Obama's Third War

It's interesting to note that only 26% of Americans currently support the military action in Libya.



Flashback: Obama said US action in Libya would last days and not weeks...

No getting around it, Obama has expanded US wars in regions where we should not be.

Obama start three wars?

Iraq is Bush's war that Obama is ending. He also didn't start the Afghanistan war, though he is responsible for seeing it through and ending it.

Libya is a U.N. military action with limited U.S. involvement.

okay then.

bring 100,000 troops home?

The President requested $11 billion for ending operations this year. That's compared to the more than $100 billion that was required to keep the war going.

Still, when did he start the Iraq war?

but he sure took a lot of heat for it. but, once again, i see that you've managed to avoid the actual content of my post; obama is repurposing troops.

There is a fundamental dishonesty from the top which reminds me of the Nixon era. I well remember protesting against the Vietnam war as well as the bombings and military actions in Cambodia and Laos.

He hasn't ended Afghanistan, he has escalated it. He is still projecting troop levels in excess of what Bush had until nearly 2014.

We are paying for the lions share of Libya.

Obama chose to execute the Bush/Gates SOFA instead of ending the conflict. Now Gates and Clinton are encouraging the Iraqi's to ask us to stay longer.

He's entered the Yemen conflict without really publicly acknowledging it.

He has escalated the use of drone attacks in Pakistan.


As I say, it's all in the counting. He's pickin' fights he doesn't have to pick. He's dropped more bombs on innocent people than any other Nobel Peace Prize winner.

One could argue Pak is an extension of Afghanistan, but Obama did promise to extend the war there if he felt he needed to.

"One could argue Pak is an extension of Afghanistan"

ok

He escalated Afghanistan and Pakistan enough that he unquestionable owns them and the current dismal state they are in. Afghanistan saw record civilian deaths last month, ranked as the worst country for women in the world and not one Afghan unit capable of operating without US assistance. Also, Afghanistan faces total financial collapse the moment we leave.

He did start our new CIA war in Yemen, as well.

Let's be honest and drop the BS. Bush's war in Iraq was ill advised and legally questionable. Innocent people died in an unnecessary war.

But let's be real... the "war" in Iraq was in it's final phases in late 2008. The "occupation" however continues inexplicably.

242 US soldiers have DIED in Iraq (and nearly another 1000 in Afghanistan) since Obama became POTUS. How is that "ending" a war that was already pretty much finished? It's really quite simple... Boeing 747's and Airbus 340's lined up on a runway in Baghdad headed west.

I'm not convinced that if McCain were elected there'd be a dimes difference in Iraq. Who knows, maybe McCain would already have US troops out of Iraq? Obama led us to believe that US soldiers would actually leave Iraq and Afghanistnam ad come home. Instead the killing machine has the pedal to the metal in Afghanistnam (Obama's dead US soldiers outnumber shrub's dead soldiers in 2+ years compared to 7+ years).

There's no excuse, no apologizing... no BS. We have absolutely NO BUSINESS in any of these countries. It's a waste of blood and wealth.

For this reason alone, I can't support Obama. He gets an F on the Economy but his grade on WARS deserves expulsion.

Do you really think NATO would get involved in Libya without US approval, or US encouragement and US stamp of approval?

Obama said our INVOLVEMENT would last "days, not weeks." He said we would hand over the LEAD in days, not weeks, transferring power to NATO. He kept his word. He said, "We anticipate this transition to take place in a matter of days and not in a matter of weeks,"

is meant to mislead people.

Is there a conspiracy to mislead people about Obama's position vis-a-vis Libya?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/10/501364/main20070541.shtml

'he United States contributes between one-fifth and one-quarter of NATO's budget. In FY2010 that contribution totaled $711.8 million.

But that factors in only direct payments, not deployments of personnel which - outside of special operations, such as in Afghanistan or Libya - may be used to train European forces (for example, in anti-terrorism skills) that benefit U.S. security.

In February NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that over the past two years, "defense spending by NATO's European member nations has shrunk by some 45 billion dollars" - the equivalent of Germany's entire annual defense budget.

Gates' argument that by slashing their defense budgets European countries are allowing the U.S. to pick up the slack comes when the United States is already spending more on defense than all other nations on the planet combined, according to Boston University professor Andrew Bacevich.


Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/10/501364/main20070541.shtml#ixzz1PYwJADr4





saying 'we turned it over to nato' isn't saying very much.

"Obama: U.S. Involvement in Libya Action Would Last 'Days, Not Weeks'"

saying that.

That's you who thinks that.

it's me who KNOWS that, which is why I provided the complete quote by Obama, unlike the article.

Saying that it's misleading is not a statement of fact. It's your opinion.

article you posted.

I completely disagree. The article is accurate and a statement of fact. Stop trying to pretend like your opinion is fact.

about something that Obama said.

He said he wouldn't extend the tax cuts for the wealthy. He also said that he wouldn't sign a bill that didn't include a public option. Now he says our involvement in Libya would last days and not weeks.

You can focus on pretty words. I'll focus on actions.

Libya.

Like many things he's said in the past, he has gone back on his word. It always happens with the most important issues.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

with their partial quote?

Do you have a link to the full unedited quote from which ABC snipped?

I am asking for a link to the full quote. Not an excerpt or a quote from your memory.

That was Obama talking to the US and world about the US's leadership role, I don't disagree.

The link from the OP was Obama talking to Congress about US 'kinetic' role.

"President Obama said he expected that the period that the US would be involved in heavy kinetic activity would be "days, not weeks," after which he said the US would then take more of a supporting role."

It implies that we would only be doing support after "days". That is simply not the case. We are still actively participating in bombing to enforce the no-fly (and more).

you can find a quote of what he told Congress, THEN it will be true. Until then, the article is using the author's words of what Obama said-not Obama's.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/03/obama-to-members-of-congress-action-versus-libya-in-days-not-weeks.html

It is from sources and hasn't been disputed. I understand if you only accept it if it comes from the WH directly, but there it is.

even the article you linked to does NOT say U.S. involvement will only last days. It says we'll be involved in heavy kinetic activity for "days, not weeks," after which the US would then take more of a supporting role. That's what has happened. That's why the other NATO countries and the rebels are asking us for MORE support.

say the actual operation would last weeks, not months. So, the reality is, it is a vague, ill-defined, open-ended operation. The US is playing more than just a supporting role, as well. We are still carrying out bombings.

You are no more credible on your claim without documentation than anyone else.

they have no idea about what it will take to stabilize Libya afterwords.

...continue to control the government, and our money.

President's recent letter to Congress.