News
Obama on Libya: 'We have a responsibility to act'
Associated Press
Published: 29.03.11, 08:54
Comment Comment
Print comment Print comment
Back to article
46 Talkbacks for this article
1. What a liar.
Terry ,   Eilat - Israel   (03.29.11)
How do you know Obama is lying? His lips are moving.
2. What about Iran & Syria?
Terry ,   Eilat - Israel   (03.29.11)
Darfour? Yemen, Bahrain?
3. Adequate Reasoning & Mission
Mark of Lewiston ,   Lewiston USA   (03.29.11)
As someone who will have family at risk if this Libyan conflict persists, the reasoning and mission have been adequately explained for now. Unlike some, I am happy no US ground troops will be there. And I see no reason the US should spend a $trillion or several thousand American lives to prove we can because nobody wants to join us. Apparently, there are countries and US politicians who are willing to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries stand by and watch. The US did that in the past to our shame. There are other politicians in the US who favor invasion. Mostly they are the ones who gave Gadhafi the neocon seal of approval during the Bush years. The US cannot always act. but in this case it was possible. And when Congressional Republicans were consulted, the House couldn't be bothered to remain in session and left town. The Senate had previously voted unanimously already to condemn the atrocities and urge the end of the Gadhafi regime. And a lot of Senators urged the no-fly zone until it was done and now they oppose it because it either doesn't include invasion or because a Democrat took their advice - unthinkable.
4. Obama
Sarah B ,   U.S.A. / Israel   (03.29.11)
... managed to get completely suckered by the Europeans. First of all, it is simply not possible to have an alleged "responsibility to act" in Libya, but not in the Sudan, the Congo, the Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone and at least a dozen other places where millions of innocent civilians are murdered by their own "governments." Secondly, Libyan oil is exported exclusively to Europe. This military intervention is all about securing the flow of oil to Europe. That's why we haven't intervened in Jordan, Syria, Tunisia or Yemen -- they don't have any oil. But if the Europeans are that concerned, let them shoulder the burden of military intervention. And handing over the job to NATO -- come on! The United States funds the lion's share of NATO's operational costs, and contributes 75% of the troops. The Europeans are doubtless laughing themselves silly; for good reason. They duped Obama. Child's play, actually. But that is what happens when you elect an incompetent fool and complete naif to the office of the president.
5. OMG!!! What a liar!!!!
Israeli ,   Israel   (03.29.11)
What about Ruwanda? What about Darfur? What about the human rights violations by the U.S.'s good friend China and the human rights violations of Saudi Arabia? The list is endless. Obama is a fake.
6. To: No. 3
Sarah B ,   U.S.A. / Israel   (03.29.11)
Aren't you the one who worries about your daughter posted with the Sixth Fleet in the Persian Gulf? Are you the one who says he would not want her life endangered if the United States were to act against Iran or in defense of Saudi Arabia and/or the other Persian Gulf states that are ostensibly U.S. allies? But intervention in Libya is okay? Hmm. Isn't that just a tadbit hypocritical? I'd say intervention in Libya is far worse. Do you have any idea how many chemical weapons Libya has stockpiled? And Qaddafi is just enough of a lunatic to use them -- both on his own people and on NATO troops. And NATO will have to send in ground troops -- if for no other reason than to secure the chemical weapons. There's going to be a bloodbath.
7. No 5,
dotty ,   gilgil, kenya   (03.29.11)
Yes the list is endless and Obama is LIAR, what about Somalia? The reason for all this is OIL period.
8. Obama 'Zeros' majority of Y-Net Opinions .
Roland Seener ,   London England   (03.29.11)
9. #6 - USN fleets...
seadog1946 ,   Erie Basin, NYC   (03.29.11)
US Navy vessels engaged in the Persian Gulf are attached/chopped to the fifth fleet.
10. 6 Yep, Sarah - Hard to Believe
Mark of Lewiston ,   Lewiston USA   (03.29.11)
Just so you have the facts straight. My daughter was with 5th Fleet in the Gulf. The 6th is in the Med. Even harder to believe is that some Americans buy into the concept of "Never Again" even when the potential victims are not Jewish. Some of us are even old enough to remember when the US stood by in Rwanda and in Cambodia. The US is not the only force in NATO. There are other countries and even more in the coalition, some even Muslim. I have never objected to defense of US allies if they are attacked. I do not believe in preemptive war. It smacks of Pearl Harbor - a preemptive attack. Gadhafi knew this was coming and that the Libyans asked for the intervention. I am not enthusiastic. If you read closely, I said the reasoning was adequate. Most people in the military and their families are not fired up to go to war. It is our families and friends who do the bleeding and dying. As for boots on the ground, there are European and Arab members of the coalition. And the US will be providing as much intel to them as is possible. Since he was apparently a Bolton buddy until recently, maybe Bolton knows where any chem weapons might be. It was his idea and Bush's to normalize relations with Gadhafi - not mine.
11. To: No. 9
Sarah B ,   U.S.A. / Israel   (03.29.11)
Correct. My bad. The Fifth Fleet is in the Arabian Fleet. The Sixth Fleet is in the Med.
12. Re: My post at No. 11
Sarah B ,   U.S.A. / Israel   (03.29.11)
Yeesh! The Fifth Fleet is in the Arabian Gulf. Apologies to all.
13. Obama eyes the US presidential election
Chris Rettenmoser ,   Bayerisch Gmain Germ   (03.29.11)
and hopes, to overcome his current wimp status with an easy victory over the mad colonel...he just took a gamble for his personal political agenda only...he will definitely do nothing against his Syrian and Iranian darlings...as he needs them to pressure Israel...Lybia has no meaning in this regard...
14. JUSTIFYING US IMPERIALISM ON THE BACKS OF THE WEAK!
stude ham   (03.29.11)
this BO is a snake.
15. #9 Seamongrel
BEN JABO ,   ISREL   (03.29.11)
True, U.S. Navy ships are there, lobbing Tomahawk missiles from a very safe distance or sending aircraft also from that very safe distance
16. #11 Mark of Lewiston
BEN JABO ,   ISRAEL   (03.29.11)
There you go again, hiding behind your daughters skirts You, however, never did a day of Military Service in your life, since you have repeatedly refused to answer my request for you to mention your Branch of Service and MOS You're merely an onlooker, never a participant The only one that cares about what you believe, is yourself You have my permission to return to your game of pocket pool
17. To: Chris at No. 13
Sarah B ,   U.S.A. / Israel   (03.29.11)
Not sure about that. The mad colonel has a very large stockpile of chemical weapons, and he is lunatic enough to use them. Even destroying them (assuming their storage locations are known) will be dicey. I don't see how it can be done safely without NATO (which means mostly U.S.) troops on the ground. His popularity and approval ratings took another dive this morning. This president is for the dustbin of history. I don't think that many Americans have forgotten his campaign pledge to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. That has not happened. Neither has he closed down Guantanamo. Now, we're going into Libya to protect the flow of oil to Europe and to preside over what is certain to be a bloodbath. Politically, Obama is finished.
18. Obama is awesome
Mary ,   Washington   (03.29.11)
He is bombing the crap of that evil dictator in Libya.
19. He means he started a soft coup
Steven Wilson ,   Anchorage, Alaska   (03.29.11)
That totally went south...... Then he had to clean up all the corpses that his little charade created. He's cleaning up his mess another words.
20. Obama the wise.
Eran ,   Singapore   (03.29.11)
The lesson of Yugoslavia, Iraq and to some extent the Soviet Union is that once a strong regime is toppled, then violent chaos ensues. Because of the oil interest, obviously the US seeks to influence the outcome in Libya, which means Americans had better be prepared to be there for the long term, but hey, with three - quarters of a trillion dollars a year to spend, what was the military going to be doing anyway? Question - how many foreign crises would be resolved without military intervention if the US spent a fraction of that money on diplomacy instead?
21. Odumba has failed
Gee ,   Zikron Yaakov   (03.29.11)
All Odumba's actions have done is change which side is going to murder civilians. The 'rebels' are just as bad as Qaddaffy's forces. When they overthrow Qaddaffy they will massacre all of his supporters. Hundreds of thousands of civilians will die regardless.
22. Hey Mr Hussain Obama 2 words - Darfur & Zimbabwe.
Lee ,   Manchester UK   (03.29.11)
and currently Syria. Why are Libyans worth so much more than said above nations ...?! Tens of thousands of Darfuri people have been slaughtered and are still being slaughtered and you Hussain Obama have said absolutely NOTHING. Your telling the world that it really is all about oil$$$£££! Immorality is the order of the day in the 21st century.
23. Ben Jabo & Gee in Zikron
Mark of Lewiston ,   Lewiston USA   (03.29.11)
"Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different," Obama said. "And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action." This looks to be a spectator sport for you two.
24. Kadugly didn't read kooran, says kill Christians and Jews
Bunnie Meyer ,   Los Angeles, CA USA   (03.29.11)
but he is killing all muslums, now what sense does that make? Obumma is just trying to curry favor with his fellow muslums and say, "See how I came to your rescue?"
25. No.18 Mary
Eran ,   Singapore   (03.29.11)
So you supported Bush when he went to Iraq right?
26. To: No. 18
Sarah B ,   U.S.A. / Israel   (03.29.11)
Oh, really? And what if one or more of those "awesome" bombs falls on a storage facility containing the over 100,000 chemical and biological warheads that the insane Qaddafi is known to possess and has no qualms about using? Hope you've been vaccinated against smallpox and the bubonic plague. To name but two. Is Obama still your idea of "awesome?" More fool you.
27. ***Sarah***at 17...Your words sound like
Chris Rettenmoser ,   Bayerisch Gmain Germ   (03.29.11)
music in my ears...(again). Too bad that I cannot vote in the US, as I would NOT vote for Mr. Obama... Yes, I think that You are right and he might just have miscalculated his political gamble...who knows... even W. was not aware of the sophistication of this madmans nuke program, which was probably more difficult to hide than any chemical weapons... And I also agree with You, that Obama failed to bring the American troops back home, out of their Babylonian captivity...what for heavens sake are they still doing in Iraq...??? Afghanistan also seems to be nothing more than a graveyard for American soldiers and money, precious resources squandered in vain. Not even the little "problem" of Guantanamo has come to a close...and I am so curious of what will be the final fate of KSM...
28. To: No. 23
Sarah B ,   U.S.A. / Israel   (03.29.11)
Now, now. I think most of the intelligent observers are merely wondering why Libya rates attention to atrocities that do not accrue to the Sudan, the Congo, Somalia, the Ivory Coast and Sierra Leone, to name but a few. Several millions have perished in EACH of those countries, all at the hands of their alleged "governments." Can you explain? If so, please do. Why is the "image of slaughter and mass graves" so much more powerful in a country of six million people than it is in a country such as the Congo, where nearly eight million have been massacred by their leadership in the last few years alone? How about 2 million dead in the Ivory Coast? How about 1 million dead in the Sudan? How about 850,000 dead in Sierra Leone? Explain that, if you would.
29. How could a progressive Pres. resist?
Cameron ,   USA   (03.29.11)
Though he may very well have put the stake in his hopes of returning to office in 2012 by doing so. The die are cast!
30. These rebels are jihadist
Isaac   (03.29.11)
Read the New York Times and the Washington Examiner. They either hired people or they actually attacked American Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan on behalf of Qaddafi. They are not innocent civilians. This is a civil war between two goon squads as far as I am concerned. Obama had the obligation to obtain Congressional approval - that means a vote, not having some conversation and then waiting until Congress had a break and then he asks the UN for their approval. Before that, Obama should have found out who these rebels are; he didn't bother.
Next talkbacks
Back to article