what the president said ...

To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and — more profoundly — our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.
- President Obama

Those are powerful words. If you mean it, please do something about the situation in the Congo, where rape has been used as a weapon of war for YEARS.

Stand up to atrocities EVERYWHERE, not just in countries with oil.

that country is one giant freaky cult.

I pass.

To summarize

America is responsible for the whole world.

We can't take care of ourselves, we have people living in utter poverty, people with no healthcare, but its our responsibility to invade and topple every dictatorship on the planet.

Its like Obama is living in this fucked up fantasy world where we actually have money and all of our military endeavors over the past century have worked out great.

I cant take this bullshit.

So much of the crap that's going on in this country is because the rich and powerful own most of our politicians.

My question to Pres. Obama was, as long as we're playing police to the world, why not the Congo? What is his selection criteria?

I'm pretty sick of the bullshit too.

In fact, much of the debate in Washington has put forward a false choice when it comes to Libya. On the one hand, some question why America should intervene at all -– even in limited ways –- in this distant land. They argue that there are many places in the world where innocent civilians face brutal violence at the hands of their government, and America should not be expected to police the world, particularly when we have so many pressing needs here at home.

It’s true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. In this particular country -– Libya -- at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Qaddafi’s forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/28/remarks-president-address-nation-libya

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

This is the Democratic Underground.

That was a 'coalition' regime change.

you'll really take the time to look at it.

The coalition wasn't a willing one, it was one achieved by arm-twisting, lies, deception, manufactured evidence, and false testimony at the UN.

We weren't asked by the Iraqi people to come in and use our Military to enable them to continue their rebellion against Saddam- unlike the Libyan Rebels- nor were we under pressure to stop Saddam from crushing a movement that was already actively fighting him.

We haven't agreed to putting troops on the ground- we've said we aren't going to- unlike Iraq, where we had every intention of participating in ground combat.

The situation isn't the same- Not to say that necessarily makes it a good idea, but it is, in reality, a much different set of circumstances.

a reply citing the same passage - (it's been an long, exhausting day)

By the time I'd finally managed to get mine written and posted, you'd posted yours.

Sorry- :silly:

I need some sleep.

What makes Libya more important than the Congo?

The US intervened in Kosovo. Why didn't Clinton intervene in Rwanda (1994, slaughter of ~800,000 people)

I'm not asking you for the answers ... i just want to know how Pres. Obama makes these decisions ....

:thumbsup:

that phrase bothers me.
I would like to believe that it's in this country's interest to stop the brutalization of women in the Congo.

Right now, the Middle East is getting a lot of attention because of the high profile events of the past few decades. Meanwhile, in many parts of Africa, for many decades, people continue to suffer, and much of the world pays little attention. (Yes, i know Libya is in northern Africa, but politicaly, it's more closely associated with the Middle East.)

I don't think the US can afford to be world cop. But our government picks and chooses where it wants to be world police. Why one country and not the other? I want more detailed explanations for their criteria.

he said this:

It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always

measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what's right. In this

particular country - Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique

ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries,

and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Gaddafi's forces in their tracks without putting

American troops on the ground.


He explained the reasons why he doesn't believe that is possible.

And I can see why this kind of action wouldn't be appropriate or possible in DR of Congo, N. Korea, and many other places people bring up as more 'urgent/worthwhile/oppressive' than Libya-

namely- The unique ability to stop the violence- Like the air strikes. It would be difficult to launch air strikes against the Congo- the people there have no air force that they'd be using against their own citizens. It wouldn't be a situation where military infrastructure could be targeted and disabled, but rather one where there would HAVE to be "boots on the ground" and many of them. How would you suggest the US military participate in stopping the brutal rape of women? I'm not sure that Tomahawk missiles would do it.

An International Mandate for Action- Is there an international mandate to take military action against Korea? or Congo? If so, when have they gone to the UN and asked for help? which brings us to the Broad coalition prepared to join us- From what I understand, the French and British asked us to join on- This wasn't something 'we' came up with, and had to strong-arm other countries to participate in. And it has the support of Arab countries. Countries which are the most impacted by what is happening around them.

And finally The plea for help from the Libyan People themselves. Are people within N.Korea asking the US to help them use our Military to help them overthrow their government? And if they were, is there an international consensus of other Nations wanting to do this?


The President did say that the US couldn't "use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action.- note the word MILITARY here- he explained that this was a unique situation, where everything seemed to come together to make military intervention a decision that he felt was appropriate in this particular instance.

He DIDN'T say that we shouldn't work to help the people of the Congo- Or anywhere else in the world- in ways that don't involve direct military action. It's kind of confusing that so many people who are against the use of the Military in Libya - go on to use the argument that "well why aren't we helping X or Y,-" as if our actually doing that would then make the intervention in Libya ok.

I don't believe that Pres. Obama is against "Standing up to Atrocities Everywhere"- nor do I believe that he's "uninvolved" with situations in MANY parts of the world- in ways that do not require ' military action taken with other UN and NATO countries.'

Do people really WANT the US to deploy the military everywhere? Or claiming that the only way to stop oppression is with the military?

:shrug:

But before i do, just FYI, i'm ambivalent about our involvement in Libya. I'm still processing it.

"The unique ability to stop the violence"
There are other ways to intervene forcefully. We don't need air bombardments and troops on the ground in the Congo. We need military advisors to help the UN peacekeepers, who have been doing a terrible job protecting the civilans, get their act together. We need forceful diplomatic pressure to put a stop to the civil war.

"An International Mandate for Action"
In the Congo, the UN has Peacekeeping Forces. They would not be there without support from the UN Security Council. But that effort has been terribly mismanaged, and none of the major powers seem to have much interest in helping to get it straightened out.

"The plea for help from the Libyan People themselves."
The women of Congo have been pleading for help too.

Look, I don't think the US should be the world cops. But it keeps happening. What I've never understood, with Pres. Obama and past administrations, is the selection process about which country gets the help, and which are left to languish.

When i said "Stand up to atrocities EVERYWHERE, not just in countries with oil."
i wasn't necessarily referring to military action. A lot can be accomplished with diplomatic pressure. A LOT.