DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**VanDerSmok** · 03-03-2011, 03:49 PM

Yes, it was a settlement, but it was a very lenient settlement. Libya paid only a small portion of what the US said was owed, and got pretty big returns for it.

They paid 25% (of a total figure they had no hand in determining), which is infinitely more than the claimants would have otherwise received -- zero. So, they coughed up $1.5 billion. Big returns all around. Hell, Italy only coughed up $5 billion for 30 years of occupation. http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/inte...nial-rule.html

Were you critical of the deal at the time?

You and I agree on the topic of this discussion, it seems. I'm just trying to refute the larger idea behind the thread topic, which is "Obama = diplomatic pussy" and "Bush = hard hitting bad ass". They both used power along with diplomacy, depending on the situation. Obama doesn't hesitate to employ the power of the military, while Bush didn't shy away from using diplomacy to improve relations. The entire premise of the OP is based off the ridiculous political myth of Democrats being weak wimps and Republicans being tough bastards. In the real world, the two parties aren't all that dissimilar when it comes to foreign policy. Yes, we do agree on the original question, but you seem to be pushing back against it into the territory of Republicans being pussies and Democrats being the badasses. I'm content to say it would have made no difference and likely would have been handled roughly the same by both.

03-03-2011, 03:49 PM	#15
VanDerSmok Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 521 Senior Member	Yes, it was a settlement, but it was a very lenient settlement. Libya paid only a small portion of what the US said was owed, and got pretty big returns for it. They paid 25% (of a total figure they had no hand in determining), which is infinitely more than the claimants would have otherwise received -- zero. So, they coughed up $1.5 billion. Big returns all around. Hell, Italy only coughed up $5 billion for 30 years of occupation. http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/inte...nial-rule.html Were you critical of the deal at the time? You and I agree on the topic of this discussion, it seems. I'm just trying to refute the larger idea behind the thread topic, which is "Obama = diplomatic pussy" and "Bush = hard hitting bad ass". They both used power along with diplomacy, depending on the situation. Obama doesn't hesitate to employ the power of the military, while Bush didn't shy away from using diplomacy to improve relations. The entire premise of the OP is based off the ridiculous political myth of Democrats being weak wimps and Republicans being tough bastards. In the real world, the two parties aren't all that dissimilar when it comes to foreign policy. Yes, we do agree on the original question, but you seem to be pushing back against it into the territory of Republicans being pussies and Democrats being the badasses. I'm content to say it would have made no difference and likely would have been handled roughly the same by both.
	Quote