Saturday, March 12, 2011

Does Obama Want Gaddafi To Win?

Does Obama want Moammar Gaddafi to win the civil war raging in Libya? I'm pondering this question in light of the president's skittishness about imposing a no-fly zone over Libya.

Gaddafi's forces are crushing what had been a largely successful rebellion against his rule. The loyalists have superior equipment all around but one of their biggest strengths over the rebels is their air power. If that power could be grounded the rebels stand a chance of winning. A rebel victory would be good not only because it would free the Libyan people from a brutal dictator but also for a reason specific to America.

Moammar Gaddafi is a mass murderer of Americans. Before 9/11 and Al Quaeda Gadaffi had killed more Americans than any other terrorist. In 1986 he ordered the Berlin discotheque bombing which killed three US servicemen. And in 1988 Gaddafi masterminded the infamous bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland which killed nearly 200 hundred American civilians. If Gaddfi is overthrown he can be snatched by the US and put on trial for the Americans he slaughtered. That's the American reason why the no-fly zone must be imposed. It'll increase the likelihood of Gadaffi's fall and the chance of America snagging the butcher of Lockerbie. And I'm wondering if that's what Obama wants to avoid.

Barack Obama is a far-Left guy. Yes, he's done some good things in the War on Terror, but he's skeptical of American power and leadership, preferring to defer to the "world community". In fact, that is the "official" reason, articulated by Hillary Clinton, for his administration's reluctance to act first on the no-fly zone. There must be an international consensus on any action against Libya, Hillary Clinton said; America must not take the lead. With the "world community" in charge there's a greater chance that Gaddafi will crush the rebellion and stay in power, making moot any question of America apprehending Gaddafi. I believe that's the outcome Obama's hoping for.

Snagging Gaddafi and putting him on trial just doesn't mesh with Obama's worldview. In fact, being the far-Left guy that he is, it's safe to say that that would be a nightmare scenario for him. Obama would much prefer an end game that jibes with his progressive, "America the Bad" paradigm. So, does Obama want Gaddafi to win? In a word, yes. That would relieve him, at least partially, of the job of defending and avenging Americans, something he never really wanted to do. And he can save face by blameing his inaction on the "world community" which, in his paradigm, takes precedence over the needs of America. You see, in spirit Obama truly is a citizen of the world, just as he said in his Berlin speech in 2008. And those of you who voted for him thought you were electing an American. Silly you.

6 comments:

wiseconservatism.com said...

Obama may be an American....but he is a HATING America American. He would rather get in bed with the terrorists than help his country win the war against them. And the silly Americans voted him in. We can always hope that those Silly Americans have found the folly of their silly ways. Because Gaddafi and his type need to be gotten rid of. PRONTO. Preferrably by Americans and her allies.

Player_1 said...

I think Obama is far more right than you give him credit for; everything he says is wordplay; he doesn't actually lift a finger against the Neo-cons (who are dangerous, dangerous people that have proven they want to destroy the American way of life for their rich friends), which is a sign of support, not resistance.

This is the first wise decision he's making, and not going after Qadaffi (Gadaffi, Khadaffi, wtf-ever) without U.N. approval is smart anyway; your army is still over-extended with this stupid war on terror.

I mean, really, if your leadership cared, they'd be freezing the assets of and/or assassinating the Saudi Princes who bankroll the guys that want to hurt you, not invading Iraq on false pretenses or blowing up the Taliban to "liberate" Afghanistan when it has NOTHING to offer you guys other than opium poppy and potential access to oil. Oh shoot. There it is.

Fix your own house, first. The American track record for fixing others is terrible, and your leadership should have learned that lesson after Vietnam. Instead it moved on to South America and the Middle East, and those are just peachy now, aren't they?

That money could have been much better spent on building infrastructure, which is pretty much all money going back into the system when it gets spent by the workers on American goods. It could be better spent on education, which is in a desperate place down there. It could be better spent on health insurance litigation when you guys sue your healthcare provider for refusing to pay up.

There are a lot of things it could be spent on other than extending the "Empire", especially when you don't actually have one.

@wiseconservatism.com - that kind of rhetoric is destroying your country. It's polluted and polarised your voting populace and it has ruined the credibility of BOTH of yout main national parties. I realise that, yeah, your parties need to earn votes, but do it by focusing on what helps americans, not what hurts each other. This is the biggest problem with all of the major democracies in the world; there's no teamplay anymore. You could get so much good work done if you actually worked together; you do get a lot done now, too,but it's all a lot of undermining each other. If there's something good there, support it, help to make it better, don't just say "you're conservate/liberal, so you must suck". You guys really need to grow up, all of you.

The Conservative Lady said...

Thanks for visiting my blog and for adding it to you blog roll. I have reciprocated.
The chances of Gaddafi being put on trial for crimes against Americans will never happen during an Obama Administration. Not enough time between golf games.

Seane-Anna said...

Stupid war on terror? Player 1 you've earned my total disdain with that little remark. So I guess you think that the slaughter of 3000 Americans in one fell swoop was just some minor incident we should've yawned over and then forgotten? It never ceases to amaze nor enrage me how America haters like you regard any act of self-defense by the US as a crime against humanity yet are totally comfortable with the mass murder of Americans.

Player 1, you say America has a terrible track record fixing other countries. Dude, your anti-Americanism is showing. I think we fixed Japan and Germany, former enemies that we turned into vibrant democracies, quite well.

Under the leadership of Ronald Reagan, America won the Cold War which lead to the liberation of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe from 70 years of communist tyranny.

In Afghanistan we liberated the people from the theocratic tyranny of the Taliban and in Iraq we libertated the people from Saddam Hussein, one of the most murderous tyrants in modern times, and have given them the chance to create a democratic society. I'm sure you'll pooh-pooh these achievements because, for America haters like you, freeing people from tyranny is a crime when it's done by America.

Player 1, since you're so appalled by American power in the world, please tell me which nation you'd prefer to dominate the globe. Do you think the planet would be better off with China running the show? Or Putin's Russia? Or a revived caliphate? Really, what's your utopian vision? An enquiring mind wants to know.

Player_1 said...

I don't think that any one nation running the world is a good idea at all. There are too many people in the world, and a single government could not effeciently handle their needs - unless it were perhaps fascist, in which case the people would pay an even higher price.

I don't hate Americans, just your foreign policy. For instance, Iraq might be "liberated", but to suggest that it's stabilised is a lie. Same with Afghanistan.

"Liberating" a foreign nation from "Tyranny" is not a good reason to go to war. Natural resources, a foreign country deliberately harming your people, those are reasons to go to war. However, anyone can buy and sell anything globally, so the natural resources issue is moot. And neither Saddam nor the Taliban killed those 3,000 people. Several of which were Canadian.

Because of those two little wars, the U.S. is now China's bitch. They have your nation by the short and curlies now because they financed this war for you.

Plus, you STILL went after the wrong guys. The Taliban was not the problem. Saddam was not the problem. Saddam didn't have WMD's and he had nothing to do with bin Laden. Saddam hated him more than he hated the Shi'ites. Think about that.

Now, other than not even going for the right guys, Bush issued an ultimatum to your allies. WTF?!!! You don't do that. That's one of the reasons why Chretien wouldn't get on board with it.

Plus your civil liberties have been severely lessened because of the Patriot Act, which is a violation to the founding fundamentals of your country because it undermines Freedom of Speech, opinion and religion. Racial profiling is proof of that.

Canada does all this shit, too. After the Liberal government was replaced by a Conservative minority, everything flipped around; that has little to do with the Conservative Party, though; Paul Martin of the liberals was pushing that into motion, if I remember right. He's a Liberal. Stephen Harper (Conservative Party) is not only on board, he's happy with it because it makes him more powerful. To be honest, I think he's as potentially dangerous as Putin.

And I've rambled off-topic. The point is, your government at the time went after the wrong guys, pissed off your allies (again), put itself in serious debt with it's worst enemy AND used all of this as an excuse to violate the
2nd ammendment. Not to mention two other countries that have been destabilised by the "liberation" process.

By the way, Reagan didn't win the cold war. Russia ran out of money all on its own. Fact. This destabilised the whole Eastern block, and it has never fully recovered. But that isn't the U.S.'s fault; it's Russia's.

Criticising a government is not the same as criticising the people, and should never be lumped into that boat.

Skunkfeathers said...

Barry's too busy diddling with his March Madness picks, to be doing anything useful.