Libyans applaud Obama and European leaders

[Stalin]

Smart work by Obama.

At the main square in Benghazi, people have been gathering to celebrate the end of the rule of Muammar Qaddafi. As euphoric Libyan rebels advanced into Tripoli on Sunday, there were scenes of jubilation in the rebels’ de facto capital, Benghazi, where thousands celebrated in the streets. One large sign in the middle of the square in Benghazi features a picture of the “Fantastic 4” (from right to left): Obama, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and U.S. Ambassador the U.N. Susan Rice. The text on the sign reads: “God Bless You All. Thanks For All.” The signs were photographed by the AP’s Alexandre Meneghini:


photoes at

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2...nternational-allies-with-large-thank-you-sign

Comrade Stalin

 

[Lagboltz]

It's great that this war will not lead to an interminable US military presence on the ground.

 

[bododie]

One large sign in the middle of the square in Benghazi features a picture of the “Fantastic 4” (from right to left): Obama, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and U.S. Ambassador the U.N. Susan Rice. The text on the sign reads: “God Bless You All. Thanks For All.”

Lol. Would now be a good time to try to sell Barakeesha to Liyba for the money we spent there? I'm sure the everyday Libyan would "buy" him as a leader.

 

[ProudLefty]

Lol. Would now be a good time to try to sell Barakeesha to Liyba for the money we spent there? I'm sure the everyday Libyan would "buy" him as a leader.

How much did we spend there? In your rush to find things to blame Obama for, I would point out that the other complaint right now from Republicans is that we didn't do enough. We needed to drop more bombs, have more planes, etc. In other words, they say Obama spent too much out of one side of their face, and then say Obama didn't spend enough out of the other side of their face.

(Just for a point of comparison, we are spending as much in Iraq every single day right now, today, as we spent in a month in Libya. It seems pretty ridiculous to be so determined to deny Obama his victories that Republicans have to attack him from the front and the back.

 

[BigRob]

How much did we spend there? In your rush to find things to blame Obama for, I would point out that the other complaint right now from Republicans is that we didn't do enough. We needed to drop more bombs, have more planes, etc. In other words, they say Obama spent too much out of one side of their face, and then say Obama didn't spend enough out of the other side of their face.

(Just for a point of comparison, we are spending as much in Iraq every single day right now, today, as we spent in a month in Libya. It seems pretty ridiculous to be so determined to deny Obama his victories that Republicans have to attack him from the front and the back.

What about Libya is a "victory"? We have not done anything...getting rid of the leader is 1% of the what will need to occur to make Libya a stable democracy (which we seem to want).

We have no idea who the rebels are, what they really want etc, yet we are cheering them all the way to the bank so to speak....I have seen people talking about how great it is that the rebels have "drafted a constitution"...but take a look at Part 1, Article 1 of this draft. “Islam is the Religion of the State, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia)."

Great...It is will be enshrined in the Libyan Constitution that Sharia law is the law of the land? And we made that possible?

As for spending, we have spent almost $1 billion on Libya from what I have seen, and the Republicans calling for more (ie John McCain) seem to represent a small minority of the party on that issue.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

republicans can't be happy, he was taken down with no boots on the ground, zero dead Americans, and it did not cost 3 trillion bucks...

and as far as what happens next...I guess we just have to pretend Bush and the Republicans had any plans for Iraq after Saddam fell...outside oil contracts and protect the oil...

 

[BigRob]

republicans can't be happy, he was taken down with no boots on the ground, zero dead Americans, and it did not cost 3 trillion bucks...

and as far as what happens next...I guess we just have to pretend Bush and the Republicans had any plans for Iraq after Saddam fell...outside oil contracts and protect the oil...

So you openly admit there is no plan....and you think that is ok because Bush had no real plan in Iraq? What kind of madness is that?

I would laugh if you were not seriously making this argument...I guess we are just left with "Libya will all be ok because Bush messed up in Iraq"? Sure makes a lot of sense.

 

[Openmind]

So you openly admit there is no plan....and you think that is ok because Bush had no real plan in Iraq? What kind of madness is that?

I would laugh if you were not seriously making this argument...I guess we are just left with "Libya will all be ok because Bush messed up in Iraq"? Sure makes a lot of sense.

Do you realize that Libya is its own country and not our "playground?"

WE are not suppose to have a plan for Libya! WE are not suppose to tell the rest of the world what to do!

WE are not the main driver in this. . .

At least, we now have a president who realizes that he doesn't have to control the rest of the world. But I'm sure if he had decided to sent American troops on the ground, or establish a military base in Libya to "effectuate an American plan," you would have been just as outraged. . .since that President is Obama!

Sure. . .makes a lot of sense!

 

[Lagboltz]

Do you realize that Libya is its own country and not our "playground?"

WE are not suppose to have a plan for Libya! WE are not suppose to tell the rest of the world what to do!

WE are not the main driver in this. . .

At least, we now have a president who realizes that he doesn't have to control the rest of the world. But I'm sure if he had decided to sent American troops on the ground, or establish a military base in Libya to "effectuate an American plan," you would have been just as outraged. . .since that President is Obama!

Sure. . .makes a lot of sense!

Excellent points. We went in with NATO to prevent a massacre by a madman who said he would hunt them down "alley to alley, house to house, room to room." We didn't go there to micromanage their new government.

 

[BigRob]

Do you realize that Libya is its own country and not our "playground?"

WE are not suppose to have a plan for Libya! WE are not suppose to tell the rest of the world what to do!

WE are not the main driver in this. . .

Uhm, WE got involved in an effort to overthrown their government...WE were a main driver in that operation...WE provided air support and equipment to accomplish this goal...WE do not have to tell Libya how to proceed, but some semblence of thought going into a "what next" after we overthrow a government is something that should have been done months ago.

At least, we now have a president who realizes that he doesn't have to control the rest of the world. But I'm sure if he had decided to sent American troops on the ground, or establish a military base in Libya to "effectuate an American plan," you would have been just as outraged. . .since that President is Obama!

I have said all along I thought Libyan intervention was a bad...chiefly because we have no interests at stake there...it matters little who the President is as to whether we have an interest there or not.

We just overthrew a government and now we are supposed to just sit there and pretend nothing will happen and that Libya will suddenly become a beacon for democracy? That is idiotic. I don't care if we have troops on the ground or not, if we are going to overthrow a government, it makes a lot of sense to think about what happens when that government is gone...unless the plan was just to create a stalemate, and now we are having an "oh crap" moment.

As for the "you will attack Obama at all costs", it is simplistic and adds nothing...my aversion to Libya has nothing to do with Obama..it has to do with the fact that we had no interests at stake whatsoever, and therefore no reason for intervention. Something Obama's own Sec. of Defense (at the time) said.

Sure. . .makes a lot of sense!

It actually makes a lot of sense...to rationally thinking people...if you orchestrate the overthrow of a government, should you not think about what occurs when that government is gone?

 

[BigRob]

Excellent points. We went in with NATO to prevent a massacre by a madman who said he would hunt them down "alley to alley, house to house, room to room." We didn't go there to micromanage their new government.

Absurd...we don't have to micromanage their government...but we do need to have some semblence of a plan for power transitions etc...after all, we overthrew the government. Or is it really your assertion that peacful democracies just spring up in power vaccums?

 

[Openmind]

Uhm, WE got involved in an effort to overthrown their government...WE were a main driver in that operation...WE provided air support and equipment to accomplish this goal...WE do not have to tell Libya how to proceed, but some semblence of thought going into a "what next" after we overthrow a government is something that should have been done months ago.




I have said all along I thought Libyan intervention was a bad...chiefly because we have no interests at stake there...it matters little who the President is as to whether we have an interest there or not.

We just overthrew a government and now we are supposed to just sit there and pretend nothing will happen and that Libya will suddenly become a beacon for democracy? That is idiotic. I don't care if we have troops on the ground or not, if we are going to overthrow a government, it makes a lot of sense to think about what happens when that government is gone...unless the plan was just to create a stalemate, and now we are having an "oh crap" moment.



It actually makes a lot of sense...to rationally thinking people...if you orchestrate the overthrow of a government, should you not think about what occurs when that government is gone?

WRONG. WE didn't single handedly overthrown a government! This is in fact insulting to the Libyan people who were the INITIATORS and the main drivers of this movement. The Libyan people were in the trenches, NOT US MILITARY!
And WE were not the ONLY country who helped avoid a massacre of the Libyan protesters. . .France and England's involvement was at LEAST as great, probably greater than our own. They are also more involved in every day interaction with the Libyan people, and you, once again, are being insulting and arrogant (even in your criticism of Obama's role in this support) to think that OBAMA should be controlling the situation!

Face it: Where Obama is concerned, you find him guilty of ANYTHING. . .whether he does or he doesn't. I bet if Obama suggested to keep an involvement for the next 8 years (as Bush's decision in the Iraq war), you would criticize him.

I used to have a lot of respect for you, thinking you were pretty fair and balance. Now, you seem to have joined the "extreme" group who has only one thought in mind: make Obama fail!

Well, Libya is NOT Iraq. . . we didn't INVADE a country to overthrown the dictator based on a LIE. And we didn't participate in Libya's protection of civilians with the ONLY intention to overthrow the dictator, but to protect people. And we are NOT the main driver of this revolution. . .in fact, we are probably 4th in line! And we didn't send thousands of US men and women to die to overthrow a dictator.

The worse think we could do now is to try to impose "our ideas" of a government on these people! This would surely push them in the arms of extreme muslims.

You want small government? Then how can you advocate for MORE involvement in a new FOREIGN government when we have NO reason and NO right to play a major role?

This sounds like hypocrisy or stupidity!

 

[BigRob]

WRONG. WE didn't single handedly overthrown a government! This is in fact insulting to the Libyan people who were the INITIATORS and the main drivers of this movement. The Libyan people were in the trenches, NOT US MILITARY!

Ok..so what is NATO's plan? Oh yea, they don't have one either. I could care less who was in the trenches...the simple FACT is that the government is basically gone, and there is going to be a power vacuum. What is our (or anyone's) plan to make sure this doesn't turn into a massive civil war?

And WE were not the ONLY country who helped avoid a massacre of the Libyan protesters. . .France and England's involvement was at LEAST as great, probably greater than our own. They are also more involved in every day interaction with the Libyan people, and you, once again, are being insulting and arrogant (even in your criticism of Obama's role in this support) to think that OBAMA should be controlling the situation!

See past your Obama worship for 10 seconds and take him 100% out of the picture...what is our (Congress, the military, NATO's) plan to ensure Libya doesn't turn into a massive civil war?

Believe it or not, every word someone speaks is not a critique of Obama.

Face it: Where Obama is concerned, you find him guilty of ANYTHING. . .whether he does or he doesn't. I bet if Obama suggested to keep an involvement for the next 8 years (as Bush's decision in the Iraq war), you would criticize him.

Damn right I would criticize him, because I OPPOSED THE INTERVENTION FROM THE START. I would be saying the same thing if this was a Bush action as well...something you seem incapable of grasping.

I used to have a lot of respect for you, thinking you were pretty fair and balance. Now, you seem to have joined the "extreme" group who has only one thought in mind: make Obama fail!

Think whatever you like, you seem to be so blinded by your preconceived notions you are ignoring what is actually written on the page. I seem to be the only one pushing for Libya to succeed. Do you honestly think they are going to create some wonderful country in the current power vacuum with NO HELP and NO PLAN?

This debate has nothing to do with Obama, and everything to do with ensuring that Libya becomes a success, something NO ONE seems to acknowledge we should even think about.

Well, Libya is NOT Iraq. . . we didn't INVADE a country to overthrown the dictator based on a LIE. And we didn't participate in Libya's protection of civilians with the ONLY intention to overthrow the dictator, but to protect people. And we are NOT the main driver of this revolution. . .in fact, we are probably 4th in line! And we didn't send thousands of US men and women to die to overthrow a dictator.

Is the government collapsing or not? Is ANYONE considering what that means for what happens the day after it is gone? Or are we all too busy patting ourslves on the back for doing effectively nothing?

The worse think we could do now is to try to impose "our ideas" of a government on these people! This would surely push them in the arms of extreme muslims.

What are you even talking about...a simple plan on how to form a government, transition power etc somehow equates in your mind to "imposing ideas" etc...and in case you haven't noticed, their draft Constitution already states that Sharia will be the law of the land..all that AFTER we supposedly stopped a massacre and did them this huge favor.

You want small government? Then how can you advocate for MORE involvement in a new FOREIGN government when we have NO reason and NO right to play a major role?

THERE IS NO NEW GOVERNMENT IN LIBYA!!! THAT IS THE WHOLE ISSUE!!! There won't be one either without some plan in place on how to make it happen.

This sounds like hypocrisy or stupidity!

What it sounds like is you need to reread the thread after you take off the Praise Obama glasses.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Rob we where not the main driver of Lybia...thats your american ego speaking...the main drivers where the UK and France...we gave support...and of course the biggest driver was the Libyan people..

But I know you hate it when we help get rid of evil dictators who support terrorism, kill there own people, and have large amounts of yellow cake.....you know ..like Libya.

By the way, how are things going after the gov fell there...vs say...Iraq after Sadam fell...pretty Fing good I would say next to Iraq. Also what was the cost of one vs the other....

 

[dogtowner]

Rob we where not the main driver of Lybia...thats your american ego speaking...the main drivers where the UK and France...we gave support...and of course the biggest driver was the Libyan people..

But I know you hate it when we help get rid of evil dictators who support terrorism, kill there own people, and have large amounts of yellow cake.....you know ..like Libya.

By the way, how are things going after the gov fell there...vs say...Iraq after Sadam fell...pretty Fing good I would say next to Iraq. Also what was the cost of one vs the other....

mission accomplished ? ; )