You are not connected. Please login or register

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

runawayhorses


Owner
WASHINGTON -- Defending the first war launched on his watch, President Barack Obama declared Monday night that the United States intervened in Libya to prevent a slaughter of civilians that would have stained the world's conscience and "been a betrayal of who we are." Yet he ruled out targeting Moammar Gadhafi, warning that trying to oust him militarily would be a costly mistake.

Obama announced that NATO would take command over the entire Libya operation on Wednesday, keeping his pledge to get the U.S. out of the lead - but offering no estimate on when the conflict might end.

He never described the U.S.-led military campaign as a "war" and gave no details on its costs, but he offered an expansive case for why he believed it was in the national interest of the United States and allies to act.

In blunt terms, Obama said the U.S.-led response had stopped Gadhafi's advances and halted a slaughter he warned could have shaken the stability of an entire region.

"To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and - more profoundly - our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are," Obama said. "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."

Obama spoke to a respectful military audience at the National Defense University after, in Libya, rebel forces bore down Monday on Gadhafi with the help of airstrikes by the U.S.-led forces. The address to the nation was the president's most aggressive attempt to answer the questions mounting from Republican critics, his own party and war-weary Americans - chiefly, why the U.S. was immersed in war in another Muslim nation.

Amid protests and crackdowns across the Middle East and North Africa, Obama stated his case that Libya stands alone. "In this particular country, at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale," he said.

He also warned of the broader implications for the region, without naming the other countries undergoing violent upheaval.

Citing a failure to act in Libya, he said: "The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. The writ of the U.N. Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/28/obama-libya-speech-_n_841311.html?utm_source=aolhp&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=aolhp2&ncid=webmail

gypsy


Moderator
Thats our President.I like

runawayhorses


Owner
That's basically what I said from the very beginning of this discussion, that's its a humanitarian act provided in part by the United States. You said you didn't want the United States to get involved with Libya, you objected to the whole idea of the United States protecting the Libya people, because we need to only look out for ourselves, and you said that very bluntly too I might add. You wanted the United States to only "Look after there own" and turn away and our backs from Libya's problems, but now I think you have changed your tune, perhaps you now have a better understanding of the fact that the United States wants to help people in need, people suffering or about to be executed. We don't want that to happen so we use our military forces to stop it.. Its not God's way to be cruel, Jesus would not condone it either.

I love throwing religion is there when I can.. lol

gypsy


Moderator
no! wrong Tyler//I am all for humanitarian//I just don't want another war!! we cannot afford/we can only reach so far//Obama did right in leading this.his explicit regards iTYO and others take over.he led. Tyler! I have always defended

THE PEOPLE!!/ours firs!!
yes Obama did the right move/he is very intelligent

rosco 357


Veteran
question? would gypsy, be singing the same praises if George Bush was in office, just wondering,take care

gypsy


Moderator
nope, I wouldn't Rosco, because georgie did it for all the wrong reasons and lies~ and we are still suffering from his administration and will be for a long time~ does that answer your question?

runawayhorses


Owner
That doesn't answer the question becuase you did not understand the question. I believe rosco meant if given the same circumstances and Bush was president would you have supported his actions in Libya if he did what Obama did. I think your answer would have been No. You would have let your feelings about Bush influence you.

If I'm wrong rosco correct me.

gypsy


Moderator
Tyler if bush had done what Obama has done from the beginning I might have trusted him but bush showed many times he was not a good trustworthy president,I despise his actions and how he did in part almost destroy this country, that will be on his record all through History.Also Rosco should have made his question more clear!

runawayhorses


Owner
gypsy wrote:Tyler if bush had done what Obama has done from the beginning I might have trusted him but bush showed many times he was not a good trustworthy president,I despise his actions and how he did in part almost destroy this country, that will be on his record all through History.Also Rosco should have made his question more clear!
Well I disagree, Bush helped save this country. He had the guts to do what needed to be done knowing full well in advance that people would not understand it and affect his ratings. He knew all of that in advance. But he didn't let it stop him from doing what was in the best interest of this nation. I think Bush did all the right things. If he didn't do what he did we would look weak in the eyes of the world and we might be in danger of a mad man looking to strikeout at the United States. Bush did what he had to do to protect our nation. Like him or not, I think Obama would have done the same thing given similar circumstances.

gypsy


Moderator
well we can agree to disagree.Can't we? :) Obama may have,but he wouldn't have lied or been deceitful, no bush did not help this country, or we wouldn't be in the shape we were in before Obama took office. the wars were not paid for ,Obama inherited that, also both wars are costing us 1billion dollars a day~We have not won either one of them. what has the two wars accomplished?

runawayhorses


Owner
If Bush didn't do what he did we might not be in a position to talk about it. In fact we might not have a country at all. The number 1 priority of a president of these United States is to keep it safe from invasion. To keep the public out of harms way. The security of our nation is the number 1 job a president faces. The Money issues are secondary. That can always be figured out with negotiations. First and foremost we must protect this nation. Without that we have nothing. The security of our nation depends on our military forces to keep other hostile nations in check. We have to be on top of technology and lead the world in that department. That's what keeps us in power. We have to use it sometimes. Its necessary. Also protecting innocent people from dictators from other countries is another priority. We wouldn't want that to happen to us would we? So we stop the cruelty in its tracks, at any cost. Its all in a movement to eventually free the world of dictatorship. So people can live free and happy lives. Its the right thing to want to happen, its what America wants and stands for. Its God's way. We want everyone to be free and safe. But in order to help in that department we have to keep ourselves safe and keep our military on top of the world. Without our military strength and power we would be helpless and extremely more vulnerable to attack. We must stay in power or other countries will take advantage of it and attack our homeland. Bombing everything from New York to California and everything in between. I repeat, we must stay in power or the free lifestyle you are accustomed to will cease to exist.

rosco 357


Veteran
runawayhorses wrote:That doesn't answer the question because you did not understand the question. I believe rosco meant if given the same circumstances and Bush was president would you have supported his actions in Libya if he did what Obama did. I think your answer would have been No. You would have let your feelings about Bush influence you.

If I'm wrong rosco correct me.

yesss. absolutely, if bush had done it for the exact same reasons. u got it correct tyler,

but now gypsy post bush is not capable of obama's compassion, or words to that effect, i knew what the answer would be but wanted to stir the pot, lol,, i actually think bush was one of our most compassionate presidents, and truly has a good heart..

gypsy


Moderator
UMMM thank u Rosco//My Pot has been stirred enough!! but thanks for the exciting thought!

gypsy


Moderator
Bush Compassion?? can I laugh now? he didn't even meet with regiment who brought our dead soldiers home.

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum