Obama's Libyan Stance: NONE...'There are difficulties'

Discussion in 'Politics' started by carpro, Mar 19, 2011.

  1. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,909
    Likes Received:
    295
    http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/p...completely_puzzled_about_us_position_on_libya

    European governments “completely puzzled” about U.S. 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.

    SNIP

    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."
     
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Why must the US always lead in policing the world's problems?

    Would you agree with the Al Jazeera commentator who just said this was an over reaction on the US' part to what happened in Iraq?

    I am not so sure the US acting in a mere support role is a bad thing.
     
  3. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,909
    Likes Received:
    295
    "There are...difficulties".
     
  4. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I saw that - I still wonder why the US must ALWAYS polices every situation. What is wrong with letting France and the UK deal with this one?

    I think the US is acting wisely in this case.
     
  5. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,909
    Likes Received:
    295
    Because,

    "There are...difficulties."
     
  6. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Would you claim there are no difficulties in deciding what steps to take? It is a very difficult choice to decide whether or not to open up a third front on the war on terror.

    I am happy enough to let the French and Brits handle this one.

    Pardon my ignorance, but I don't understand why you keep repeating your post.
     
  7. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,909
    Likes Received:
    295
    Well, Roger, it's like this.

    I want to be here for the discussion, but I don't want to lead it. I'm kinda interested in what's going on, but I really just can't take sides or commit to help you , even though I consider you a friend and ally. I can't really afford to even speak on your behalf to others.

    The reason?

    Well...there are...difficulties. :smilewinkgrin:
     
  8. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
  9. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,909
    Likes Received:
    295
    If you're asking if I agree, I really just can't commit.

    But I might give in to the pressure of your continued queries, later... If I think it'll soothe your ruffled feathers.

    Or I might just do some little something to make you feel better about the whole thing.
     
  10. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Maybe it's because we are now "a global force for good".

    Check out the U.S. Navy website here. http://www.navy.com/

    This while the U.S. State Department supports and encourages uprisings in the Middle East.

    "America’s Navy serves as an essential force of stability in an increasingly unstable and interconnected world – as well as a vanguard for positive change"

    The U.S. Navy may be a global force of stability but the U.S. State Department is a force of global instability.

    Maybe Obama can't make up his mind which global force we're supposed to be, one of global stability or global instability. More likely though is that what Obama thinks doesn't even matter seeing as how he is nothing more than a well dressed puppet of the Wall Street/Military Industrial Complex gang.
     
    #10 poncho, Mar 20, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2011
  11. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
  12. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,909
    Likes Received:
    295
    :laugh: Yeah. Right.

    Obama is not concerned with breaking laws. Ours or anyone elses.

    But he is concerned with what his muslim "friends" think about him.
     
  13. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    So that's it then, eh? Obama doesn't like killing his muslim brothers? Maybe you should let the families of all those Pakistanis he's killed with piltoless drones, then made jokes about it that he's looking out for their best interests by looking out for his.
     
    #13 poncho, Mar 20, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2011
  14. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,909
    Likes Received:
    295
    Hardly. Muslims never mind killing each other. They just don't want infidels doing it for them.

    Now that it's sanctioned by his muslim "friends", all is well. Kill away.
     
  15. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    You are refering to the "international community's" muslim puppet dictators, right? I thought their people were at odds with them at the moment, with a little help from their "friends" at the U.S. Department of State of course.
     
    #15 poncho, Mar 20, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2011
  16. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Here's a muslim that seems to be upset with Obama.

    http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/World_News_3/article_7666.shtml

    The strange thing about all this, well maybe it's not so strange considering how much we love to play pin the blame on the other party is that this is neither democrat or republican policy.

    It isn't democrat policy because it was already well under way when they took power, and it isn't republican policy because it was well under way when they took power.

    Like Ron Paul asked not so many years ago when the limited government conservative movement was co opted by the neocons, . . .

    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Since the change of the political party in charge has not made a difference, who's really in charge? If the particular party in power makes little difference, whose policy is it that permits expanded government programs, increased spending, huge deficits, nation building and the pervasive invasion of our privacy, with fewer Fourth Amendment protections than ever before? [/FONT]

    [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Someone is responsible, and it's important that those of us who love liberty, and resent big-brother government, identify the philosophic supporters who have the most to say about the direction our country is going. If they're wrong — and I believe they are — we need to show it, alert the American people, and offer a more positive approach to government. However, this depends on whether the American people desire to live in a free society and reject the dangerous notion that we need a strong central government to take care of us from the cradle to the grave. Do the American people really believe it's the government's responsibility to make us morally better and economically equal? Do we have a responsibility to police the world, while imposing our vision of good government on everyone else in the world with some form of utopian nation building? If not, and the enemies of liberty are exposed and rejected, then it behooves us to present an alternative philosophy that is morally superior and economically sound and provides a guide to world affairs to enhance peace and commerce." [/FONT]

    Ron Paul NEOCONNED!

    So, who's policy is this that we've been following all these years through one administration after another?

    C'mon people. Who's really in charge?
     
  17. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    What is a man called who will not live up to the same demands he places on others? Carpro!
     

Share This Page

Loading...