Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Wow not as bad as Iraq!! Obama must be feeling so proud of himself for not screwing up that badly!!
Though from a governing standpoint you could argue Libya is worse than Iraq, seeing as the Internationally recognized government holds harpy any territory at all, as opposed to the Iraqi government which can at least control the Shia majority areas. If you want Obama foreign policy failures that left those countries as bad,if not worse of than Iraq though, look to Syria and Yemen. Though in those instances the US has not lost nearly as much as in Iraq.
Here's the thing to ask: Were there any good outcomes from those interventions? If we count things solely in terms of American lives lost, then Libya and Syria were vastly superior to Iraq. But what are our goals? To spread democracy? To stop dictators? To maintain stability? To keep the oil flowing? To guarantee human rights? Many of these are not compatible, or are decades-long projects requiring many trillions of dollars of investment and a massive military presence.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Iraq became a terrorist stronghold too, because the political will (both in Iraq and in the US) wasn't there for a perpetual occupation.
Basically it's a Morton's Fork when situations like this come up. You're screwed no matter what you do, and you just have to choose between different shades of it.
![]()
That was likely to have happened regardless, but it sounds like your suggestion would be to allow their existing governments the authority to murder their own citizens to suppress said terrorists.
That or invade and occupy those nations at the cost of thousands of American lives and accept ten or twenty years of throwing money and people at them.
edited 15th Aug '15 11:16:04 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
When on Iraq? During Desert Shield/Storm in 1990/91? During the aftermath of Desert Storm and No-Fly Zones during the 90s, which led into the Invasion in 2003 and the aftermath?
It might be interesting to note that the USAFnote has been in constant combat operations since Saddam invaded Kuwait 25 years ago.
edited 15th Aug '15 11:33:37 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling OnPlus the US wouldn't have been able to stop the Libya intervention by not participating. The French and British were going for it anyway, Obama could either help a little for some credit, or stand aside as the French and British got all the praise.
Libya is proof of the success of Obama's "leading from behind" policy, in that the US got a share of the initial PR boost but now it's all gone to shit it can go "Dude this wasn't us, it was the French and British". That and the outcome we got is in many ways the best that Obama could manage (the British, French and others however...).
edited 15th Aug '15 11:44:07 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
I'm not saying we shouldn't have intervened, or tried to stop the British and French intervention, but we should have put in more effort to stabilizing the country after the conflict, though probably not send troops in.
Don't forget the Italians, and Belgiums.
edited 15th Aug '15 11:58:39 AM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.Would we have been welcomed as saviors or fought as invaders, especially given Iraq?
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
RE: Ialians and Belgians. Thats more Africa than the middle east. The middle east was mostly turned into the shithole of political instability we all know and love after the Brits and the French carved up the Ottoman empire following WWI.
edited 15th Aug '15 12:00:44 PM by Canid117
"War without fire is like sausages without mustard." - Jean Juvénal des Ursins![]()
I don't know, apparently we were quite popular in the country for a while, people protested against the militias after the Benghazi attack, but again, we would not have sent in ground troops. We would have given the new government financial aid, and maybe Special forces support if the militias went rouge, but that should have been it.
Well the Italians were Libya's former colonial master. Not disagreeing with you on the British and French, just pointing out their were others.
edited 15th Aug '15 12:01:33 PM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.If they turned into facial makeup?
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The problem was Obama (and the others) wanted to do it without sending troops, a difficult (but not impossible) task in and of itself....but also do it on the cheap. Including wanting Libya to pay for everything in advance, despite infrastructural collapse.
If NATO had sent a significant advisory detachment (but not enough to run Libya or seem like an occupation), and provided significant funds (perhaps to be paid back by Tripoli later), focus on law enforcement first and then defence and then everything else, this wouldn't have been as chaotic as it has been.
That said, Libya isn't actually a failure yet. The recognized government is slowly clawing back territory, the conflict is forcing the various militias to merge or disband, and generally its not gotten as bad as Syria or even the first civil war in Libya. And the two main factions are still talking, under UN auspices.
Will it include silky smooth intersecting lines?
edited 15th Aug '15 12:05:56 PM by Canid117
"War without fire is like sausages without mustard." - Jean Juvénal des Ursins"Rogue" = a renegade, unscrupulous person, scoundrel
"Rouge" = reddish makeup
They are not even pronounced the same.
It is my personal mission to stamp out that mistake from the world.
edited 15th Aug '15 12:06:21 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Thanks for all the responses. I really didn't know there were this many presidents who didn't start rich. Still find these political dynasties strange, though.
We learn from history that we do not learn from history