Obama endorses military action to stop Gadhafi

[The Northerner]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON – After weeks of hesitation and divisions among his advisers, President Barack Obama on Friday endorsed military action against Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, saying U.S. values and credibility are at stake to stop "the potential for mass murder" of innocents.

The U.S. military, which is already stretched thin by two wars and an expanding effort to assist disaster victims in Japan, would take a supporting role, Obama said, with European and Arab partners in the lead. He explicitly ruled out sending American ground forces into the North African nation.

A wide range of U.S. firepower stood ready, including Navy ships and submarines capable of launching Tomahawk cruise missiles with high-explosive warheads that could destroy air defense sites and other potential targets in the earliest stages of any allied military action.

In solemn remarks at the White House, Obama never used the word "war," but that is what U.S. forces could face if Gadhafi refuses to comply with United Nations demands. It is widely anticipated that a first step in imposing a no-fly zone over Libya — a tactic aimed at keeping Gadhafi's planes from attacking — would be assaults on the country's coastal air defenses.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_libya;_ylt=AvfnFpRQQ5.Pha0uG0h0MtuyFz4D

[Ter]

1. Warmonger

Real change.

[tigereye]

4. hmm, when would it be okay to take action on a world

leader who is killing his population, then? I don't like the idea of our involvement in yet another ME conflict, but it raises interesting question about when even this type of action would ever be acceptable to some of us on the left. :shrug:

[former9thward]

5. I would say when a country directly attacks the U.S.

Gaddafi has attacked U.S. interests and personnel in the past and we retaliated. But that was settled and over. He has done nothing new. If killing population is the criteria then we should have welcomed the Iraq war because Saddam had certainly done that.

[boppers]

11. There's this thing called the United Nations.

It was set up to provide the international ground rules. The UN did not authorize Iraq. It did authorize civilian protection in Libya (but didn't authorize all out war).

[former9thward]

12. Yeah and the UN did not authorize the Kosovo operation.

That didn't stop us. We follow the UN when it suits us and we don't when it doesn't.

[Ter]

15. Never

It's not our business, and he's no threat to the rest of the world.

[tigereye]

20. how bad would certain things have to be to make them

our business? Certainly the choice of past interventions have been somewhat "selective," other than obvious situations like WWII.

[Ter]

21. Of the past 100 years, just WWII and stopping Hitler

Hitler was a threat to the world, as he was attacking country after country, getting more powerful. For that he had to be stopped. Libya isn't a threat to take over the world, and zero threat to America.

[Vinee]

26. when he threatens the flow of oil to Europe and America.

Other than that, we don't really care.

[faz]

18. Most democrats supported invasion of Iraq too

go figure

[WatsonT]

32. Well he has a Nobel Peace prize

so it's not a war-war.

[ProSense]

2. It's amazing how news reports can

differ: Obama outlines limited U.S. role in Libya intervention

President Barack Obama, in remarks from the White House East Room Friday, pointedly laid out a limited role for the United States in the military intervention authorized by the United Nations on Libya and stressed that the purpose is not the military ouster of Muammar Gadhafi but the protection of Libyan civilians.

<...>

Obama spoke after conferring with Congressional leaders about what he envisioned the U.S. role in Libya being.

Obama told Congressional leaders that "he had not authorized troops on the ground or airplanes," a staffer to one of the Congress members briefed Friday said on condition of anonymity. "He stressed the U.S. is diplomatically supporting the no-fly zone, not the enforcement itself."

<snip>

Obama also stressed what the United States would not be doing in Libya, namely deploying ground troops in Libya. In fact, the UN Security Council resolution approved Thursday night explicitly excludes a foreign ground intervention in Libya, while authorizing all other necessary means to protect civilians from attack.

-more-

Remarks by the President on the Situation in Libya

[tabatha]

3. The nonsense is usually posted by people

in pat, facile observations - who don't read the full story.

It is draining.

[mia]

7. Thanks for the clarification.

Otherwise, it would seem that the Associated Press aims to encourage a new war.

[howaboutme]

19. The press is about propaganda not news

They have a primary role and it is to lead the public around by the nose to the benefit and support of those who own this country. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

[bhikkhu]

6. I can't think of a war I was ever in favor of...

but Gadhafi needs to go. It would always be nice if things were just different, without any great effort, but I think in this case doing nothing would lead to mass slaughter and set an historic example for others to follow.

The broad no-fly rule, as written, sounds like it might just be effective enough.

[MilesColtrane]

14. He deserved to stand in the Hague for Lockerbie alone, much less...

what he's doing now.

If ever there were a role for the UN and NATO, this is it.

[ClarkUSA]

8. New York Times: "France and Britain Lead Military Push on Libya" not the U.S.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x686125

[SnakeEyes]

9. Great, a third war...

I really hope protests are organized. This already was ridiculous with Afghanistan and iraq and now its getting worse. Ugh.

[lindalou65]

10. Stopping Gadhafi

I, too, do not support war; however, I believe that forming an international alliance (as in the United Nations) to put a stop to unnecessary killing of innocent people is needed. I think this is the right course of action. Indeed, it requires combining military forces to subdue Gadhafi and it will be costly. Left on his own, Gadhafi appears headed to kill, injure and imprison thousands of innocent people. I don't believe the rest of the world should just sit back and let it happen. It has happened too many times already in the past.

[howaboutme]

17. It is about oil, not people

The only reason we are involved is oil. It allows the G-7 to keep their hands on Libya's oil. This has occurred regularly in some African nations and nothing was done.

They are having a rebellion in Libya and the G-7 wants to control the outcome.

Imagine the outrage if European troops would have entered the USA when our government started killing other Americans in the Civil War. The news media then, just as now, can portray and propagandize this just as the "powers that be" wish it portrayed.

[bhikkhu]

22. Perhaps its the right response, for the wrong reasons

There's no denying that Libya is vital to the European oil markets.

But there's also no denying that nothing was done as protests swept the country, and nothing was done while much of the country rejected the long misrule of Gadhafi, and nothing was done while he brought in mercenaries, tanks, heavy weaponry, etc, to retake many of those cities.

The immediate occasion of the intervention was that he had planes, artillery, and tanks poised to retake the most populous city left, and promised "no mercy, no pity" for its 600,000 inhabitants. Perhaps if there were no oil involved, we'd just read about the mass graves later and think what a shame it was...

[howaboutme]

23. I don't disagree

but still it is time to end the current MO/status where the US has self decreed itself as policeman of the world (where an elite few profiteers benefit) while all Americans pay, and instead start taking care of Americans first.

[BeFree]

24. We should just stop buying the oil

Why, all this time, did we keep buying oil from Libya?
Didn't all that money just make him stronger?
So now that he is strong we decide to bomb that which we paid for?

Two wrongs don't make a right. Unless you are republican. <grin>

[howaboutme]

25. Jimmy Carter wanted to remove us from the Middle East - that was his goal

I've seen opinions where some believe he was deliberately set up for a fall with the hostages etc because very powerful interests such as American big oil, Israel, and Saudi Arabia didn't want the USA disassociated from the ME and oil.

When you think about it for 10 seconds that whole scenario makes sense. A US President who wants the USA out of the Middle East and off of oil is a threat to multiple interests. He has always had some perceived friction with Israelis too. I believe there was a book on it "October Surprise".

[BeFree]

28. Yep

He wanted us off oil. I believe he wanted us off nukes, too.

He had great enemies and they won, and here we are.

Thanks for the reminder.
Obama must know this, too. And if he decides to act they will destroy him also.
That is how I make sense of what's going on and allowed to continue.
Our enemies will stop at nothing to make and keep their fortunes.

[Vinee]

27. how is this different from Iraq?

[howaboutme]

29. Almost like a mini version of shock and awe.

It was deja vous. Our President unilaterally ordering the world's largest military into action to kill people.

I get bad vibes on this because I know it isn't about humanity but instead about big oil or something else.

As a nation we've passed up opportunities to protect humanity but instead skipped off because there was no oil. Just because the POTUS is a Democrat doesn't mean I'll support his call for more military intervention knowing that every dollar he spends will cost needy Americans and lost lives.

[No Elephants]

30. See Reply 11. Also, Saddam was not mowing down Iraqi rebels.

I'm sure he would have, had there been an uprising, but Iraqis had not risen up.

I am not saying our involvement in Libya is right or wrong. I am only taking your question literally and replying.

I am not sure intervening is always wrong, either, though. I would not object to intervening to end a genocide, for example.

[Vinee]

31. Saddam Hussein repreatedly violated thw UN resolutions and his history of brutality against his own

people is well documented. And he had a shit load of oil...just like Libya. There is no difference. This is hypocrisy at its worst and it will come back to haunt the left.

[2Design]

13. Yes we NEED MORE WAR NOT - while Wife supports the wounded - oxymoron - you send them to war they

come home maimed

[faz]

16. But but but Mr. president

The US of A is broke being an imperialist world policeman!

Stop the stupid move.

Gold will keep going up.