Obama needs to publicly tell Gaddafi to go.

[Trajan]

Here's a question - What happens if we publicly pressure Gaddafi to go and he doesn't? What if he wins and stays in power?

What has the West gained and what has the West lost? If he wins and we have publicly tried to oust him, he becomes an enemy in the war on terror, potentially funding al-Qaeda and other groups. Seems to me, that would be a pretty big L for our side.

The people who are opposing him in the east tend to be more fundamentalist and more willing to support our enemies. We should be working covertly, but I can see a whole lot of downside if we play this wrongly.

well said. I don't know who running the shop at the WH but, we have already passed the point of no return ala Quadaffi, if he ever trusts us again hes a fool.


Hillary back tracked today saying its very important this not be "a US led effort.."

Why should Gaddaffi trust anyone? Why does he need to trust anyone outside of his very well paid staff?

You people need to stop listening to FNC and THINK FOR YOURSELF.

Gaddaffi is a fucking Billionaire who has had half a century to secure his position.

Uhm, I don't take my ques ala forigen affairs or actually very little else from FNC

And, in the sense that he trusts us to stand by our agreements with him and leave him alone ala his dumping his nuclear prgm. and the intimidation which got him to that point. We had 'power' over him at one point, Obama has, squandered it.

 

[Samson]

well said. I don't know who running the shop at the WH but, we have already passed the point of no return ala Quadaffi, if he ever trusts us again hes a fool.


Hillary back tracked today saying its very important this not be "a US led effort.."

Why should Gaddaffi trust anyone? Why does he need to trust anyone outside of his very well paid staff?

You people need to stop listening to FNC and THINK FOR YOURSELF.

Gaddaffi is a fucking Billionaire who has had half a century to secure his position.

Uhm, I don't take my ques ala forigen affairs or actually very little else from FNC

And, in the sense that he trusts us to stand by our agreements with him and leave him alone ala his dumping his nuclear prgm. and the intimidation which got him to that point. We had 'power' over him at one point, Obama has, squandered it.

Obama "squandered" our power over Gaddaffi?

WTF is that supposed to mean?



Ridiculous.

 

[Trajan]

Why should Gaddaffi trust anyone? Why does he need to trust anyone outside of his very well paid staff?

You people need to stop listening to FNC and THINK FOR YOURSELF.

Gaddaffi is a fucking Billionaire who has had half a century to secure his position.

Uhm, I don't take my ques ala forigen affairs or actually very little else from FNC

And, in the sense that he trusts us to stand by our agreements with him and leave him alone ala his dumping his nuclear prgm. and the intimidation which got him to that point. We had 'power' over him at one point, Obama has, squandered it.

Obama "squandered" our power over Gaddaffi?

WTF is that supposed to mean?



Ridiculous.

Soft power;
is the ability to obtain what one wants through co-option and attraction. It is in contradistinction to 'hard power', which is the use of coercion and payment. ...

Hard power;
is a term describing power obtained from the use of military and/or economic coercion to influence the behavior or interests of other political bodies. ...

I believe we had the ability to influence him via either one of those 2 vehicles...

 

[idb]

Here's a question - What happens if we publicly pressure Gaddafi to go and he doesn't? What if he wins and stays in power?

What has the West gained and what has the West lost? If he wins and we have publicly tried to oust him, he becomes an enemy in the war on terror, potentially funding al-Qaeda and other groups. Seems to me, that would be a pretty big L for our side.

The people who are opposing him in the east tend to be more fundamentalist and more willing to support our enemies. We should be working covertly, but I can see a whole lot of downside if we play this wrongly.

If Gaddafi stays on now, that's likely to teach the other despots in the region that shooting and bombing as many proestors as possible is the way to stay in power.

What "other despots in the region?"

What a lot of hysterical crap.

All you anti-Obama bullshiters are using this as an example of Obama's "weakness." I'm no huge Obamot. However I'm not about to join some idiotic political effort to undermine with some ridiculous, highly theoretical prediction of an absurd "domino theory" (which never evolved after Eisenhower introduced the concept to describe communism in SE Asia).

Take your pick - Iran, Yemen, Syria, Saudi Arabia...

You're extrapolating a lot about me from my post.
The hysteria's all yours I think.

 

[Samson]

If Gaddafi stays on now, that's likely to teach the other despots in the region that shooting and bombing as many proestors as possible is the way to stay in power.

What "other despots in the region?"

What a lot of hysterical crap.

All you anti-Obama bullshiters are using this as an example of Obama's "weakness." I'm no huge Obamot. However I'm not about to join some idiotic political effort to undermine with some ridiculous, highly theoretical prediction of an absurd "domino theory" (which never evolved after Eisenhower introduced the concept to describe communism in SE Asia).

Take your pick - Iran, Yemen, Syria, Saudi Arabia...

You're extrapolating a lot about me from my post.
The hysteria's all yours I think.

Apparently, you don't know what the fuck a "despot" is anymore than you know what you're babbling about.

But, let's imagine for a second that you have a clue.

Iran, Yemen, Syria, Saudi Arabia...bomb the shit out of "as many protestors as possible."

So what?

 

[Samson]

Uhm, I don't take my ques ala forigen affairs or actually very little else from FNC

And, in the sense that he trusts us to stand by our agreements with him and leave him alone ala his dumping his nuclear prgm. and the intimidation which got him to that point. We had 'power' over him at one point, Obama has, squandered it.

Obama "squandered" our power over Gaddaffi?

WTF is that supposed to mean?



Ridiculous.

Soft power;
is the ability to obtain what one wants through co-option and attraction. It is in contradistinction to 'hard power', which is the use of coercion and payment. ...

Hard power;
is a term describing power obtained from the use of military and/or economic coercion to influence the behavior or interests of other political bodies. ...

I believe we had the ability to influence him via either one of those 2 vehicles...

Why do you think he wasn't doing exactly what we wanted him to do without any "vehicles."

 

[idb]

What "other despots in the region?"

What a lot of hysterical crap.

All you anti-Obama bullshiters are using this as an example of Obama's "weakness." I'm no huge Obamot. However I'm not about to join some idiotic political effort to undermine with some ridiculous, highly theoretical prediction of an absurd "domino theory" (which never evolved after Eisenhower introduced the concept to describe communism in SE Asia).

Take your pick - Iran, Yemen, Syria, Saudi Arabia...

You're extrapolating a lot about me from my post.
The hysteria's all yours I think.

Apparently, you don't know what the fuck a "despot" is anymore than you know what you're babbling about.

But, let's imagine for a second that you have a clue.

Iran, Yemen, Syria, Saudi Arabia...bomb the shit out of "as many protestors as possible."

So what?

Now you're just stamping your feet and screaming.........one definition for hysteria maybe?

 

[Samson]

Take your pick - Iran, Yemen, Syria, Saudi Arabia...

You're extrapolating a lot about me from my post.
The hysteria's all yours I think.

Apparently, you don't know what the fuck a "despot" is anymore than you know what you're babbling about.

But, let's imagine for a second that you have a clue.

Iran, Yemen, Syria, Saudi Arabia...bomb the shit out of "as many protestors as possible."

So what?

Now you're just stamping your feet and screaming.........one definition for hysteria maybe?

You can't answer the simple question:

Iran, Yemen, Syria, Saudi Arabia...bomb the shit out of "as many protestors as possible."

So what?

My guess is that you're not terribly bright.



No need to apologise.

 

[idb]

Apparently, you don't know what the fuck a "despot" is anymore than you know what you're babbling about.

But, let's imagine for a second that you have a clue.

Iran, Yemen, Syria, Saudi Arabia...bomb the shit out of "as many protestors as possible."

So what?

Now you're just stamping your feet and screaming.........one definition for hysteria maybe?

You can't answer the simple question:

Iran, Yemen, Syria, Saudi Arabia...bomb the shit out of "as many protestors as possible."

So what?

My guess is that you're not terribly bright.



No need to apologise.

Why should I answer for something I never said?

I wonder if we should try to analyse your inclination to angrily go straight for the throat.
Maybe you are overcompensating for something...do you have any real-person friends?
Not imaginary ones but ones that other people can see?

 

[Samson]

Now you're just stamping your feet and screaming.........one definition for hysteria maybe?

You can't answer the simple question:

Iran, Yemen, Syria, Saudi Arabia...bomb the shit out of "as many protestors as possible."

So what?

My guess is that you're not terribly bright.



No need to apologise.

Why should I answer for something I never said?

I wonder if we should try to analyse your inclination to angrily go straight for the throat.
Maybe you are overcompensating for something...do you have any real-person friends?
Not imaginary ones but ones that other people can see?

I rest my case.

Another idiot.

 

[idb]

You can't answer the simple question:




My guess is that you're not terribly bright.



No need to apologise.

Why should I answer for something I never said?

I wonder if we should try to analyse your inclination to angrily go straight for the throat.
Maybe you are overcompensating for something...do you have any real-person friends?
Not imaginary ones but ones that other people can see?

I rest my case.

Another idiot.

Oh, so I was wrong about that?
Maybe something else?
You're certainly a very angry individual.

 

[hipeter924]

What "other despots in the region?"

What a lot of hysterical crap.

All you anti-Obama bullshiters are using this as an example of Obama's "weakness." I'm no huge Obamot. However I'm not about to join some idiotic political effort to undermine with some ridiculous, highly theoretical prediction of an absurd "domino theory" (which never evolved after Eisenhower introduced the concept to describe communism in SE Asia).

Take your pick - Iran, Yemen, Syria, Saudi Arabia...

You're extrapolating a lot about me from my post.
The hysteria's all yours I think.

Apparently, you don't know what the fuck a "despot" is anymore than you know what you're babbling about.

But, let's imagine for a second that you have a clue.

Iran, Yemen, Syria, Saudi Arabia...bomb the shit out of "as many protestors as possible."

So what?

Its ironic how the left turn interventionist when Arabs are 'freeing themselves' and immediately afterwards condemn the US for doing so. If you want my opinion, we should let them do it all themselves. It's not like they are going to 'free' themselves, at least that's what we can know from the developing Iranian styled democracy in Egypt, with military thugs and Islamic extremists sharing the reigns of power.

Why risk American lives when they will hate you anyway? I mean seriously when do they make their minds up? It's 'evil', 'bad' and 'to exploit people' when the US intervenes, but when Arabs are revolting it's okay, when Iraq is ruled by a psychotic genocidal dictator it is 'illegitimate' or 'illegal' to invade it..anyone see the hypocrisy here? By helping these 'freedom fighters' we will not be setting up a democracy we know, but a tyranny by majority ruled by Islamic nut cases with obsessions over stoning women and homosexuals, and any one who dares to question the 'sacred' tenants of Islam. Then later the left will condemn the US for it.

 

[Samson]

Take your pick - Iran, Yemen, Syria, Saudi Arabia...

You're extrapolating a lot about me from my post.
The hysteria's all yours I think.

Apparently, you don't know what the fuck a "despot" is anymore than you know what you're babbling about.

But, let's imagine for a second that you have a clue.

Iran, Yemen, Syria, Saudi Arabia...bomb the shit out of "as many protestors as possible."

So what?

Why risk American lives when they will hate you anyway? I mean seriously when do they make their minds up? It's 'evil', 'bad' and 'to exploit people' when the US intervenes, but when Arabs are revolting it's okay, when Iraq is ruled by a psychotic genocidal dictator it is 'illegitimate' or 'illegal' to invade it..anyone see the hypocrisy here?

If the only reason for deposing Saddam had been that he was "killing as many protestors as possible" then I would agree. However that wasn't the case. He was suspected of having WMD (something UN inspectors could neither confirm or deny), and he had used them in the past (Against Iran), and he had used means to deliver them in the past (SCUDs).

Unless you are aware of something no one else is, Gaddaffi has no WMD and this has been verified by UN inspectors, he's never used WMD, and he has no medium range missle capable of delivering them.

 

[Trajan]

Obama "squandered" our power over Gaddaffi?

WTF is that supposed to mean?



Ridiculous.

Soft power;
is the ability to obtain what one wants through co-option and attraction. It is in contradistinction to 'hard power', which is the use of coercion and payment. ...

Hard power;
is a term describing power obtained from the use of military and/or economic coercion to influence the behavior or interests of other political bodies. ...

I believe we had the ability to influence him via either one of those 2 vehicles...

Why do you think he wasn't doing exactly what we wanted him to do without any "vehicles."

Because the historical trend-lines don't really sppt. that. There was a cause and effect, and of course we don't know everything bush told him way back, but we signaled him that tit for tat, be a good boy and we can negotiate, don't....well..


We convinced him we were serious in 86 and following that up, the US had along with France helped frustrate him in Chad, in 87, he didn’t seem to quite get the message yet, so sanctions started in 93 and as the years rolled by they had begun to bite, he held on but he didn’t have an active smuggling network or the oil for food ‘advantage’ Saddam had. By 95 he was expelling palestinians from Libya trying to gain some breathing room ala Dayton etc.

His choices were very limited. In 03, Bush reawakened the Proliferation Security Initiative in earnest. Libya is uniquely open to blockade, he knew it, we knew it and he knew we knew it, going into Iraq spooked him as well, and I am sure we told him we’d take the hit ala living absent his petroleum output as we tightened sanctions etc. and his ability to yield any advantage from building his own facilities and network toward dissemination of nuclear material. He sent a letter to the un saying he would take responsibility for Lockerbie and offered to pay reparations as part of a deal under the table with Bush.

Its was a hard power soft power rope a dope. *shrugs*.

 

[Trajan]

apropos the whole magilla- James Clapper today said that Qaddafi will prevail , he said it straight out, yes he was asked for his opinion, BUT, he should be a lot more astute then just say that.

Unreal. we are all over the place. Qaddafi has like Saddam become animated again as he trying save his ass and he no longer fears us, at all, he has taken Obamas measure and the UNs and like Saddam he has surmised correctly that fighting on is the way to go and we won't any time soon do a thing to stop him or interfere in any practical sense.

bush is no longer here, he has watched Obama's lackadaisical responses to Irans corrupt election last year, the corrupt Karzia election, Tunisia, Egypt and now....its worth noting to that Bush one basically same when the shia rose up in Iraq we didn't impose a no fly till Saddam who was in trouble, crushed it helped immensity by his air power.

"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce", and here we are.


Wait till Yemen truly tips over. The Saudis are already shooting people in the streets, when Yemen blows and goes down......"Fasten your seatbelts—it's gonna be a bumpy night!"( ride).

 

[Samson]

Soft power;
is the ability to obtain what one wants through co-option and attraction. It is in contradistinction to 'hard power', which is the use of coercion and payment. ...

Hard power;
is a term describing power obtained from the use of military and/or economic coercion to influence the behavior or interests of other political bodies. ...

I believe we had the ability to influence him via either one of those 2 vehicles...

Why do you think he wasn't doing exactly what we wanted him to do without any "vehicles."

Because the historical trend-lines don't really sppt. that. There was a cause and effect, and of course we don't know everything bush told him way back, but we signaled him that tit for tat, be a good boy and we can negotiate, don't....well..


We convinced him we were serious in 86 and following that up, the US had along with France helped frustrate him in Chad, in 87, he didn’t seem to quite get the message yet, so sanctions started in 93 and as the years rolled by they had begun to bite, he held on but he didn’t have an active smuggling network or the oil for food ‘advantage’ Saddam had. By 95 he was expelling palestinians from Libya trying to gain some breathing room ala Dayton etc.

His choices were very limited. In 03, Bush reawakened the Proliferation Security Initiative in earnest. Libya is uniquely open to blockade, he knew it, we knew it and he knew we knew it, going into Iraq spooked him as well, and I am sure we told him we’d take the hit ala living absent his petroleum output as we tightened sanctions etc. and his ability to yield any advantage from building his own facilities and network toward dissemination of nuclear material. He sent a letter to the un saying he would take responsibility for Lockerbie and offered to pay reparations as part of a deal under the table with Bush.

Its was a hard power soft power rope a dope. *shrugs*.

Um.......so the latest time we used one of these "vehicles" was when the US invaded Iraq.

Dude, that was , like EIGHT YEARS AGO!!

And, I'm not sure how what Gaddaffi did before 1986 is relevant to what he is actually doing 25 years later




I suppose I should have said:

Why do you think he wasn't doing DURING THE PAST DECADE exactly what we wanted him to do without any "vehicles?"

 

[hipeter924]

Why do you think he wasn't doing exactly what we wanted him to do without any "vehicles."

Because the historical trend-lines don't really sppt. that. There was a cause and effect, and of course we don't know everything bush told him way back, but we signaled him that tit for tat, be a good boy and we can negotiate, don't....well..


We convinced him we were serious in 86 and following that up, the US had along with France helped frustrate him in Chad, in 87, he didn’t seem to quite get the message yet, so sanctions started in 93 and as the years rolled by they had begun to bite, he held on but he didn’t have an active smuggling network or the oil for food ‘advantage’ Saddam had. By 95 he was expelling palestinians from Libya trying to gain some breathing room ala Dayton etc.

His choices were very limited. In 03, Bush reawakened the Proliferation Security Initiative in earnest. Libya is uniquely open to blockade, he knew it, we knew it and he knew we knew it, going into Iraq spooked him as well, and I am sure we told him we’d take the hit ala living absent his petroleum output as we tightened sanctions etc. and his ability to yield any advantage from building his own facilities and network toward dissemination of nuclear material. He sent a letter to the un saying he would take responsibility for Lockerbie and offered to pay reparations as part of a deal under the table with Bush.

Its was a hard power soft power rope a dope. *shrugs*.

Um.......so the latest time we used one of these "vehicles" was when the US invaded Iraq.

Dude, that was , like EIGHT YEARS AGO!!

And, I'm not sure how what Gaddaffi did before 1986 is relevant to what he is actually doing 25 years later




I suppose I should have said:

Why do you think he wasn't doing DURING THE PAST DECADE exactly what we wanted him to do without any "vehicles?"

His sex life.