lecture to the nation called to mind the worst of Bush's speeches on Iraq.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama's speech was pathetic. Can't believe [people actually think he's an eloquent speaker.

There is no justification for this military action. Libya was no threat to the US, they gave up their WMD development programs, and even settled the Lockerbie bombing.

Obama has declared "pre-emptive action" against non-threats.

There will be times when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are,

“In this particular country, at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale,”

What????

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The US has even less justification for this action than they did for Iraq. Obama's speech could have been copied&pasted from GWBush's."

"And since when is democracy by military force the foreign policy of the United States? Never, until Obama."

ManfromAmerica, the two quotes seem quite at odds. Obama won't quite be like Bush until he actually invades. Right now, he is more like Clinton.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mangaman -

my quotes are consistent. The similarity to Bush in the speech was the professed right to preemptive action. In practice though, Iraq was response to violence against US security forces, and violations of treaties and UN Mandates. In Libya, there is much less justification.

Agreed on the distinction between strikes vs. invasion. But there was little difference between Clinton and Bush. Both acted unilaterally (though Bush had more international participation than Clinton did, and Bush actually tried approaching the UN as opposed to Clinton).

Obama, Bush and Clinton both support regime change.

Where Obama differs is he actually bluntly says the US' overriding purpose is to force democracy on the world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Consistent? No, I don't think so. Bush was trying to force democracy through military action before Obama.

Attempted approaches hardly diminishes the fact of unilateral action. Who you trying to kid? Conservatives a hoot when they come with hat in hand to ask nicely knowing full well they will take what they want even if you say no. Its all I can do to not knock the teeth out of conservative heads sometimes. They always put themselves ahead of principles and it makes me puke in my mouth a little.

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

Combine that with his overbearing use of military force to acheive that goal. Actions speak louder than words. And invasions speak louder than strikes, one whole hell of a lot louder. They just are not comparable no matter how hard you try to confuse us and yourself.

Moderator: Readers, please stay on topic. Bush is not relevant to this discussion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

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

This was not the justification for action in Iraq, but a benefit. The entire justification for Libya IS democracy. As left-wing opponents of US intervention like to say, and to which I agree, it is not the US' job to implement democracy around the world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It was part of the many "justifications" for Iraq. You seem to be one who can read lips but not between the lines.

At least part of the justification for Libya is to support the people of the country who are currently actively opposing the government. Its also something of a humanitarian crisis. I support the idea of doing something, just not the way its being done. I don't care if the Libyans want a democracy, theocracy, communist government, socialist government, monarchy or anarchy. The U.N. backs up the majority choosing their own government and so do I. And who said they were after democracy anyway? And who cares?

Why do you think Obama is trying to implement democracy? Supporting rebels with airstrikes would have to be about the weakest proof, of all the things Obama could do to toward that goal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mangaman -

it was part of MANY justifications for Iraq, but is the ONLY justification for Libya intervention.

Its also something of a humanitarian crisis.

Really? Sounds like an internal power struggle to me. What exactly is the "humanitarian crisis"? And how does the supposed "humanitarian crisis" here stack up against the ones in Darfur, Ivory Coast, Angola, and all the others where we did NOT intervene? (the answer: Libya is alot LESS crisis-y).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why do you think Obama is trying to implement democracy?

I actually WATCHED his speech, not just read a few quotes in the article.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The writ of the U.N. Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security.”

Probably copied and pasted from the previous administration's justification for Iraq.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Its all I can do to not knock the teeth out of conservative heads sometimes.

LOL... tough guy?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It really doesn't matter what Obama does. He'll be criticized by one side or the other.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MangaMan - if I may point out a few things:(1)NATO will soon be taking the lead in Operation Freedom and Democracy for Libya and (2)operations will be led by a Canadian.

You guys are making a difference.

Be proud.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica at 03:44 PM JST - 30th March The entire justification for Libya IS democracy.

This will not happen. Libya’s oil reserves are among the largest, and that alone is a big obstacle to democracy. So even if rebel forces succeed under the banner of an essentially democratic revolution in overthrowing Gadhafi, and regardless of whether Libya’s next leader arises from a democracy movement, at some point he is likely to consider political oppression as a survival strategy that helps hold back all his competitors.

There are few democracy's advances oil-rich countries All countries with relatively large net oil exports were less likely to have a democratic national government. If democratization is to take place in Libya, the process of moving to fair elections, allowing free speech, free political expression and so on is much less likely to occur because Libya has significant oil reserves, regardless of how much oil the country chose to export.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sfjp-

Libya’s oil reserves

ahhh, so there you have it. Where's the "no blood for oil" lobby to complain? They are too busy claiming it's for democracy and humanitarianism.

And why isn't Iraq repaying our war expenses with oil?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica at 07:18 AM JST - 31st March. And why isn't Iraq repaying our war expenses with oil?

They are. The U.S. Congress approved billions spending bill that includes money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan included a loan provided by U.S. to IMF in which Iraq has been paying this back to IMF since 2006 from the oil revenue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

from the oil revenue.

I said, where is the OIL? Not the oil revenue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I still remain opposed to unilateral military action,if the Republicans were to do it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica at 02:04 PM JST - 31st March. I said, where is the OIL? Not the oil revenue.

There has been widespread oil refinery damages from the war that needs to be repaired. This is just the matter of time. Currently, there are substantial amount of investment money flowing from U.S. and Europe. Within five years, oil production in Iraq will more than double, which would move it from the world’s 13th largest producer to the fourth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica at 02:04 PM JST - 31st March. I said, where is the OIL? Not the oil revenue.

By the way, currently, U.S. receives 4.5 percent of the oil from Iraq. This will increase in five years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

By the way, currently, U.S. receives 4.5 percent of the oil from Iraq.

We buy 4.5%? I'm talking, where is the free oil they owe us as repayment for the military help?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica at 11:15 AM JST - 1st April. We buy 4.5%? I'm talking, where is the free oil they owe us as repayment for the military help?

Do you want China to take the 4.5 percent? If you didn't know, this is what you call payoff for long term U.S. stability of oil from Iraq.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sfjp Iraq should be giving us the oil, not selling it to us.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites