Obama called Libya a sh*t show....

[MicroBrew]

So is it reasonable to say that the huge slave trade we see going on in Libya is a result of obama having Gaddafi taken out? Serious question....

Ghaddafi being taken out is partly the reason, but it would be naive to think there already wasn't a slave trade in that part of the world. Infact, way back in 1994, Harvard Prof. Henry louis Gates Jnr, did a documentary on the slave trade in the Magreb, and in 1 segment he filmed a Black slave , tied with a rope, being led by an Arab/Berber slaver on a camel.

I don't see how Obama can be blamed, when it was Hillary, Neocons, Israel, that zionist French philosopher Henri Levy, the UK and France who brought tremendous pressure on Obama to intervene. A president is not a dictator, he can only resist so much, before he has to give in.

 

[MicroBrew]

Poor POTUS. Bullied into another conflict by France.

Remember how Obama wanted to go all in on Syria, but the UK decided to be democratic about and put it to a vote? So then Obama had to put it to a vote and didn’t get to go hard on Assad?

Obama didn't want to go into Syria. He was routinely attacked by the rightwing establishment (not the alt-right) for not confronting Assad. Obama was derided for not sticking to his redline in the sand comment.

It was Hillary, McCain, Neocons, UK, France, Saudi, Qatar and UAE who were pushing Obama. Turkey and Saudi were especially pissed he wouldn't take Assad out. The Saudis hated Obama, and couldn't wait to see him leave.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Um no, he didn't want war with Syria, that's why the US never put boots on the ground or used Airpower to hit Assad. Recall that he was derided for not even keeping to the redline he gave Assad, after the chemical attack. If Hillary or McCain had been president, the US would have attacked Assad, and enabled a Sunni jihadist takeover. Because Obama was president, the world was spared this.

The way it went down was Obama was going go in with the usual suspects (UK, France, Solomon Islands), without Congressional approval, siting the current powers the office had been granted. Only after the House of Commons forced a vote on intervention did Obama become reluctant and call for his own vote.

British Parliament Closes Door On Syria Intervention
August 29, 20135:39 PM ET
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...t-rejects-syria-intervention-in-symbolic-vote


August 31, 2013 WASHINGTON — President Obama abruptly changed course on Saturday and postponed a military strike against the Syrian government in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack so he could seek authorization first from a deeply skeptical Congress.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Obama didn't want to go into Syria. He was routinely attacked by the rightwing establishment (not the alt-right) for not confronting Assad. Obama was derided for not sticking to his redline in the sand comment.

It was Hillary, McCain, Neocons, UK, France, Saudi, Qatar and UAE who were pushing Obama. Turkey and Saudi were especially pissed he wouldn't take Assad out. The Saudis hated Obama, and couldn't wait to see him leave.

Libya was all Hillary on the US side (even though Obama was the POTUS...), but Syria was all him. See above.

in fact, the right was threatening him with impeachment if he attacked Syria without congressional approval.
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/314778-top-aide-obama-worried-about-impeachment-for-syria-actions

 

[Greoric]

Not reluctant enough to not spread our bombing to Libya, Yemen, and Syria while increasing our drone strikes 10-fold. Not reluctant to spread special forces operations into another 40? countries. Not reluctant to classify all males of military age as “combatants”.

Claiming to be a reluctant interventionist with that resume wouldn’t work in Nuremberg. If anything he was just less obnoxious than Bush & Co. that’s not saying a lot.

Just so hopefully someone else reads the post I quoted.....

 

[MicroBrew]

The way it went down was Obama was going go in with the usual suspects (UK, France, Solomon Islands), without Congressional approval, siting the current powers the office had been granted. Only after the House of Commons forced a vote on intervention did Obama become reluctant and call for his own vote.

British Parliament Closes Door On Syria Intervention
August 29, 20135:39 PM ET
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...t-rejects-syria-intervention-in-symbolic-vote


August 31, 2013 WASHINGTON — President Obama abruptly changed course on Saturday and postponed a military strike against the Syrian government in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack so he could seek authorization first from a deeply skeptical Congress.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html

Yes the Parliament didn't want it. But the British leadership ( Cameroon ) were for it. Leadership can push for 1 thing even if the government as a whole isn't on board. Blair pushed for the Iraq war. He was the guy enthusiastically lobbying Britain to join the US war against Iraq.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Yes the Parliament didn't want it. But the British leadership ( Cameroon ) were for it. Leadership can push for 1 thing even if the government as a whole isn't on board. Blair pushed for the Iraq war. He was the guy enthusiastically lobbying Britain to join the US war against Iraq.

Obama claimed he had the authority to intervene without Congressional approval and was going to go in based on that. Then the UK had to pulll a bitch move by consulting the sheep people. That threw a huge wrench in Obama's plans and he had to do a 180 to save face.
Not only does it fly in the face of him being a reluctant war monger, it defies the narrative that the Republicans were pressuring him to act on Syria when they were actually threatening impeachment if he didn't consult Congress.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Yes the Parliament didn't want it. But the British leadership ( Cameroon ) were for it. Leadership can push for 1 thing even if the government as a whole isn't on board. Blair pushed for the Iraq war. He was the guy enthusiastically lobbying Britain to join the US war against Iraq.

Cameroon; another worthy member of the Coalition of the Wiling.

 

[MicroBrew]

Libya was all Hillary on the US side (even though Obama was the POTUS...), but Syria was all him. See above.

in fact, the right was threatening him with impeachment if he attacked Syria without congressional approval.
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/314778-top-aide-obama-worried-about-impeachment-for-syria-actions

The establishment rightwing, specifically the interventionist camp of McCain and Graham were pushing him to bomb Assad.

If Obama wanted to take Assad out, he had plenty of opportunities to do so. He was practically served an excuse when the chemical weapons attack occurred. But he didn't take it.

The only thing Obama could do was give some tepid support to the rebels, to stave off the Hillary,McCain,Graham war party.

Re. Ghouta
This brazen assault had clearly crossed the “red line” that President Barack Obama had enunciated a year earlier—that if Assad used chemical weapons, it would warrant U.S. military action.

Heading into the long weekend, the Pentagon had made plans for round-the-clock staffing, since we thought the military operation would start over the holiday. As the assistant secretary of cefense for international security affairs, I had been involved in the deliberations and planning for the strikes. Yet early Saturday morning, I received a call from Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’soffice with surprising news: The president had called Hagel late the night before and told him he “wanted to explore another option.” Instead of ordering strikes immediately, the president wanted to pump the brakes and first go to Congress to ask for its authorization.


https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/obama-syria-foreign-policy-red-line-revisited-214059

If Obama really wanted to attack Assad, why didn't he just attack him without going to Congress. Trump didn't go to Congress when he launched cruise missiles.

-

I really can't believe any of you are saying Obama wanted to bomb Assad, it runs so contrary to reality, which we all are familiar with since it happened only a few years ago. Why do you think the Saudis HATED Obama, and were looking forward to a Hillary presidency.

 

[EZShrimpn]

the lesson from iraq is that if youre going to "regime change" a nation. you better have a damn good 10 year plan for what comes next and you had better be prepared out of the nose to pay for it.

do you want isis? cause thats how you get isis.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

The establishment rightwing, specifically the interventionist camp of McCain and Graham were pushing him to bomb Assad.

If Obama wanted to take Assad out, he had plenty of opportunities to do so. He was practically served an excuse when the chemical weapons attack occurred. But he didn't take it.

The only thing Obama could do was give some tepid support to the rebels, to stave off the Hillary,McCain,Graham war party.

Re. Ghouta
This brazen assault had clearly crossed the “red line” that President Barack Obama had enunciated a year earlier—that if Assad used chemical weapons, it would warrant U.S. military action.

Heading into the long weekend, the Pentagon had made plans for round-the-clock staffing, since we thought the military operation would start over the holiday. As the assistant secretary of cefense for international security affairs, I had been involved in the deliberations and planning for the strikes. Yet early Saturday morning, I received a call from Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’soffice with surprising news: The president had called Hagel late the night before and told him he “wanted to explore another option.” Instead of ordering strikes immediately, the president wanted to pump the brakes and first go to Congress to ask for its authorization.


https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/obama-syria-foreign-policy-red-line-revisited-214059

If Obama really wanted to attack Assad, why didn't he just attack him without going to Congress. Trump didn't go to Congress when he launched cruise missiles.

-

I really can't believe any of you are saying Obama wanted to bomb Assad, it runs so contrary to reality, which we all are familiar with since it happened only a few years ago.

I really can't believe we're trying to portray Kill-List Obama as a reluctant war monger.
That Politico article is just revisionist propaganda.

If you look at the time line its obvious he was looking to take unilateral military action with British and French support.
Only after one of them out democracy'd us, did Obama have to save face and call for a vote (which the hypocritical Republicans were pressuring him to do from the get).

 

[Scrody]

Funny then that Libyans still decided to rise up against their dictator.

I'm sure the country is better for it.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I'm sure the country is better for it.

Would've been if not for those meddling imperialists.

 

[TheLastEmperorReurns]

He literally said being complicit in the NATO intervention was his greatest mistake as president.

Because he's an adult, he can admit when he made mistakes.




http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36013703


For the record, I was against and am still against the intervention, but it was supported by many international experts, such as the international law expert at my alma mater. In the short term, it did save civilian causalities, but, as we all know, the long-term damage was exponentially worse.

Also, he's right that Cameron deserves a larger share of the blame. Cameron was the leading voice in urging the action.

That seems incredibly odd to me considering that America's interventions in the Middle East have been creating the same problem over and over again for decades.

In the case of Afghanistan and Iraq, the "oh, we should have had a post-government-overthrow plan before we went in" was bad enough- but how could Obama center his campaign on calling out the lack of foresight in the "masterminds" behind these catastrophes and then repeat the same basic mistake in Libya?

It's almost as if American foreign policy is mostly driven by dinosaur American exceptionalist NSA/CIA/Pentagon puppets rather than critical thinkers and public servants who hold themselves accountable and accessible to the voting masses.

 

[FrankensteinMMA]

Also, it's Gaddafi, not Gadaffi.

its actually gandalfi where we eventualy get gandalf and gandalfus.

"i am the wizardking of libya!"

 

[Trotsky]

Funny then that Libyans still decided to rise up against their dictator.

LOL

Yeah, the rebels who "decided to rise up against their dictator" are not representative of all of Libya.

Did you have this same opinion of the 2002 coup in Venezuela, where a small portion of the country, funded by regional money and armed with "regional support", banded with the military to overthrow a leader who had upwards of 70% popular support?

 

[ultramanhyata]

That guy has the most names I've ever seen

• (most common) Qaddafi, Qadhafi, Gaddafi, Qadhdhafi
• (also very common) Gadafi, Gaddafy, Kaddafi, Gadhafi; Khadafy, Gadaffi
• (moderately common) Qadaffi, Qadafi, Quaddafi, Khadafi, Khaddafi, Ghadaffi, Qathafi, Kadhafi, Ghaddafi, Kadafi, Ghadafi, Gadafy
• (uncommon) Gadhaffi, Gaddhafi, Gadaffy; Ghaddaffi, Gheddafi; Qadhaffi, Qaddhafi; Quadaffi, Quadhafi, Quadafi; Khadaffi, Khaddafy; Kadaffi, Kazzafi
• (rare) Gadaafi, Gaddaffy; Ghadaffy, Ghadafy, Ghaddafy; Ghedaffi; Kaddaffi, Kaddhafi, Kadhaffi; Kazafi; Khaddaffi, Khadhafi; Qazzafi; Qhadaffi, Qhadafi, Qhaddafi; Quadaffy, Quadafy, Quaddaffi, Quaddafy; Quaddhafi; Quathafi

• Wiz Khalifa

 

[JonnyRingo84]

https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/barack-obama-says-david-cameron-allowed-libya-to-become-a-s-show-a6923976.html?amp

This is strange. Obama and Clinton take out Libyas leader in gadaffi, but what were their plans for the country after taking out their leader?

just leave the place in anarchy?

Seems Obama blames the u.k. for the poor state of Libya after talking out gadaffi?
Calls Libya a sh*t show

trump called them shitholes in the context of immigration. this inherently implies that the people are.......

and are we not F'ing sick of the "but obama" "but hillary" defense tactic yet?

 

[Islam Imamate]

LOL

Yeah, the rebels who "decided to rise up against their dictator" are not representative of all of Libya.

I know, it was mainly the Cyrenaica region of Libya where the old capital of King Idris, Benghazi, is that supported the rebellion whereas Kadaphi had his strongholds in Tripolitania where his capital is located. I think an intervention in Libya could've worked if NATO had stuck to keeping a no fly zone over Libya allowing the rebels to push as far as they, likely taking over Cyrenaica but failing to dislodge Kazafi from his strongholds in Tripolitania. Then let the stalemate sit for sometime to see if the rebels can maintain a unified resistance then have an internationally brokered peace deal between the rebels and Khaddaffi.

Bu NATO got greedy and wanted regime change and thought, rightly so, that they could get away with it because Qathafi had no committed international allies like Bashar Assad does in the Iranians and Russians.

Did you have this same opinion of the 2002 coup in Venezuela, where a small portion of the country, funded by regional money and armed with "regional support", banded with the military to overthrow a leader who had upwards of 70% popular support?

I don't know enough about Venezuela to comment

 

[Bald1]

I don't see it like that. I also think the notion that Europe is dommed are not based in reality.
If you compare Europe 2018 to any version of Europe, 2018 is by far the best.
Crime might have gone up due to the migrants right now but other things are better compared to 10 years ago.

And as a German if I compare it on a generational level. My dad lived in a divided Germany were a third was under communist rule.
My Grandfathers fought in WW2. The generation before that had WW1. And before that they had to fight unification wars to have a Germany in the first place.
Having a bunch of Muslims and Africans here that shouldnt be here is really nothing compared to that.

While that is a problem that needs to be addressed. In 2018 we have more people of German blood than we ever had before.
We never had more allies and fewer enemies. We have never lived in a more unified Europe.
We have never been more educated, prosperous or healthy than in 2018. The Bolsheviks have been defeated.

The 21st century is going to be the German century also a bit different than we imagined before it should probably be called the Unified European century.
The Chinese won't survive the collapse of Communism. The American experiment has failed and the Japanese fell victim to misplaced nationalism.
German-style social democracy has shown itself to be the superior system.

Don't fall victim to the propaganda from Eurosceptic. Those Eurosceptics have been working against a unified Europe for almost 200 years.
They are trying to divide Europe by claiming its dommed when in fact you could not point to a better time in Europe.
All issues while serious are just a matter of policy.

I'm enjoying the convo between you and @Bacco but just wanted to stick my 2 cents in here.

Yeah, 2018 Europe is better than 08 Europe. But in the context of the chat you guys are having wouldn't it be better to make the comparison between pre migrant crisis Europe and the current one?

Brexit, crime stats, the friction between Brussels and the V4 are all directly the result of the crisis, and Merkel is complicit in that fuckery.