Do you think Sarkozy and Cameron bullied Obama into this conflict?

[LeftyAndProud60]

And when it goes to shit, he'll get all the blame. I kind of view it as we brought them into Afghanistan and now they brought us into Libya.

[monmouth]

1. I don't think President Obama can be bullied by anyone. Just because

he is of a mild manner certainly doesn't mean he's a pushover. Othern than Sarkozy and Cameron, he listened to three women on his team and their points of view. I would be surprised to find he was bullied by any of the above.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

24. It was Hillary plain & simple-has the warmonger's fingerprints all over this.

[CJCRANE]

2. "Persuaded" is probably a better word. But in that case

who persuaded the Arab League to support the action? (The UK and France don't have as much leverage with the arab countries).

[former9thward]

14. The Arab League is not supporting this action.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/arab-league-condemns-broad-bombing-campaign-in-libya/2011/03/20/AB1pSg1_story.html?hpid=z3

[CJCRANE]

15. They supported the UN Resolution calling for a No Fly Zone. nt

[former9thward]

19. Lebanon was the only Arab nation to vote for it.

The General Assembly did not vote on this. The Arab League was in favor of a no fly zone but not the currently military action which is well beyond that.

[golfguru]

31. They did not like missiles sent into cities

which caused civilian deaths. That is different than a "no fly zone" which
is what the Arabs agreed to.

[vaberella]

22. Yes they did support the action.

The Arab League vote for a no-fly zone was opposed only by Syria and Algeria, reports from the Cairo meeting said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12723554

The only ones against it, are mentioned above.

Arab League members:

Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
http://www.arab.de/arabinfo/league.htm

So of these nations, Syria, Algeria, and of course Libya did not vote on the measure.

[former9thward]

26. They do not support what it has become.

You didn't click on my posted link or you just chose to ignore it.

[woolldog]

3. Well they rely on Libyan oil

much much more than the United States. France gets something like 14% of their oil from Libya I read.

[DinahMoeHum]

4. No. If anything, they provided him cover.

n/t

[Thrill]

5. Don't fool yourself

The US is behind this. Pres Obama is likely the one who wanted them to go first.

[old mark]

6. Absolutely not...nt

[DavidDvorkin]

7. I think they embarrassed us into it.

[vaberella]

21. No they didn't. They're interest is completely different from our interest.

If we're in it, we're in it for the humanitarian effort. If they are in it, they most likely are in it because they get most of their oil from Libya.

[DavidDvorkin]

23. Good old American exceptionalism.

[vaberella]

25. I'm not saying that...but Obama---from what I can see is going in for oil.

We don't have any dealings with Libya---this is the first time in years we've done anything with them.

[DavidDvorkin]

27. UK oil imports from Libya are insignificant

Your statement that the UK and France get most of their oil from Libya is completely wrong in the case of the UK. I don't know about France.

Both the UK and France have large Muslim communities that have demonstrated in support of the rebels. At least for the UK, that could be an important reason, whereas oil imports from Libya obviously are not.

So there's no reason, a priori, to assume that the US is doing this for humanitarian reasons while the UK and France are doing it because of oil imports. Automatically placing the US on the moral high ground is a typical example of American exceptionalism.

[vaberella]

30. I should have been clear because I know the oil is for France as well.

I do know that the UK is directly tied here and do get oil from Libya. It is France though and China (who should be a bit more invested) who happen to be he main purchasers.

I'm not putting the US on a higher ground---they were extremely reluctant to go in. Actually Obama was not in the mind to go in, despite this number of deaths---from what I have gathered. However it wasn't until they had the backing of the Arab League came into play that they decided to follow through with the initiative. This is not about exceptional-ism---they are doing what they're doing because they can without too much political fall out; particularly one that is not an international risk---because so many people have supported this measure overall. Not to mention, it's been fairly successful so far.

[Mass]

33. Yeah, sure...

BTW, Sarko is in because he hopes it will help be reelected in 2012. Given his popularity numbers, he may get third and lose his chance to be in the run-off. A little bit of a war he expects we will win will help get his numbers higher. If you want to impugne his motives (in which you are probably right), at least get the right ones.

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_profile_of_France

If France imports 14 % of its oil from Libya and it is at the level it was in 2003 (40%), this would make less than 6 % of its energy need. And, given France has a large nuclear power plant network, they would be a lot less touched than other countries by the increase of oil prices than other countries.

[TheKentuckian]

8. Explain your rationale for using our veto.

[robcon]

9. Bullied? Nonsense.

Any evidence?

[AtomicKitten]

10. "Bullied?" LOL.

Your OPs keep getting funnier and funnier.

[Exilednight]

11. Bullied? Absolutely not. When this goes to shit, it will be he who willing took us down the path.

[amandabeech]

12. I wouldn't say "bullied," but I would say "persuaded," but it wasn't the UK or France.

It was Hillary, Rice and Powers, assisted by Biden and perhaps Kerry.

Gates and Mullen didn't want to do it.

[Pirate Smile]

13. That's BS. Stop insulting President Obama. What garbage. That's the kind of crap the RW is pushing.

[Phx_Dem]

16. No, I think we persuaded them. Since when do France or Britian take the

lead in any military action against another country? I think they were persuaded to step up for a change rather than relying on the U.S. to take the lead because we have our hands full in Iraq and Afganistan, and Libya is no more our problem than it is theirs.

And I applaud them for taking the lead.

[vaberella]

18. Actually...not really.

We didn't persuade them...they persuaded us. France and Britain are directly interested in what goes in Libya (China has interests but they never rock the boat of anything). It was France and Britain who wanted to take advantage of the situation and we joined the coalition in the way of looking at the humanitarian effort. I'm inclined to believe that France and Britain are far less interested in the humanitarian effort---but that's our goal.

Here is a link, to some links on how it began and the such:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=633538&mesg_id=633625,

[vaberella]

17. No they didn't.

It was a vote on it. The Euro's did add pressure, but Obama runs everything by his people and takes into account what is going on in the nation before making any commitments. If he feels it's not in our interest he won't do it, if it is or for the interest of the people then he will. End of story---to suggest pressure is just another meme in order to make the President appear weak and mealy-mouthed. I'd avoid such descriptions.

[Union Scribe]

20. No, he's shown he has no problem bombing countries.

Making time for US workers under attack, not so much. War? All day, baby.

[Unvanguard]

28. No, people like Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power had a larger role

if by "bullied" you mean "strongly advised with ultimate success."

[Clio the Leo]

29. Nope but how he managed the coup to get them to "take the lead"...

.... is a story I look forward to reading.

I agree w/you about him getting the blame though IF anything goes wrong.

[craigmatic]

32. Nope I think it was more likely the oil industry.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dionysus]

35. no. next?

[Arkana]

36. No, because I don't believe the President of the United States

can be "bullied" into anything by foreign leaders.

[Cali_Democrat]

37. I agree with your second point

But your first point makes no sense. Bullies usually intimidate. How exactly did Cameron or Sarkozy intimidate Obama?

And yes, the finger will ultimately be pointed at the USA no matter what. It doesn't matter if people say the French are leading.