Bless President Obama!

It was late, but he's done it! Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful. This is what we should have done in Iraq duirng Gulf War I -- military support of an indigenous rebellion.

This is a great step forward for the human race. Slowly, we are coming to an understanding that an injury to one, is an injury to all. A precedent is being established ... by the end of the 21st Century, the idea that tinpot dictators could butcher their own people while the civilized powers, immensely more powerful than said dictator, just stood by and twiddled their thumbs, will be seen as similar to the toleration of slavery in the 19th Century.

>2 Doug1943: It was late, but he's done it!

I like that Secretaries Gates & Clinton, and President Obama seem to have held steady even in face of horrible situation, apparently waiting for unarguable evidence of risk to civilians, international mandate & Arab support, and others to take lead role. President Clinton once said that the biggest regret of his presidency was letting Rwandan bloodbath go unchecked, a sentiment that Obama (and Hilary) no doubt remember. I only hope Libya doesn't end up with bloody stalemate, and that US and allies don't get drawn in.

#3

How strong is that mandate?

>3 margd: How strong is that mandate?

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2011/0320/Arab-League-now-worried-about-Qa...

Well, the league is also reconvening to decide whether or not the coalition is overstepping its mandate.

I would think that war with Libya would be a great boon to many Arab League governments in the light of the recent widespread popular unrest.

It would be a delicious contradiction: War in order to establish a democratic regime in an Arab country.

#8: Well, it's more like tightrope walking. Should they support a war against the black sheep of the Arab world that might bolster some sense of domestic legitimacy, or do they risk alienating their own populations even more if intervention results in more collateral damage than people are comfortable with?

No, wait. That's not tightrope walking. That's more of a gamble.

". . .war with Libya would be a great boon TO many Arab League governments . . ." (emphasis added) (7)

I donʻt quite get your rationale there.

Is it because you see those "benefited" governments as hating Qadafy more than they hate
rebels?

The concept of a democratic government taking over in Libya is too wishful for me. It isn't that easy to establish democracy in an area that has never known it. My concern is that North Africa will become a breeding ground for new Theistic States, and those states will not be friendly to the U.S.
Now saying all that, is Ghadaffi a bad guy? Absolutely. He is another strongman who has ruled by the jackboot and the knife. He needs to go, I just don't think this will be the boon to American policy that some believe.

#10: No, I'm saying that the sought-after effect of such a war could be to quell popular dissent.

" (What) Iʻm saying is . . ." (12)

Thanks, Lunar.

1. anything that Obama does is bad.
2. Obama did something.
3. It must be bad.

Plus, Sarah Palin is a wonderful person who has been unfairly attacked by the liberal-dominated media.

Please do not attempt to adjust your computer. We are in control. You have now entered -

THE OUTER LIMITS.

I don't see that criticism of President Obama's actions equals the above logic, or support for Palin.

I'm not entirely sure that our military intervention in Libya is a wise course of action. Particularly with an over-extended military force that is clearly inadequate to the task of dealing with asymetrical warfare. And we have supported Mubarak and other Third-World dictators in the past; what makes Libya and Gaddafi different? (And no, I'm not advocating supporting ruthless dictators; I'm observing that the U.S. foreign policy has had a very high tolerance of them. Personally, I think we shouldn't support (politically, or with foreign aid) any ruler who is tyrannical. But that hasn't been our policy in the past; why is it changing, and who benefits?)

I certainly hope that everything turns out well, and that governments that heed the will and welfare of the general populace become more common in North Africa (and everywhere else, for that matter). But being concerned and critical of the government is the right and duty of citizens.

> 15

Well, I think YOU should be POTUS.

Can you produce your U.S. birth certificate?

The latest polls show that 51 per cent of rank and file republicans don't believe Obama is a citizen.

Your candidacy would probably be welcome.

(You're not black, arab, or hispanic, or you?)

I'm disqualified because of my lifestyle, although I am white, middle-class, and born in the U.S. (My mother is currently alive as well, and would be happy to talk to people about where I was born, and all the details about that birth...in a manner that would make the FCC's hair curl.) I'm also far too honest and apt to tell people what I think they need to hear, rather than what they'd want to hear.

Denying Obama's citizenship (and hence right to be POTUS) is more acceptable than the real reason that these people are unhappy with Obama being President.. because at least we've advanced enough that openly stating the real reason is known to be unacceptable.

I don't care for Obama as President, and I think there are plenty of perfectly valid reasons that could be brought up in a campaign to urge people not to vote for him. The whole birther argument is an appeal to ignorance and covert racism.