Author Topic: Obama's stance on intervention in Libya has People Puzzled  (Read 4461 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Kramer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5762
  • Repeal ObamaCare
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Obama's stance on intervention in Libya has People Puzzled
« on: March 18, 2011, 08:24:36 PM »
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/16/european_governments_completely_puzzled_about_us_position_on_libya

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's meetings in Paris with the G8 foreign ministers on Monday left her European interlocutors with more questions than answers about the Obama administration's stance on intervention in Libya.

Inside the foreign ministers' meeting, a loud and contentious debate erupted about whether to move forward with stronger action to halt Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi's campaign against the Libyan rebels and the violence being perpetrated against civilians. Britain and France argued for immediate action while Germany and Russia opposed such a move, according to two European diplomats who were briefed on the meeting.

Clinton stayed out of the fray, repeating the administration's position that all options are on the table but not specifically endorsing any particular step. She also did not voice support for stronger action in the near term, such as a no-fly zone or military aid to the rebels, both diplomats said.

"The way the U.S. acted was to let the Germans and the Russians block everything, which announced for us an alignment with the Germans as far as we are concerned," one of the diplomats told The Cable.

Clinton's unwillingness to commit the United States to a specific position led many in the room to wonder exactly where the administration stood on the situation in Libya.

"Frankly we are just completely puzzled," the diplomat said. "We are wondering if this is a priority for the United States."

On the same day, Clinton had a short meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, in which Sarkozy pressed Clinton to come out more forcefully in favor of action in Libya. She declined Sarkozy's request, according to a government source familiar with the meeting.

Sarkozy told Clinton that "we need action now" and she responded to him, "there are difficulties," the source said, explaining that Clinton was referring to China and Russia's opposition to intervention at the United Nations. Sarkozy replied that the United States should at least try to overcome the difficulties by leading a strong push at the U.N., but Clinton simply repeated, "There are difficulties."

One diplomat, who supports stronger action in Libya, contended that the United States' lack of clarity on this issue is only strengthening those who oppose action.

"The risk we run is to look weak because we've asked him to leave and we aren't taking any action to support our rhetoric and that has consequences on the ground and in the region," said the European diplomat.

British and French frustration with the lack of international will to intervene in Libya is growing. British Prime Minister David Cameron said on Tuesday that Arab sentiment was, "if you don't show your support for the Libyan people and for democracy at this time, you are saying you will intervene only when it's about your security, but you won't help when it's about our democracy."

France sent letters on Wednesday to all the members of the U.N. Security Council, which is discussing a Lebanon-sponsored resolution to implement a no-fly zone, calling on them to support the resolution, as has been requested by the Arab League.

"Together, we can save the martyred people of Libya. It is now a matter of days, if not hours. The worst would be that the appeal of the League of the Arab States and the Security Council decisions be overruled by the force of arms," the letter stated.

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe wrote on his blog, "It is not enough to proclaim, as did almost all of the major democracies that ‘Qaddafi must go.' We must give ourselves the means to effectively assist those who took up arms against his dictatorship."

In an interview with the BBC on Wednesday in Cairo, Clinton pointed to the U.N. Security Council as the proper venue for any decision to be made and she pushed back at the contention by the British and the French that the U.S. was dragging its feet.

"I don't think that is fair.  I think, based on my conversations in Paris with the G-8 ministers, which, of course, included those two countries, I think we all agree that given the Arab League statement, it was time to move to the Security Council to see what was possible," Clinton said.  I don't want to prejudge it because countries are still very concerned about it.  And I know how anxious the British and the French and the Lebanese are, and they have taken a big step in presenting something.  But we want to get something that will do what needs to be done and can be passed."

"It won't do us any good to consult, negotiate, and then have something vetoed or not have enough votes to pass it," Clinton added.

Clinton met with Libyan opposition leader Mahmoud Jibril in Paris as well, but declined to make any promises on specific actions to support the Libyan opposition.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry (D-MA) also doubled down on his call for a no-fly zone over Libya in a speech on Wednesday at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

"The international community cannot simply watch from the sidelines as this quest for democracy is met with violence," he said. "The Arab League's call for a U.N. no-fly zone over Libya is an unprecedented signal that the old rules of impunity for autocratic leaders no longer stand... The world needs to respond immediately to avert a humanitarian disaster."

And Clinton's former top aide Anne-Marie Slaughter accused the Obama administration of prioritizing oil over the human rights of the people of Libya.

"U.S. is defining ‘vital strategic interest' in terms of oil and geography, not universal values. Wrong call that will come back to haunt us," she wrote on Wednesday on her Twitter page.

Kramer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5762
  • Repeal ObamaCare
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Obama's stance on intervention in Libya has People Puzzled
« Reply #1 on: March 18, 2011, 08:26:51 PM »
Time after time when it comes to life Obama has proven he doesn't have any compassion. Unless the people are union members.

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11153
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Obama's stance on intervention in Libya has People Puzzled
« Reply #2 on: March 18, 2011, 08:54:06 PM »
I may actually agree with Dennis Kucinich on this Libya situation:

Dennis Kucinich On Obama Libya Action: It's Not Up To The President, It's Up To Congress
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Kramer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5762
  • Repeal ObamaCare
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Obama's stance on intervention in Libya has People Puzzled
« Reply #3 on: March 18, 2011, 09:08:25 PM »
Clinton had no problem firing cruise missiles when he was president. What does Dennis think that Libya is going to do, come over here and attack us? Some action with a combination of France, Italy and GB and of course the US would impair Gadhafi fairly quick.

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11153
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Obama's stance on intervention in Libya has People Puzzled
« Reply #4 on: March 18, 2011, 11:25:55 PM »
Some action with a combination of France, Italy and GB and of course the US would impair Gadhafi fairly quick.

But do we know who would take over after Gaddafi?
And how do we know they wont be worse?
I am really unclear about where I stand on this
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Kramer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5762
  • Repeal ObamaCare
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Obama's stance on intervention in Libya has People Puzzled
« Reply #5 on: March 19, 2011, 12:18:17 PM »
Some action with a combination of France, Italy and GB and of course the US would impair Gadhafi fairly quick.

But do we know who would take over after Gaddafi?
And how do we know they wont be worse?
I am really unclear about where I stand on this

I think it's possible that we are on the cusp of democracy throughout the Middle East. This is not the time to get wobbly - Old quote from Maggie Thatcher. I really don't think Obama isn't capable of seeing the opportunity. Clearly the press does not and that in itself is a good indicator I'm right.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Obama's stance on intervention in Libya has People Puzzled
« Reply #6 on: March 19, 2011, 08:24:17 PM »
Qadaffi needs to go. He has been in power too long. He is a brutal dictator.

The people of Libya should decide who leads their country, and they can't do that until Qadaffi is out.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11153
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Obama's stance on intervention in Libya has People Puzzled
« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2011, 12:00:35 AM »
The people of Libya should decide who leads their country

But what does that mean?
Sounds good....but what does that mean?
Did the people of Iraq "decide" Saddam would lead?
Did the people of Zimbabwe "decide" Mugabe would lead?
Did the people of Afghanistan "decide" the Taliban would lead?
How many democratic votes did all the bozos win?
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Obama's stance on intervention in Libya has People Puzzled
« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2011, 01:12:28 PM »
Mugabe was elected in at least one fair election.

Saddam overthrew a king imposed by the British.

The Taliban took over because USSR left Afghanistan, the US lost interest and walked away.

I fail to see how allowing Qadaffi to kill fellow Libyans will benefit anyone other than Qadaffi and his family.

"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11153
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Obama's stance on intervention in Libya has People Puzzled
« Reply #9 on: March 20, 2011, 02:49:05 PM »
"Saddam overthrew a king imposed by the British"

No he didn't. In fact the Baathists (Saddam's Party) opposed the govt that overthrew the King and,
and in 1959 Saddam was involved in the unsuccessful United States-backed plot to assassinate the
leader that overthrew the King.

"The Taliban took over because USSR left Afghanistan, the US lost interest and walked away"

The Taliban filled a power vaccum, and why should we contribute to a power vacuum in Libya
that could well lead to people more crazy that Qadaffi taking power?

Like you say, let the Libyans decide.

"I fail to see how allowing Qaddafi to kill fellow Libyans will benefit
anyone other than Qaddafi and his family"


I fail to see why the US should get involved in a civil war in Libya.
Especially not knowing who the opposition really is.
It's called INSANITY!
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Kramer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5762
  • Repeal ObamaCare
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Obama's stance on intervention in Libya has People Puzzled
« Reply #10 on: March 20, 2011, 03:47:02 PM »
"Saddam overthrew a king imposed by the British"

No he didn't. In fact the Baathists (Saddam's Party) opposed the govt that overthrew the King and,
and in 1959 Saddam was involved in the unsuccessful United States-backed plot to assassinate the
leader that overthrew the King.

"The Taliban took over because USSR left Afghanistan, the US lost interest and walked away"

The Taliban filled a power vaccum, and why should we contribute to a power vacuum in Libya
that could well lead to people more crazy that Qadaffi taking power?

Like you say, let the Libyans decide.

"I fail to see how allowing Qaddafi to kill fellow Libyans will benefit
anyone other than Qaddafi and his family"


I fail to see why the US should get involved in a civil war in Libya.
Especially not knowing who the opposition really is.
It's called INSANITY!

Why assume that evil people will take over? Look what could happen if freedom were to spread throughout the ME. This is an opportunity of 100 lifetimes. We should nurture this thirst for freedom.

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11153
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Obama's stance on intervention in Libya has People Puzzled
« Reply #11 on: March 20, 2011, 06:59:48 PM »
Why assume that evil people will take over?

Why assume? Well take a look at history in the Middle East.
While I certainly hope you are correct Kramer, name the Middle East
countries throughout history that have been swept into democracy by their own people?

I think the better question is why do you assume freedom
will happen there when it rarely if ever has ended that way?

I am not saying we should support Khadfi...I just think we need to be careful
what we get involved in when we have our hands full currently with two other wars
in the Muslim world....but maybe those in power know some facts about those
Libyan rebels that I dont.....maybe they know they are "good guys"....but I am
very skeptical and think we could trade a skunk for a worse skunk.
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Kramer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5762
  • Repeal ObamaCare
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Obama's stance on intervention in Libya has People Puzzled
« Reply #12 on: March 20, 2011, 08:07:21 PM »
Why assume that evil people will take over?

Why assume? Well take a look at history in the Middle East.
While I certainly hope you are correct Kramer, name the Middle East
countries throughout history that have been swept into democracy by their own people?

I think the better question is why do you assume freedom
will happen there when it rarely if ever has ended that way?

I am not saying we should support Khadfi...I just think we need to be careful
what we get involved in when we have our hands full currently with two other wars
in the Muslim world....but maybe those in power know some facts about those
Libyan rebels that I dont.....maybe they know they are "good guys"....but I am
very skeptical and think we could trade a skunk for a worse skunk.

if obama had better vision by now Iran might be free. the guy is a walking nightmare! no doubt in my mind obama is pure evil...

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Obama's stance on intervention in Libya has People Puzzled
« Reply #13 on: March 20, 2011, 09:05:15 PM »
  On this one occasion I am going to entertain the idea that President Obama has performed a task better than President Bush performed the same task.

   When President Bush went to Europe , NATO, the UN etc. he got limited cooperation .

  President Obama has held out for more allied involvement , perhaps learning from the experience of Presidents Clinton and Bush.

      In Former Yugoslavia and Iraq I think it was clear early that the US would act even without allies, so why would the allies offer much?The US carrying the whole load would do the countries of Europe just as much good and cheaper. Token involvement is less risk and less cost.

     Perhaps Obama is playing better poker with Europe.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2011, 10:41:58 PM by Plane »

Kramer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5762
  • Repeal ObamaCare
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Obama's stance on intervention in Libya has People Puzzled
« Reply #14 on: March 20, 2011, 09:25:04 PM »
  On this one occasion I am going to entertain the idea that President Obama has performed a task better than President Bush performed the same task.

   When President Bush went to Europe , Nato, the UN etc. he got limited co-operation .

  President Obama has held pout for more allied involvement , perhaps learning from the experience of Presidents Clinton and Bush.

      In Former Ugoslavia and Iraq I think it was clear early that the US would act even without allies, so why would the allies offer much?The uS carrying the whole load would do the countrys of Europe just as much good and cheaper. Token involvement is less risk and less cost.

     Perhaps Obama is playing better poker with Europe.


I didn't know your name is Angela Charlton...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110320/ap_on_re_us/europe_libya;_ylt=Ah977SMK2.Am9gRyH1MbXWes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNnaWcwdXF0BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwMzIwL2V1cm9wZV9saWJ5YQRjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzYEcG9zAzMEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl9oZWFkbGluZV9saXN0BHNsawNldXJvcGVub3R1c3A-
or maybe he is better at being told what to do rather than leading. did we elect a leader or a follower?
« Last Edit: March 20, 2011, 09:38:34 PM by Kramer »