I think it's a boring and very America-centric discussion to have, whether Obama or Reagan or Bush deserve credit. That being said, they are grateful. This image is from Benghazi last night. It thanks Susan Rice, Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama. Awesome to see that the U.S. did something positive and futile in the Middle East for once.
It could (and probably will) be argued that W set the stage for it all. Just as Reagan's massive military spending is often credited with pushing the Soviets over the brink long after he was already out of office, someone will find a way to credit Bush's actions in the region with this end result.
When it comes to dishing out the contracts hopefully the Libyans will remember this... http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary...ermany-is-the-odd-man-out-in-UN-vote-on-Libya Among allies, Germany is the odd man out in UN vote on Libya Germany sided with Russia and China as it abstained from the UN Security Council vote to take "all necessary measures" to protect civilians in Libya. Berlin took the decision that would be most popular at home. Politicians do such things. But Germany's allies certainly notice. Still, if they want to pay for some of it I suppose we won't stop them
She has turned walking the line of least resistance into an art form. I'm not sure if it counts as making decisions if you always do what the majority wants.
Sounds like it may not end quickly. I think the average Gaddaffi fighter is more proficent than the average rebel fighter. Still hard to see a way back for Gaddaffi. Also french and British special forces are likely assisting the rebels. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2015985993_libya23.html "But as night fell on Tripoli, it was unclear whether anyone could be said to be in control. Many of the rebel fighters who had surged triumphantly into the capital Sunday night retreated to Zawiya, the town from which they had begun their advance, seemingly spooked by the prevalence of loyalist snipers on rooftops."
Not surprising that regular army or police would have more training than an irregular rebel. The more important question may be, "Who is more motivated?" Or, perhaps, "Who is getting more support?" http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/23/us-arabs-libya-idUSTRE77L6TZ20110823
Call me silly, but I like uninteresting leaders. Interesting leaders get us all into a lot of trouble (interesting German leaders especially). I prefer a nice dull Cinncinatus to an interesting Gracchus. I will take Kohl over Bismarck anyday. In any event, while I was opposed to US intervention I am glad for the Libyans that they got rid of Gadaffi. There are lots of folks worried about Islamist takeovers and the like, but with Gadaffii in power, there was no chance of freedom. Hopefully the lessons of Iraq (and Egypt for that matter) will be learned. Maybe the best we can hope for is a Moroccan or Kuwaiti style semi-free constitutional monarchy, with the old royal family being restored or maybe a similar type of republican government. Either would be better than Gadaffi. In any event, I am still annoyed that the President had time to go to the Security Council and the GCC but not the US Congress (especially ironic given his and Biden's comments when candidates about war powers). He clearly violated all but the most liberal readings of the War Powers Act, I leave the pure constitutional question aside. We can argue why he did this. Partly I think he was surprised it took so long (the War Powers Act gives 60-90 days and at the begining it seemed it would be over by then). Partly because although I think most of the Republicans would have come onboard, he would have faced large defections of Democrats, especially in the House. And that would have been something of an embarrassment. If you want to watch some unintended comedy, if you get RT (a Putin connected Russian cable network) or PressTV (an Iranian network) check out their coverage. Last night PressTV featured an interview with Thierry Meyssan, the French 9/11 and Holocaust denier, who has turned up in Tripoli to support Gadaffi. RT has a really funny discussion a split screen interview of some American "anti-war" activist in one screen seemingly claiming (somewhat improbably) that the rebels were both (i) going to impose Sharia law in Libya AND (ii) were tools of the Israelis. She also claimed that the rebels had no support in Libya and that Tripoli was turning on them, while the other screen showed crowds in Tripoli celebrating Gadaffi's fall. I doubt anyone at RT has a sense of humor, so I think it was unintentional. For the best coverage, you should watch al-Jazerra, which is my network of choice for the middle east. They are fairly balanced on Middle East issues, on other matters though it do not trust them as much.
So long as the government of Qatar approves yes. ALthough you won't hear anything negative about Saudi Arabia.
This is true but it still remains far, far, far superior to any American networks and even the BBC for that matter.
The Beeb's problem arises when their employees start interviewing people in their own backyard a few shades darker than themselves about civil unrest.
Well I honestly have to admit I didn't get a chance to watch anything about the riots in England, but I guess everybody seems to have those problems.
She's a super-PM! That isn't really fair though - Gracchus (I presume you're talking about Gaius rather than Tiberius) wasn't really a "leader", he was one of many members in a parliamentary system and certainly never rose to any kind of executive position.
For anybody who has no idea what that means, nicephoras read that I called today's Prime Ministers Super-PMs, citing a 1964 news story in Britain that said Prime Ministers are becoming more ubiquitous in campaigns. He took that and read the following: Because nicephoras isn't smart enough to find his ass with two hands and a flashlight, he decided to use his idiotic interpretation of my citation to mock me. Please, if any of you are his friend, slap him. Like this. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp3x6l5dZp8"]I'm Rick James Slap! - YouTube[/ame]
I don't want to get involved in any feuds here - but your first two posts in that thread were at the very least easy to misread that way, as contrasted "Super PMs" with "committee-style of government" and (in a quote) gave "huge powers regarding decision making" as one of their main characteristics. Either way not worth to argue that much over .
LOL Boy, you gotta love RT haven't yer. Somehow it seems even more idiotic when said with, (mostly), a British accent. Not sure where they get these people from... the local british loonie bins I guess. Mind you, they seem to find enough willing fellow nutters from other western countries too. VG has something of a problem with the BBC for some reason... not sure why. I saw one interview where a BBC female was interviewing Darcus Howe who seemed to be under the impression that he was allowed to talk bollocks and incite attacks on police officers because, a) he's from the West Indies, and, b) he's old Let's hope she ends better than they did, eh?
Ah Germans - always the font of politeness (I don't much care either way, really, but I just couldn't stop laughing at the description of Merkel as a super PM vis a vis someone like Gladstone )