Presidential Election: 2012

[Dapper]

Famine, you said the US was involved and the US was not involved... That was enough to solidify your shaky stance.

Obama is responsible for how little the US did in Libya. Obama started the US involvement, and ultimately ends it also.

 

[Famine]

Famine, you said the US was involved and the US was not involved... That was enough to solidify your shaky stance.

No. I didn't. I very clearly, repeatedly pointed out to you that US military resources were used, but the US was not involved. Even after you quoted both and asked which was right - when they both are. There seems to be some disconnect for you here, given how many times I've said this and how many times you've understood something different.

Obama is responsible for how little the US did in Libya.

No. NATO is responsible for what the US's resources it was using did in Libya. Obama allowed NATO to use his resources in the region. NATO specified what resources they used. Ultimately Obama has no responsibility for any single shot or missile fired, even from US planes and drones.

Obama started the US involvement

No, that was Harry Truman, under whose stewardship the US joined the UN and NATO. The UN Resolution - prompted primarily by the EU leaders, themselves prompted by Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron - established the No Fly Zone and NATO were tasked with enforcing it. NATO used resources from seventeen different countries to do this, including the US.

Truman should get a Nobel Peace Prize or something.


You know, no-one would think any the less of you - quite the opposite - if you just said "Yes, I overreached a bit when I said Obama started a war and ended it without loss of US lives.".

 

[ChaosStar79]

Truman should get a Nobel Peace Prize or something.

Coke(a cola) just came out my nose when I read this sentence.

 

[Dapper]

No. I didn't.

Actually, you did.

I very clearly, repeatedly pointed out to you that US military resources were used, but the US was not involved. Even after you quoted both and asked which was right - when they both are. There seems to be some disconnect for you here, given how many times I've said this and how many times you've understood something different.

Not only did Obama allow the US's military resources to be used, he made the decision on how much would be used. Which was "limited" in his words.

No. NATO is responsible for what the US's resources it was using did in Libya. Obama allowed NATO to use his resources in the region. NATO specified what resources they used. Ultimately Obama has no responsibility for any single shot or missile fired, even from US planes and drones.

Obama is ultimately responsible for every thing the US military does.
http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/21/obama-authorizing-force-in-libya-a-timeline/
"Donilon said the 30-minute call was where Obama gave final orders to authorize U.S. military forces to join coalition efforts in Libya."

You know, no-one would think any the less of you - quite the opposite - if you just said "Yes, I overreached a bit when I said Obama started a war and ended it without loss of US lives.".

I already did. And I reiterated this several times.

And it was a largely French-led, British backed operation. The US had barely any involvement whatsoever. I have to say it came as startling news to me that Libya was Obama's war - Sarkozy might object.

We'll call it a war that happened under Obama's presidency, that is better verbiage than 'Obama's war'.And he deserves credit for not doing what the US has historically done, which is what you pointed out, letting others do the world policing. Sorry if my point wan't clear.

Your initial response to what I said was my point, and I even said that. And you said the US was involved, you then repeatedly said they weren't involved.

And here is an article that dispels every claim you've made. Not only was Obama responsible for how little the US was involved, but also how much European countires and Canada, along with NATO, should be involved.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/30/opinion/natos-teachable-moment.html
"President Obama, who pressed hard for NATO involvement, rightly insisted that Europe, along with Canada, take the lead."

 

[Famine]

Actually, you did.

Nope. And you're still not seeing that there's a difference between US forces being used and the US being involved:

And you said the US was involved, you then repeatedly said they weren't involved.

The nation of the United States of America was not involved in any tactical decisions. The armed forces of the United States were used by other organisations.

Obama is ultimately responsible for every thing the US military does.

In this instance, he's responsible for ceding command of his troops to another organisation. Constitutionally, that's not something laudable.

http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/21/obama-authorizing-force-in-libya-a-timeline/
"Donilon said the 30-minute call was where Obama gave final orders to authorize U.S. military forces to join coalition efforts in Libya."

The key words there are "join" and "coalition". By the time control of US forces had been given by your President to a Canadian, the French had been conducting airstrikes against Qaddafi loyalist anti-air targets for about 8 hours.

I already did. And I reiterated this several times.

Your initial response to what I said was my point, and I even said that.

At no point have you ever - in any thread - retracted any comment that was a colossal overreach (at best) after it being pointed out to you.

I am unsurprised you've chosen to dissemble on what you meant (as usual) and "clarify" rather than just admitting to getting it wrong.

And here is an article that dispels every claim you've made. Not only was Obama responsible for how little the US was involved, but also how much European countires and Canada, along with NATO, should be involved.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/30/opinion/natos-teachable-moment.html
"President Obama, who pressed hard for NATO involvement, rightly insisted that Europe, along with Canada, take the lead."

It barely addresses any "claim" I've made. In fact it seems to be an article about how poor EU armed forces are compared to US ones - which requires unusual level of fact-ignoring, given the preponderance of new(ish) Eurofighter Typhoon and Eurocopter Tigers involved from EU armed forces and the F15s and FA18s involved from US armed forces - one of which crashed, injuring both crew, due to a mechanical failure.

Still, the question remains how Obama was responsible for how much of the US's armed forces were used compared to how much of the EU's armed forces and for pressing for a NATO involvement when at the time NATO were enforcing the UN Resolution passed at the behest of the EU using French Mirage fighters, Obama was meeting with lawyers to determine the legality of any action.


Of course he can probably be in two places - and two minds - at once and be busy meeting with lawyers while pushing the UN for military action that was already taking place... He should get a Nobel Peace Prize or something.

 

[Dapper]

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-events/commentary/victory-for-us-leadership
"There can be no doubt that the United States made a critical difference in the more effective NATO combat operations over the last few weeks."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...me-tuesday-what-were-doing-isnt-stopping-him/
"The United States has very much been leading the charge behind the scenes, but the White House has deferred public action to the State Department and the United Nations. The administration has also worked furiously to put a European and Arab face on the opposition to Gadhafi's action."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...me-tuesday-what-were-doing-isnt-stopping-him/
"President Obama, also behind closed doors, was working the phones, trying to secure as much support for the resolution – or least lack of opposition – as he could."

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_48/gop_not_giving_obama_enough_credit_libya-209754-1.html
"And it is clear that there is genuine gratitude to the United States for its role — one that was much more than a secondary one, that pushed and prodded NATO to do more, that used American military capacity where the rest of NATO is extremely weak and limited, and that used skillful diplomacy to achieve a highly desirable end."

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=63656
"The president has been clear, the secretary said, “that the primary strike role has been turned over to our allies and our friends, and if we can make a modest contribution with these armed predators, we’ll do it.”"
"Obama structured the U.S. role in Libya..."

I guess, Famine, you just don't know what you are talking about.

At no point have you ever - in any thread - retracted any comment that was a colossal overreach (at best) after it being pointed out to you.

You paraphrased what I said, then I responded by saying I used bad verbiage. I even apologized for being unclear. I can quote myself again if you want. Nonetheless, your entire idea that an organization, NATO, simply took the US's military and did with it as they wanted is ludicrous and I think I've provided enough evidence to show you are completely wrong, unsurprisingly.

 

[Famine]

I guess, Famine, you just don't know what you are talking about.

Interesting that the links you provided and quoted backed up precisely what I said. I guess, Dapper, you just don't know what I am talking about.

I'd still love to know how Obama could meet with his 18 lawyers to determine the legality of military force at the same time as NATO were using French planes to enforce the Franco-British proposed No Fly Zone and still start the same conflict. Is he Doctor Manhattan?

You paraphrased what I said

Ah, a Stage 1 Dapperism - we're going backwards this time. No, I quoted what you said.

then I responded by saying I used bad verbiage. I even apologized for being unclear.

And at no point did you retract your statement which was neither unclear nor "bad verbiage" but wrong. You still haven't. I'm still unshocked.

Nonetheless, your entire idea that an organization, NATO, simply took the US's military and did with it as they wanted is ludicrous

A Stage 2 Dapperism - after accusations of paraphrasing or editing of your own words, paraphrase another's to make them wrong (that's a Straw Man fallacy, if you're keeping count).

I said that Obama turned over control of his forces to NATO to do with as they wanted - Keef points out that this may be an unconstitutional act for a US president. Obama did not authorise a single Predator strike or sortie. NATO did. But, thank heavens for small mercies, at least we've got you onto the right page now - the page where NATO used military resources from 17 nations to enforce the UN No Fly Zone and no member country, making the resources involved but not the nations whose resources they were.


Retracted that falsehood yet? Didn't think so. Of course, since that falsehood underpins a further argument that Obama is different from all Republican candidates (except Ron Paul) because they'd start wars and he merely started a war, I doubt it'll ever happen.

 

[Dapper]

And it was a largely French-led, British backed operation. The US had barely any involvement whatsoever. I have to say it came as startling news to me that Libya was Obama's war - Sarkozy might object.

We'll call it a war that happened under Obama's presidency, that is better verbiage than 'Obama's war'.And he deserves credit for not doing what the US has historically done, which is what you pointed out, letting others do the world policing. Sorry if my point wan't clear.

Ah, a Stage 1 Dapperism - we're going backwards this time. No, I quoted what you said.

I pointed out you paraphrased me, now do you see that you did? Instead of quoting me, you say you were surprised it was "Obama's war", I said, it is right there, I used bad wording and apologized for being unclear. You completely ignored this and continued your attack on words not the message.

Interesting that the links you provided and quoted backed up precisely what I said. I guess, Dapper, you just don't know what I am talking about.

I'd still love to know how Obama could meet with his 18 lawyers to determine the legality of military force at the same time as NATO were using French planes to enforce the Franco-British proposed No Fly Zone and still start the same conflict. Is he Doctor Manhattan?

You said he didn't make any decisions, several links prove that wrong. Obama was directly involved in what the US's role was. Prove me wrong.

And at no point did you retract your statement which was neither unclear nor "bad verbiage" but wrong. You still haven't. I'm still unshocked.

Besides what I've already pointed out above, I also said several times Obama did not start the Libyan civil war, that everyone knows it's true origins, and that Obama did start the US's involvement. This has all been said and you refuse to digest it.

A Stage 2 Dapperism - after accusations of paraphrasing or editing of your own words, paraphrase another's to make them wrong (that's a Straw Man fallacy, if you're keeping count).

I showed you two times where you did paraphrase what I said, in this post and a prior post.

I said that Obama turned over control of his forces to NATO to do with as they wanted .

I gave several sources that prove this wrong, and you think it proves you right?! Obama played a major role in what the US did in Libya, even though the US role was small.

"Obama structured the U.S. role in Libya..." = Famine is wrong

 

[Famine]

I pointed out you paraphrased me, now do you see that you did? Instead of quoting me, you say you were surprised it was "Obama's war", I said, it is right there, I used bad wording and apologized for being unclear. You completely ignored this and continued your attack on words not the message.

Err... how is that paraphrasing? Had I put it in quotes, that would have been paraphrasing. Or even misquoting. I didn't attribute that comment to you so, once again, you're talking tripe.

You said he didn't make any decisions, several links prove that wrong.

No, I didn't. Guh, you're just not getting this are you?

Obama was directly involved in what the US's role was. Prove me wrong.

You've already done that yourself by quoting several sources that agree with me...

Besides what I've already pointed out above, I also said several times Obama did not start the Libyan civil war, that everyone knows it's true origins, and that Obama did start the US's involvement. This has all been said and you refuse to digest it.

That's not the issue. The issue is that it's irrelevant.

Your opening sortie was about Obama starting a war - which he didn't - which had ended without injury to American troops - which it didn't - and this underpinned a point that Obama is better than Republican presidents past and future (except Ron Paul) because they'd have started war instead. Your "clarification" was that Obama started the US's involvement in a war - which he didn't either. After three other members have pointed out to you that it wasn't the war the US forces were involved with but an enforcement of a No Fly Zone in a peace-keeping effort, you modified that to Obama starting the US's involvement in a military conflict. That is, at least, partially accurate save one quite major issue... the USA wasn't involved. All operations were NATO-led, using military resources from seventeen different countries. I think you might have got over this stumbling block now too, but perhaps not.

What Obama did - at the fifth time of telling - was give control of US military resources to the NATO effort. When a Predator drone was used, it was used where the NATO leaders wanted it, without additional White House authorisation. When one was fired, it was fired at the target NATO leaders wanted it fired at, without additional White House authorisation.

I gave several sources that prove this wrong, and you think it proves you right?!

If I'm saying what you believe I'm saying - and you've had umpteen goes at it but are still getting it wrong and still attributing to me things I haven't actually said - yes, the sources prove me wrong. The problem is that I'm not. You're choosing to read something else and attacking that - the Straw Man fallacy.

Obama played a major role in what the US did in Libya, even though the US role was small.

His role was authorising the use of his troops by NATO. After that point no further tactical decisions passed his desk - and they wouldn't need to either. Moreover it would be phenomally stupid and time-consuming to do so. If that's what you wish to define as major, I won't stop you, but it is just about the most minor role a commander can have in command of his troops - giving their command to someone else!


Now, apparently, you believe this to be laudable conduct from the Democrat President. Other members point out that it is possibly unconstitutional for a US president to devolve military command to members of foreign military organisations. This pointlessly prolonged and one-sided discussion aside, that's something you really ought to address in a thread about presidential elections...

 

[GTsail]

My understanding of the timeline for direct US military involvement in the Libyan Conflict as directed by President Obama, was that it began on March 19th, 2011 with the codename: "Operation Odyssey Dawn". Local tactical command was directed by the commander of the US Sixth Fleet under Admiral Sam Lockyear aboard USS Mount Whitney. Tomahawk cruise missiles and various aircraft were launched from various naval warships on March 19th. This military action was in support of French aircraft who had already begun military strikes against Libyan assets on the same day.

On March 21st, President Obama announced that he was considering turning over this direct US involvement to either the French or NATO.

On March 25th, NATO took direct control over the Libyan "No-Fly" zone and US forces were then put under direct operational control of the NATO commanders.

On March 28th, President Obama gave his Libyan speech to the Nation and out-lined some of the above timelines. President Obama says that the US would fully support the UN resolution 1973 calling for the cessation of military action by the Ghaddafi regime against its civilian population.

On March 30, NATO took over full control of the Libyan military action which included some actions that went beyond the "No-Fly" zone flights. This ended the direct "official" involvement of the US military. All subsequent US involvement was thru NATO as directed by NATO command.

On October 31, NATO announces the end of the "No-Fly" zone military operation because the Ghaddafi regime is no more.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Dapper]

I didn't attribute that comment to you so, once again, you're talking tripe.

I didn't see another comment that would have given you that idea... So I went out of my way to say my point was not that Obama started a war, it was not 'Obama's war', as I erroneously wrote, but rather he got the US involved in a military conflict, which was the Libyan Civil war, and it was not the same approach our previous president took. And that is worthy of credit because of the minimal cost to our country.

You've already done that yourself by quoting several sources that agree with me...

Where in any of those links does it say that Obama was not in control of what the US's role was? Besides, my point was not Obama won the war, I've said that several times, but he did control how much the US got involved, which the links prove.

Your opening sortie was about Obama starting a war

No, it wasn't.

How come no one gives Obama credit for handling war without killing massive amounts people who shouldn't have died?

Your "clarification" was that Obama started the US's involvement in a war - which he didn't either.

Yes, he did. But for his authorization, the US wouldn't have been involved. Which makes this even more laughable:

...the USA wasn't involved.

What Obama did - at the fifth time of telling - was give control of US military resources to the NATO effort. When a Predator drone was used, it was used where the NATO leaders wanted it, without additional White House authorisation. When one was fired, it was fired at the target NATO leaders wanted it fired at, without additional White House authorisation.

No one argued this, and it is irrelevant. But for Obama's authorization, there wouldn't have been any US involvement, and, as several sources pointed out, he was the one who said how much involvement the US would have, or as I put, how he handled it.

His role was authorising the use of his troops by NATO. After that point no further tactical decisions passed his desk - and they wouldn't need to either. Moreover it would be phenomally stupid and time-consuming to do so. If that's what you wish to define as major, I won't stop you, but it is just about the most minor role a commander can have in command of his troops - giving their command to someone else!

The US has the biggest military but we didn't do the most, and that isn't what usually happens. Obama is ultimately the one who gets credit for that.

 

[Famine]

Yes, he did.

Nope. It's still not a war and the USA was still not involved in it. I thought you'd reached at least that point.

But for his authorization, the US wouldn't have been involved. Which makes this even more laughable:

Nope. The USA was still not involved. Some of the US's armed forces were ceded to NATO control, still. All tactical and military decisions were at a NATO level and not escalated above to state control after the initial resource committment. I thought you'd reached at least that point too.

That was probably one of the reasons Obama was busy consulting lawyers while the operation was underway, actually. It's a bit more "legal" if there's a level of deniability. Pity they didn't advise him on Constitutional affairs.

The US has the biggest military but we didn't do the most, and that isn't what usually happens. Obama is ultimately the one who gets credit for that.

The French pushed for intervention and the British drew up the No Fly Zone. They pushed the EU into pushing the UN and the French, British and Canadian forces, under NATO control started proceedings. If anyone's going to be given credit for any part of the peace-keeping mission, it's Nicholas Sarkozy.

All of this aside, this was the most important (and unaddressed part):

Other members point out that it is possibly unconstitutional for a US president to devolve military command to members of foreign military organisations. This pointlessly prolonged and one-sided discussion aside, that's something you really ought to address in a thread about presidential elections...

Since I'm not going to be in a position to cast a ballot for any Presidential candidate for a handful of years yet, I'm not really the person you should be attempting to qualify Obama's worthiness in the theatre of war to - particularly as I'm not the person who brought up the possible unconstitutionality of his actions either.

 

[Dapper]

Nope. It's still not a war and the USA was still not involved in it. I thought you'd reached at least that point.

There is a war, and the US is involved in it, just like the French, British and 16 other countries.

Nope. The USA was still not involved.

As it has been pointed out by several reputable sources, the USA was involved before NATO. And after NATO took over, at the US's command, the US was still involved.

The French pushed for intervention and the British drew up the No Fly Zone. They pushed the EU into pushing the UN and the French, British and Canadian forces, under NATO control started proceedings.

Unsurprisingly, that is not true. Things were going on before NATO took control.

March 19- US and British ships and submarines fired at least 114 Tomahawk cruise missiles at twenty Libyan integrated air and ground defense systems.

March 25- NATO announced that it would be taking over the command of the no-fly-zone operations, after several days of heated debate over who should control operations in Libya. The US had continuously reiterated that it wished to hand over command to an international organization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2011_Libyan_civil_war
Feel free to check wiki's reference list.

Sooner or later you'll get Obama, along with the US, played a role in the Libyan Civil war and he handled it a lot better than any other military conflict, or war-esque scenario, in my life time.

Since I'm not going to be in a position to cast a ballot for any Presidential candidate for a handful of years yet, I'm not really the person you should be attempting to qualify Obama's worthiness in the theatre of war to - particularly as I'm not the person who brought up the possible unconstitutionality of his actions either.

Didn't you read Keef saying it was cool to say military conflict instead of war? Because the US Constitution only allows war to be declared with congressional consent, and we are not at war in Libya, we are just involved in the war in Libya, it is not unconstitutional.

 

[FoolKiller]

Where did I ever indicate Obama should get a Nobel peace prize and for what action? I did say what he fas done is maybe not worth the Nobel peace prize...

Who claimed any of these things?

I apologize if I mistook your intent with this exchange:

Don't forget the Noble Peace Prize.

How come no one gives Obama credit for handling war without killing massive amounts people who shouldn't have died?

I think swiftly taking care of two major 🤬 without the useless killing of thousands of soldiers and civilians, like dub-ya did, is maybe not worth a nobel peace prize, but it worth at least a little bit of credit.

I thought you were at least attempting to defend the intent of his being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

But to address the "useless killing of thousands of soldiers and civilians, like dub-ya did."

It should be noted that, according to icasualties.org there was a steep drop off in soldier deaths in in Iraq in 2008, while Bush was still in office, and it continued at that pace under Obama. The closer always has less mistakes in his stats.

That said though, when you look at Afghanistan it actually appears that soldier deaths jumped a large amount the year Obama took office, and climbed even more in 2010, and this year are already at 2009 levels.

But you do appear to have a point when you look at Iraqi civilian deaths. Those did drop by half the year Obama entered the White House. But that is still 4,000-5,000 civilian deaths a year under Obama.

So to answer this:

How come no one gives Obama credit for handling war without killing massive amounts people who shouldn't have died?

I think swiftly taking care of two major 🤬 without the useless killing of thousands of soldiers and civilians, like dub-ya did, is maybe not worth a nobel peace prize, but it worth at least a little bit of credit.

Because even when statistics, based purely on temporal alignment, appears to show that Obama's policy has improved the situation there are still thousands of dead, and in some cases it appears to be worse than when Bush was in office.

Has his approach in many cases been more conservative? Yes, but it hasn't always been effective. It just seems that way because the national news stopped listing every soldier death every day after Obama took office. Now it has to be a large enough incident to have harmed/killed a group to get any coverage.

 

[Famine]

And now we're at Stage 4 Dapper - having to restate things earlier abandoned...

There is a war, and the US is involved in it

Nope. There is a war and the US lent resources to an international effort to provide a peace-keeping No Fly Zone to prevent genocide.

As it has been pointed pointed out by several reputable sources, the USA was involved before NATO. And after the NATO took over, at the US's command, the US was still involved.

Unsurprisingly, that is not true. Things were going on before NATO took control.

I just want to check here... If the US got involved before NATO, you're lauding Obama for taking the same action as Bush in Iraq - also pre-empting a NATO enforcement of a UN Resolution. You can't possibly be doing that... can you?

March 19- US and British ships and submarines fired at least 114 Tomahawk cruise missiles at twenty Libyan integrated air and ground defense systems.

Preceded by Armée de l'Air and RAF jets running sorties and a Royal Navy blockade. What of it?

According to a timeline from one of your previous sources, Obama was in a meeting with lawyers at the time of the ALA/RAF strikes... Takin' the lead!

Sooner or later you'll get Obama, along with the US, played a role in the Libyan Civil war and he handled it a lot better than any other military conflict, or war-esque scenario, in my life time.

The US doesn't have its own Falklands War?

Didn't you read Keef saying it was cool to say military conflict instead of war? Because the US Constitution only allows war to be declared with congressional consent, and we are not at war in Libya, we are just involved in the war in Libya, it is not unconstitutional.

More than that, it's just a peacekeeping mission. Still. But still, US troops taking orders from a Canadian?

 

[Dapper]

I apologize if I mistook your intent with this exchange:

I thought you were at least attempting to defend the intent of his being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

👍 I just used your note on the Nobel Peace prize as a catalyst to discuss why so many are angry with his decisions he, Obama, made about Libya because it seems so tame compared to what I'm accustomed to now.

Because even when statistics, based purely on temporal alignment, appears to show that Obama's policy has improved the situation there are still thousands of dead, and in some cases it appears to be worse than when Bush was in office.

Has his approach in many cases been more conservative? Yes, but it hasn't always been effective. It just seems that way because the national news stopped listing every soldier death every day after Obama took office. Now it has to be a large enough incident to have harmed/killed a group to get any coverage.

That is fair, and since I didn't specify Obama's management of just the Libyan situation, it is completely valid. And you are right about the continuing deaths of American soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan, they are under covered and attributable to Obama at this point. But I think both those wars would've been different if he started them, or they started while he was president, and except for Ron Paul, they (the Iraq and Afghan wars) would've been very much the same, meaning drawn out for way too long with way too many people dying, if any other Republican candidate had initiated those military conflicts.

Preceded by Armée de l'Air and RAF jets running sorties and a Royal Navy blockade. What of it?

Not NATO. This has nothing to do with your erroneous claims and it certainly doesn't help your case.

I just want to check here... If the US got involved before NATO, you're lauding Obama for taking the same action as Bush in Iraq - also pre-empting a NATO enforcement of a UN Resolution. You can't possibly be doing that... can you?

Except they are completely different actions taken. Just like I originally said.
I've come to understand you have no point, and everything you've said has been refuted by reputable sources, while you've done nothing but expel rubbish accompanied by nothing but your purple text, no proof- we'll just call it a usual Famine.

According to a timeline from one of your previous sources, Obama was in a meeting with lawyers at the time of the ALA/RAF strikes... Takin' the lead!

You think he should be flying the planes? Is this a Will Smith movie called Independence Day?

The US had barely any involvement whatsoever.

Your first sortie. This is completely untrue and it's proven by numerous links, and backed up by nothing.

 

[Dotini]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...es-free-ride-on-the-back-of-Nato-is-over.html

Light-duty review of NATO's financing and US involvement.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Famine]

Not NATO.

Yes NATO. That's the disconnect you're still having.

Except they are completely different actions taken. Just like I originally said.

Indeed - one was peace-keeping starting a military conflict and the other was starting a war military conflict.

I've come to understand you have no point

Just the one - you're lauding Obama for the same characteristics you'd denigrate Bush.

and everything you've said has been refuted by reputable sources, while you've done nothing but expel rubbish accompanied by nothing but your purple text, no proof

The sources you provided to back you up backed me up. That you believe otherwise suggests you still haven't understood why you were wrong to say what you did or why you have been brought up on it.

You think he should be flying the planes? Is this a Will Smith movie called Independence Day?

I have this notion that, traditionally, a guy who starts a military action should really be actually starting it. Being in a room with lawyers asking if the military action could be legal while the military action is already happening courtesy of allies is more a sort of... turning up a bit late to the party.

Your first sortie. This is completely untrue and it's proven by numerous links, and backed up by nothing.

And, amazingly, still true. ALA planes alone flew 35% of the missions throughout the entire period - along with starting the enforcement of the No Fly Zone along with RAF planes. RN forces started the naval blockade in the Libyan Gulf.

In fact the majority of the US contribution to the allied effort was tracking and targetting provided by Predator drones. It was a necessary, vital job, but supporting combat rather than participating in it.


But yes, we get it. Barack Obama by, in your mind, putting the US into theatre in Libya, enforcing a UN Resolution ahead of NATO and a subsequent international effort and participating in the "military conflict" there is awesomener than George Walker Bush who merely put the US into theatre in Iraq, enforcing a UN Resolution ahead of NATO and a subsequent international effort and participating in the "military conflict" there. This also makes him awesomener than any other Republic nominee (except Ron Paul) who would behave exactly like Bush and not like Obama... for some reason.

Incidentally, I saw Obama on TV just today. Man, is he looking grey.

 

[Danoff]

Checks in.... holy crap, still? Dapper just admit that Obama doesn't deserve credit for this... checks out.

 

[Dapper]

Checks in.... holy crap, still? Dapper just admit that Obama doesn't deserve credit for this... checks out.

Thanks for checking in! I don't care if everyone thinks Obama deserves credit. But did you read the stuff Famine wrote?

The US had barely any involvement whatsoever.

The US had no role at all.

Obama played no role in commanding the troops nor any strategies, even the US troops who were sequestered by NATO and commanded by a Canadian.

There was a war, but neither the US nor Obama were involved.

The nation of the United States of America was not involved in any tactical decisions.

This is just highlights of the things Famine has been saying that have no truth. None of these things have anything to do with Obama getting credit for how he handled Libya, but these things are all completely untrue and believing they are true will render one incapable of giving him credit. So the problem is not Famine's opinion, I wouldn't worry about someone's opinion differing from mine in the opinions forum, but rather his inability to understand what really happened. Reputable sources say all these quotes of Famine's are wrong, why? Because Obama was in control of what the US's role was along with tactical decisions prior to NATO's involvement. Furthermore, Obama's and the US's involvement in the Libyan Civil War was more than just dropping bombs, a lot of politicking was done by, or on behalf of, Obama. Whether one thinks Obama deserves credit stopped after Famine's first erroneous post, Famine just doesn't know what happened and refuses to accept the facts.

 

[Famine]

Dapper just admit that...

I don't care if everyone thinks Obama deserves credit. But did you read the stuff Famine wrote?

And you're still implying mutual exclusivity in sentences that are not mutually exclusive. You literally have no idea what you said that was wrong, why it was wrong or what it is you're arguing about do you?

 

[Dennisch]

Still going at it.

 

[Dapper]

You literally have no idea what you said that was wrong, why it was wrong or what it is you're arguing about do you?

That is what I just said about you!
Do I need to quote all the ignorant things you said again?

I get you don't think Obama deserves credit. But you don't know what happened.

 

[arora]

I lost track of what Dapper is arguing tbh, We should not have been monkeying around in Libya to begin with so the rest is just .. whatever. Here is a clip from Levin explaining limited role; past, present and future, I guess.

Senator Carl M. Levin (D-MI), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, discusses U.S. involvement in Libya following Muammar al-Qaddafi's death, as well as progress in Afghanistan and possible federal budget sequestration with CFR's James M. Lindsay. "We've not been in the lead in Libya," Levin says, emphasizing that any future involvement must continue "on an international basis with us being part of it, not in the lead or dominating it."

EDIT: Damn, I forgot to say............. awesome comb-over is awesome

 

[Famine]

That is what I just said about you!

Beat you to it by a couple of days.

It's your M.O. Stage 1 - Outrageous claim; Stage 2 - Denial/Claims of misquoting; Stage 3 - Dissembling; Stage 4 - Retreading all of the old ground again. You do it time and time again across multiple threads and multiple topics, to the point that no-one even knows what you're talking about any more. Look around you...

Do I need to quote all the ignorant things you said again?

If there's any chance of you actually understanding them, go ahead. If you still think they're wrong, you haven't understood a word.

It's almost a belief for you. I mean, I've gone away and had a child and you're still going on about... something known only to you.

I get you don't think Obama deserves credit. But you don't know what happened.

No-one deserves credit for the Libyan Civil War except the National Transitional Council and the peoples of North Africa whose uprisings inspired the Libyans. If any one man deserves credit for the UN resolution establishing the No Fly Zone and the peace-keeping mission preserving it, it is Nicholas Sarkozy - with David Cameron getting an honourable mention. If you don't think that, you don't know what happened. Still.


I wonder when Sarkozy will get the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

[Dapper]

It's your M.O. Stage 1 - Outrageous claim;

But what I said was a fact, and there is proof.

Stage 2 - Denial/Claims of misquoting;

I admitted several times what you can't seem to grasp.
And mind you that one line that was retracted is the only thing you are arguing. More

Stage 4 - Retreading all of the old ground again. You do it time and time again across multiple threads and multiple topics, to the point that no-one even knows what you're talking about any more. Look around you...

You never understood my original statement, and followed your clear misunderstanding with a ton of things that are blatantly wrong.

If there's any chance of you actually understanding them, go ahead. If you still think they're wrong, you haven't understood a word.

It's almost a belief for you. I mean, I've gone away and had a child and you're still going on about... something known only to you.

You don't understand the US played a role in the Libyan Civil war. again.

No-one deserves credit for the Libyan Civil War except the National Transitional Council and the peoples of North Africa whose uprisings inspired the Libyans.

Right, Obama deserves credit for the US not doing the majority of military action (like the US has historically done), and sacrificing a lot of soldiers and civilians.

If any one man deserves credit for the UN resolution establishing the No Fly Zone and the peace-keeping mission preserving it, it is Nicholas Sarkozy - with David Cameron getting an honourable mention. If you don't think that, you don't know what happened. Still.

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/15952527
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/africa/16nations.html
Famine wrong again?

Lebanon, the council’s only current Arab member, presented the Arab League’s request to the council to authorize a no-flight zone to protect Libyan civilians.

 

[Danoff]

Right, Obama deserves credit for the US not doing the majority of military action (like the US has historically done), and sacrificing a lot of soldiers and civilians.

If you're going to give credit for the US not doing the majority of the military action, give it to the UN. My guess is that if the UN decided not to act (like the UN has historically done), the US would have gotten involved solo or with an impromptu coalition (like the US has historically done).

Also, check this out. If the UN had decided not to act, we'd have had to choose between letting a dictator slaughter his people (like dictators have historically done), or sticking our nose in. We often choose the latter, but don't pretend that it's an easy, or even correct, choice not to.

 

[Dapper]

If you're going to give credit for the US not doing the majority of the military action, give it to the UN.

Do you think the UN is the reason the US didn't have "ground troops" and played a "limited role"? But you are right in that the UN deserves credit for passing the 1973 resolution so that something would be more likely to be done. I think it is a bit hard to say what would've happened if that didn't get passed.

Also, check this out. If the UN had decided not to act, we'd have had to choose between letting a dictator slaughter his people (like dictators have historically done), or sticking our nose in. We often choose the latter, but don't pretend that it's an easy, or even correct, choice not to.

While this is true, the UN did act, and the US responded, before NATO, and despite the French dropping some bombs for a couple hours (which has no relevancy at all but is incessantly brought up) the US did act, meaning played a role, under Obama's authorization. Only if the UN specified, or more like made the US play a "limited role", which would consequently make Obama a liar, would the UN deserve credit for the role the US ended up playing.

 

[Danoff]

Do you think the UN is the reason the US didn't have "ground troops" and played a "limited role"? But you are right in that the UN deserves credit for passing the 1973 resolution so that something would be more likely to be done. I think it is a bit hard to say what would've happened if that didn't get passed.


While this is true, the UN did act, and the US responded, before NATO, and despite the French dropping some bombs for a couple hours (which has no relevancy at all but is incessantly brought up) the US did act, meaning played a role, under Obama's authorization. Only if the UN specified, or more like made the US play a "limited role", which would consequently make Obama a liar, would the UN deserve credit for the role the US ended up playing.

No the point is that the UN took action so we didn't have to.

 

[Dapper]

No the point is that the UN took action so we didn't have to.

In arora's video, the senator says Obama made sure there was international support, along with other stipulations, that needed to be met before the US got involved. And the US didn't have to take action either way, if the UN acted or not, but the pres said what our role would be and under what circumstance the US would play that role.