Obama: Qaddafi Needs to Leave Now

C

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Obama: Qaddafi Needs to Leave Now

Speaking out against Muammar al-Qaddafi for the first time, President Obama said on Saturday the Libyan leader needs to "leave now," having lost the legitimacy to rule.

In a White House statement on Obama's telephone call with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Obama took his most direct position yet on the escalating violence in Libya.

"The president stated that when a leader's only means of staying in power is to use mass violence against his own people, he has lost the legitimacy to rule and needs to do what is right for his country by leaving now," it said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/26/obama-qaddafi-needs-leave/

:corn:
 
Onceler said:
As long as he doesn't tell lies and invade and start a 7-year war?

Sure.

Cue "if it was Bush who did this, you lefties!"

lol
Click to expand...

other than your whiny rant, you have a good point. but i wonder if this is another executive, power, if you will, that should not be abused, like the executive power to ignore or not enforce unconstititional laws. should a US president be able to simply demand a leader of another country step down..."now"? i suppose so, that is the executive role.

should our president demand hugo chavez step down?
 
Yurt said:
other than your whiny rant, you have a good point. but i wonder if this is another executive, power, if you will, that should not be abused, like the executive power to ignore or not enforce unconstititional laws. should a US president be able to simply demand a leader of another country step down..."now"? i suppose so, that is the executive role.

should our president demand hugo chavez step down?
Click to expand...

Should you even still be posting here? I mean, after promising you wouldn't, then lying & all?
 
I seem to remember 8 years worth of rhetoric focused on the idea that the U.S. needs to quit sticking our noses in the business of other countries, and the fact that our continued interjection, political, economic, and military, is one reason why so many hate the U.S., etc. etc. etc.

Where is all that rhetoric when Obama is the one interjecting U.S. wishes, talking of sanctions and other shit, on another country which bears zero threat to the U.S.?
 
Good Luck said:
I seem to remember 8 years worth of rhetoric focused on the idea that the U.S. needs to quit sticking our noses in the business of other countries, and the fact that our continued interjection, political, economic, and military, is one reason why so many hate the U.S., etc. etc. etc.

Where is all that rhetoric when Obama is the one interjecting U.S. wishes, talking of sanctions and other shit, on another country which bears zero threat to the U.S.?
Click to expand...

You've gotta be kidding me. You're comparing a full-scale invasion to Obama saying this guy should leave now?
 
Good Luck said:
I seem to remember 8 years worth of rhetoric focused on the idea that the U.S. needs to quit sticking our noses in the business of other countries, and the fact that our continued interjection, political, economic, and military, is one reason why so many hate the U.S., etc. etc. etc.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Pat Buchanan has been like that for decades. He's an isolationist.


Good Luck said:
Where is all that rhetoric when Obama is the one interjecting U.S. wishes, talking of sanctions and other shit, on another country which bears zero threat to the U.S.?
Click to expand...

Pat's probably still using the same old rhetoric. Last I heard, he frequently appears on Morning Joe. You should look into it.
 
I have no problem, when what has happened in Lybia, with the president saying that the leader must leave, and I have no problem with promiting the leader leaving. I would not agree to committing troops to the cause, I also would not agree had the people not taken arms on there own accord first.
 
Onceler said:
You've gotta be kidding me. You're comparing a full-scale invasion to Obama saying this guy should leave now?
Click to expand...
Yea, right. Read what yuou want because you cannot face your own hypocrisy.

Your type were screaming the bullshit BEFORE the invasion (which, if you look back, I have NEVER supported), in fact before the invasion was even proposed. There was a lot of it blaming our actions in the ME - which was limited to diplomatic types at the time - for 9-11-01. I am not saying you personally took that view, but it was a loudly expressed view supported by a significant minority of the left. You fucking KNOW that is the type of rhetoric being spread back then, but NO, you have to prevaricate, trying to imply that nothing was said until Bush decided to fuck things up with a ground war in Iraq. Nice try.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Yeah, Pat Buchanan has been like that for decades. He's an isolationist.
Click to expand...
You don't have to be an isolationist to recognize that internal conflicts of other nations are none of our business. How would you react if some other country called for Obama to step down in response to a faction of U.S. citizens calling for the same thing? I'm sure you'd say it is none of their business, and you'd be correct. It works both ways.

As many have said - correctly - over the years in response to Bush's (and other's) foreign policies: we are NOT the international police. While I personally support the peoples of Libya in their quest for liberty, as I do any people suffering under totalitarianism, and have no problem expressing such, I am not a leader representing our government. Our government needs to be more circumspect, and whether we agree with them or not, respect the sovereignty of the leadership of other countries, IF we are expect other countries to respect ours.
 
Good Luck said:
Yea, right. Read what yuou want because you cannot face your own hypocrisy.

Your type were screaming the bullshit BEFORE the invasion (which, if you look back, I have NEVER supported), in fact before the invasion was even proposed. There was a lot of it blaming our actions in the ME - which was limited to diplomatic types at the time - for 9-11-01. I am not saying you personally took that view, but it was a loudly expressed view supported by a significant minority of the left. You fucking KNOW that is the type of rhetoric being spread back then, but NO, you have to prevaricate, trying to imply that nothing was said until Bush decided to fuck things up with a ground war in Iraq. Nice try.
Click to expand...

Oh, bull. By about a million miles, the biggest objections by the left during the Bush years was about Iraq - about the authorization, the plans to invade, and the invasion itself. It was a neat trick you tried to lump other stuff in there - "political, economic and military" - but a hopelessly dishonest characterization.

And even if that characterization applied, there is no apples to apples comparison here. But it doesn't apply, so that's a moot point.
 
Yurt said:
so its ok for obama to tell a leader of another country to "leave now?"

interesting....
Click to expand...

like it has not been done by other us leaders, like bush

what is worrisome is that a statement like this usually leads to war

see remarks by clinton, mccain and lieberman calling for no fly zones over libyia, enforced by us aircraft, to prevent lybian aircraft bombing lybian citizens
 
Good Luck said:
You don't have to be an isolationist to recognize that internal conflicts of other nations are none of our business. How would you react if some other country called for Obama to step down in response to a faction of U.S. citizens calling for the same thing? I'm sure you'd say it is none of their business, and you'd be correct. It works both ways.

As many have said - correctly - over the years in response to Bush's (and other's) foreign policies: we are NOT the international police. While I personally support the peoples of Libya in their quest for liberty, as I do any people suffering under totalitarianism, and have no problem expressing such, I am not a leader representing our government. Our government needs to be more circumspect, and whether we agree with them or not, respect the sovereignty of the leadership of other countries, IF we are expect other countries to respect ours.
Click to expand...

i disagree, we have an interest in maintaining stability in libyia, if for no other reason (the usual), oil
 
Schadenfreude said:
like it has not been done by other us leaders, like bush

what is worrisome is that a statement like this usually leads to war

see remarks by clinton, mccain and lieberman calling for no fly zones over libyia, enforced by us aircraft, to prevent lybian aircraft bombing lybian citizens
Click to expand...

i thought dems told us this kind of politiking is not good for america
 
Yurt said:
it is a possibility, but imo, a minimal possibility. qaddafi simply isn't worth a war. presidents as far back as reagan understood this.
Click to expand...

so limited military involvement like establishing a no fly zone would be ok, but no ground forces
 
Schadenfreude said:
like it has not been done by other us leaders, like bush

what is worrisome is that a statement like this usually leads to war

see remarks by clinton, mccain and lieberman calling for no fly zones over libyia, enforced by us aircraft, to prevent lybian aircraft bombing lybian citizens
Click to expand...


There is no justification for any military action of any kind, including the establishment and enforcement of no-fly zones over Libyan airspace.

McCain and Lieberman love war, period. Their calls for providing arms to the opposition, among others things, are batshit fucking crazy.

Haven't seen Clinton's remarks, but if she is calling for providing military assistance to the opposition, I think that's nuts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top