• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

US President Obama's Libya Speech

Zenheizer

needs practice
Barack Obama, the US President is giving his presidential speech on Libya on national TV.

It's happening as I type this, but I want to make this thread for when its over:

thoughts, reactions, concerns, questions?

P.S.
I think its great that GF is not just an American forum. That'd be rather silly wouldn't it.
So I want to ask a question: what is your personal view as a citizen of another country or what you think your country's general perspective on Team America: World Police?
------
Obama Libya Speech: Striking For What Was Unsaid As Much As Said


http://http//www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/03/28/134937078/obama-libya-speech-striking-for-what-was-unsaid-as-much-as-saidhttp://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpoli...-striking-for-what-was-unsaid-as-much-as-said
President Obama's Monday night speech on Libya was probably as striking for what he didn't say as much as what he did say.
For instance, he didn't offer details for how much longer the U.S. military will be actively involved in the effort.
It's not hard to see why he'd avoid that one. No one knows at this point how long it will take for Moammar Gadhafi to fall, if he indeed does.Weeks, months, more, who knows?
And with the military option being handed off to NATO that means the U.S. essentially handed the operation back to itself since it is the first among equals in the U.S.-European military alliance.
He didn't promise to keep Congress or the American people informed with future updates.
Everyone knows the president and his aides would clearly rather be talking about the economy than the confused Libyan conflict. Gadhafi has already distracted from their domestic agenda any more than they've wanted.

He didn't appeal to history, the actions of past presidents, to make the case that his decisions were in the long tradition of U.S. foreign or military policy.
Of course, the track record of U.S. armed humanitarian interventions is uneven. True, Bosnia and Kosovo went relatively well for the U.S. Somalia, on the other hand, with its "Blackhawk Down" debacle, was viewed as a disaster.
Placing his decisions in the context of what other presidents have done might have also helped him beat back accusations that he had exceeded his constitutional authority by ordering the military to act without more congressional input.
But clearly, the president didn't feel compelled to do that.
For those reasons and more, the speech is unlikely to satisfy many of Obama's critics, some of whom wouldn't have been mollified even if he had accepted wholesale their suggestions for what to include.

What the president did say that may become the most analyzed part of his speech is how he will approach the use of military force during his presidency.
Like virtually all his predecessors, he stated unequivocally that he would use the military unilaterally if it was necessary to defend the nation from a threat.
But during his presidency the U.S. will act militarily not just when its security or vital national interests are at risk but also when its "interests and values" are threatened, Obama said.
But in these cases, for instance to stop genocide, the U.S. won't act alone but with international partners to help rovide military personnel and money for such efforts.
Obama was putting the world on notice that protecting innocent civilian populations or the democratic aspirations of a people weren't just the work of the American people but of other nations that share its values.
 
Last edited:
Top