[MrFlaneur]

im a lily livered limey so i dont really know the ins and outs of the US political scene but i have to say im not really impressed.

He seems to be cutting half hearted deals on all the big issues which he doesnt really want, and his treatment of the libya deal is an utter joke - America is supposed to lead and he has done virtually nothing other libya, he left it to the uk and france thus creating a power vacuum that i havent seen for a while , i mean france and the uk are leading the march for godsake, we havent done that since suez ( truth be known weve always loved knocking 2 bells out of johnny foreigner and obamas is giving us free reign)

He just seems totally impotent. I think even with minor republican challengers he doesnt stand a chance in 2012.

Anothing think that doesnt tally with me is how can someone unknown from a minor political back ground become potus in under 4years. To my mind, if hes not a manchurian candidate then who has ever been. it boggles the mind how he got in so fast without a whisper of major support minus soros dropping him a few grand at the start of his campaign.

as for his personality it just doesnt tally. i see him (correctly) as an ENFJ but he his so cold and aloof that it astounds me. Another factor is that his cheer leaders represent him as a cold lithe master calculating genius whos playing the long game to deliver utopia on his terms, which i think is utter bullshit, its the most stoopid cover that i can envision, he aint no genius hes totally ineffective. as for the coldness and aloofness how can that possibly win folksy americans over?? hes blown his rhetoric on that so cant use it again as everyone (quite) rightly) will call bullshit.

discuss. whats your more learned opinion??

[JTG]

How many missiles has the UK launched into Libya to strike artillery and anti-air targets?

[MrFlaneur]

quite a few. we and france engineered the un deal whilst obama was sat on the fence twiddling his thumbs. Thats my main point - Obama has not led on this issue which for a US president astounds me. Usually europe doesnt move unless uncle sam says so. In this case to my eyes obama just did a vanashing act. Its cowardly quite frankly. He only intervened when some of his staff mentioned rwanda. He had a sit down, had a little think and then declared that he could comit to the mission under that banner. otherwise he would have done jack shit.

[RBM]

	Originally Posted by OP
	How long do you think Obama will last?

I expect he will be one term. As a US resident I think the political system is totally corrupted. I think the republican partisan's voting numbers are greater and that will be the deciding factor of the actual vote.

It should be noted that the choices offered to vote on will have been made by forces with an agenda other than what is 'best for the USA'; it will be 'best' only in the sense that the corporate citizen (an oxymoron) will rule of the roost.

[Crazyblue]

Originally Posted by MrFlaneur To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

im a lily livered limey so i dont really know the ins and outs of the US political scene but i have to say im not really impressed. He seems to be cutting half hearted deals on all the big issues which he doesnt really want, and his treatment of the libya deal is an utter joke - America is supposed to lead and he has done virtually nothing other libya, he left it to the uk and france thus creating a power vacuum that i havent seen for a while , i mean france and the uk are leading the march for godsake, we havent done that since suez ( truth be known weve always loved knocking 2 bells out of johnny foreigner and obamas is giving us free reign) He just seems totally impotent. I think even with minor republican challengers he doesnt stand a chance in 2012.

This is the sort of mindset that baffles me. There's a no win situation provided, either the US gets involved in international affairs, and then it's meddling, or the US doesn't and then it's impotent. When the balance is reached by deciding to go with international decision, and the US isn't leading there are still complaints. I think that you need to consider what you actually expect a nation to do.

I think that it's a good policy to not interfere with other nations unless there are gross human rights violations and the international community supports it. Just because you're used to the US being in everyone's business doesn't mean that all American's think it's the best foreign policy.

The GOP doesn't really have any contenders, so I wouldn't be surprised if Obama get's another term. I'm fine waiting and seeing how it turns out.

[Imperator]

I haven't seen any GOP member capable of taking him down, and Americans in general are pretty hesitant to change the status quo.

He does have some accomplishments to his name, but the average attention span of American voters is 5 seconds.

At this stage in the game, I'm thinking he'll be 2 terms.

Of course, in American politics the real difference between Reps and Dems I've always felt is very little. It mostly seems like the Rep candidate and Dem candidate are the same guy.

[Quett]

He doesn't want to be seen as an imperialist American cowboy who rushes to war and meddles in foreign affairs.

Like Crazyblue said, no matter how the US handles the situation they'll get crapped on for it. Obama doesn't want to get the same treatment our last president did. He ran as the anti-Bush, and so he is. Well, sort of.

As far as how long he'll last? I imagine somewhere around 2 to 6 more years.
Whether or not he gets reelected can't really be determined at this point. It doesn't look great right now but that can quickly change. It really depends on what happens between now and the next election.

[JTG]

	Originally Posted by MrFlaneur To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	quite a few.

Forgive me. I haven't been keeping up on the exact numbers, but as of March 20th, 124 missiles had been fired, and 122 of them were US Tomahawks. Perhaps the UK and France have ramped up their involvement in the last week or so and have outpaced our efforts. Please correct me if my information is outdated to the point of incorrectness.

	Originally Posted by MrFlaneur To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Thats my main point - Obama has not led on this issue which for a US president astounds me.

Why is this astounding? My main point is that the US doesn't have a vested interest in Libya. Beyond evacuating our own nationals when the fighting broke out, i don't see why we should have been involved at all. We're not babysitter for the world.

I do agree with efforts to stop Gadaffi's shelling of his own citizens, but humanitarian angle aside, we have no reason to be there.

	Originally Posted by MrFlaneur To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Usually europe doesnt move unless uncle sam says so. In this case to my eyes obama just did a vanashing act. Its cowardly quite frankly. He only intervened when some of his staff mentioned rwanda. He had a sit down, had a little think and then declared that he could comit to the mission under that banner. otherwise he would have done jack shit.

Your first sentence and your third sentence reek of hypocrisy. You're essentially claiming the role of the little dog, following the big dog into a fight. Now the little dog is calling the big dog a coward for not jumping in, willy nilly.

As far as not chomping at the bit to get into another conflict, i'm nothing short of pleased that Obama waited for international inertia to build before jumping on. Think of it as weak if you want, but i like the idea of not mucking around in international business when we're not wanted. Iraq was (and is) a disaster, financially and diplomatically. I have no interest in watching my country burn all of its resources sticking its nose in everybody else's business.

The Libyan people asked for international aid, and the international community stepped to the plate. That's how it's supposed to work. If the US just throws its weight around, it undermines the UN's authority, not to mention pissing off half the world in the process

[Marlowe221]

	Originally Posted by Imperator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I haven't seen any GOP member capable of taking him down, and Americans in general are pretty hesitant to change the status quo.

I agree. Granted, I am one of those "dirty liberals," but I just don't see which of the known Republican hopefuls has a good, realistic chance to take him down.

[Quett]

@JTG Indeed, it isn't really certain why the US would want to go there besides to help the people. If that is the case, I'm not sure how this could be accomplished without sending in ground troops.

@Imperator This may be a dumb request, but could you list a few examples of very similar candidates in recent elections? I assume you aren't referring to the 2008 election. Also, do you mean in actual practice once in office or in how the candidates portray themselves while running?

[MrFlaneur]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Im sure these arent love bombs.

Im not interested in missiles, what im talking about is commitment. Obama has wavered and has created an international power vacuum. Europe is forced to conclude that it is no longer sensible to rely on the US when it comes to matters such as this. Until very recently this would have been unthinkable. That is what Obama has created. He is the cause. excuse me if I am wrong but this is new territory and a change in the balance of power that obama has authored through prevarication. Its worth noting - thats why i penned the thread.

[Crazyblue]

I guess someone can only be decisive if they only do what you want done in the time-frame you deem necessary.

[MrFlaneur]

	Originally Posted by JTG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why is this astounding? My main point is that the US doesn't have a vested interest in Libya. Beyond evacuating our own nationals when the fighting broke out, i don't see why we should have been involved at all. We're not babysitter for the world. I do agree with efforts to stop Gadaffi's shelling of his own citizens, but humanitarian angle aside, we have no reason to be there.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Is that so?

[Warrior]

	Originally Posted by MrFlaneur To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	we and france engineered the un deal whilst obama was sat on the fence twiddling his thumbs.

Come on now. He wasn't on the fence - he was on vacation in South America!
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Seriously, though, I agree that there has been a lack of leadership from the US in this matter.

Originally Posted by MrFlaneur To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Im not interested in missiles, what im talking about is commitment. Obama has wavered and has created an international power vacuum. Europe is forced to conclude that it is no longer sensible to rely on the US when it comes to matters such as this. Until very recently this would have been unthinkable. That is what Obama has created. He is the cause. excuse me if I am wrong but this is new territory and a change in the balance of power that obama has authored through prevarication. Its worth noting - thats why i penned the thread.

My friends from Israel have said much the same thing for a while now. The US can't be counted on as an ally and has lost credibility as a restraining force on Israel's actions. There is a general consensus there that whatever happens, they need to be prepared to go it alone. I had not heard a similar line of thought from Europe before now.

[JTG]

That's because Israel doesn't play nice with others. If they're going to continue to violate agreements with the Palestinians, Lebanese, and others, they should be prepared to go it alone

[MrFlaneur]

more over it will be interesting to see if the UK/france can manage to get rid Gadaffi and install a semi pro-west secular(ish) government with minimal resources and minimal "feet on the ground" - ie not trillions of $ (vis-à-vis Iraq). Such as the British intervention in Malaysia vs US in Vietnam. Weve got quite good form in pulling stuff like that off. We ran the world once upon a time dont you know. Weve always been quite adept with the natives.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The conflicts in Malaya and Vietnam have been compared many times and it has been asked by historians how a British force of 35,000 succeeded where over half a million U.S. soldiers failed in a smaller area."

[Holiman]

President Obama wasnt on vacation. The US has NO obligation to lead a war or action against another country. This concept that Obama didnt lead is simply idiotic since there was no reason for action by the US alone, the UN is the force to lead in these types of conflicts which it did as well as it ever does at that. While it is indeed sad that Obama choose to send missiles and jets into combat in Libya I find it sad that anyone can claim the US didnt lead since it was the US firing the missiles and the US sending in Jets during the critical combat (when the enemy is at its strongest).

Why shouldnt the EU take the lead for once ? Its not a power vacum and its certainly not reasonable of ANY nation expecting the US to come solve the worlds issues. If it bothers you so much speak to your own leadership and solve the worlds issues. I for one am sick and tired of the US being required to help.

On another note Isreal is one of the US's shittiest allies and I for one would openly welcome them not counting on the US. They are not our friends nor do they care about our interests why should we continue to protect(and support) them? Why shouldnt every country be prepared to 'go it alone' it is YOUR country. The US constitution doesnt include a role as world protectorate, nor do I want one added. Shame on you Warrior for thinking that we should.

[Warrior]

Originally Posted by Holiman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

President Obama wasnt on vacation. The US has NO obligation to lead a war or action against another country. This concept that Obama didnt lead is simply idiotic since there was no reason for action by the US alone, the UN is the force to lead in these types of conflicts which it did as well as it ever does at that. While it is indeed sad that Obama choose to send missiles and jets into combat in Libya I find it sad that anyone can claim the US didnt lead since it was the US firing the missiles and the US sending in Jets during the critical combat (when the enemy is at its strongest).

Anyone can drop bombs and fire missles on a third rate military. Whether it was the US doing it or someone else doesn't say anything about leadership.

On another note Isreal is one of the US's shittiest allies and I for one would openly welcome them not counting on the US. They are not our friends nor do they care about our interests why should we continue to protect(and support) them? Why shouldnt every country be prepared to 'go it alone' it is YOUR country. The US constitution doesnt include a role as world protectorate, nor do I want one added. Shame on you Warrior for thinking that we should.

I didn't express an opinion on whether it should or should not be the case, I only compared some of the comments in the thread from Europe to similar ones I have heard in other parts of the world.

[Marlowe221]

To the Republicans/Conservatives in this thread:

How would you have preferred Mr. Obama to have handled the Libya?

I'm doing my best not to be cynical here but I get the impression that Conservatives were going to lambast him no matter how he handled it. I am CERTAIN that Fox News would do that...

[Holiman]

	Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Anyone can drop bombs and fire missles on a third rate military. Whether it was the US doing it or someone else doesn't say anything about leadership.

Since I now have no concept of what lack of leadership you refer to then, feel free to inform me.

	Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I didn't express an opinion on whether it should or should not be the case, I only compared some of the comments in the thread from Europe to similar ones I have heard in other parts of the world.

Are news agencies in foriegn countries saying this or just your friends ?

[INTJRyan]

LOL @ Europe bitching when America acts, bitching when it doesn't. How about you clean up your own damn backyard? I, for one, am glad we have a "ask questions first, shoot later" president.

[Warrior]

	Originally Posted by Holiman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Since I now have no concept of what lack of leadership you refer to then, feel free to inform me.

This:

	Originally Posted by MrFlaneur To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Im not interested in missiles, what im talking about is commitment.

We were not in, then we were, then Kadaffi had to go, then he maybe he could stay. Commitment to a course of action is missing. There is no credibility in any position the US takes.

	Are news agencies in foriegn countries saying this or just your friends ?

I'm sure I was clear that it was my friends, which I think is on par with the opinions expressed here. I don't watch Israeli news. I was only expressing a little surprise to be hearing a similar opinion from another part of the world. I wasn't tryng to make a point with the comment beyond that.

[Nemesis]

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I, for one, am glad we have a "ask questions first, shoot later" president.

It's a refreshing change, isn't it? I'm quite glad to see the US holding this conflict at arm's length. The only thing that comes from the US burying it's nose into regional quibbles in other parts of the globe is seething resentment. "Liberating" (ie. blowing the shit out of) other nations has never turned out well.

[INTJRyan]

	Originally Posted by Nemesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's a refreshing change, isn't it? I'm quite glad to see the US holding this conflict at arm's length. The only thing that comes from the US burying it's nose into regional quibbles in other parts of the globe is seething resentment. "Liberating" (ie. blowing the shit out of) other nations has never turned out well.

Indeed.

We're going to free the shit out of you. Now greet us with flowers and candy. How did that strategy not work?

[JTG]

	Originally Posted by MrFlaneur To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	install a semi pro-west secular(ish) government

THIS is exactly my problem with pro-war voices in the west. Imperialism is dead. These people have their own country. It's not our job to tell them how to run it. Not only does it take our own resources to try to manage other countries, but they don't like it.

Even if we're doing good things for a country, the people of the country resent our presence. It earns us more enemies, and it makes extreme anti-west views more attractive to those who might otherwise steer clear. Providing aid is one thing. Backseat driving an entire nation is another