[HitAttetlyTek]

Bitch bitch bitch

Obama's too involved

Obama's not involved enough

Obama's responsible for everything bad

Obama's not responsible for nothing good



You guys need to get a new schick

If Obama wanted his buddy Qadafi out of power he should have nabbed him when he accepted Obama's invitation and came to New York.

[beckercpa]

If Obama wanted his buddy Qadafi out of power he should have nabbed him when he accepted Obama's invitation and came to New York.

Really? He shook hands politely with another world leader? That's the best you've got?


I mean, I know you chum the waters as much as possible, but FFS, that's really scraping bottom even for you.



Oh, and kidnapping visiting heads of state at the UN? That's your suggestion?

[rNr5Di3S]

To the thread title: Were U.S. jets involved in this? I thought the U.S. had gotten out of the actual missions.

It appears that I was duped by the administration on this one. We are still attacking. U.S. jets still striking Libya targets | Philadelphia Inquirer | 04/14/2011

[rusculture]

It appears that I was duped by the administration on this one. We are still attacking. U.S. jets still striking Libya targets | Philadelphia Inquirer | 04/14/2011

I've heard people saying they were "duped", but I'm not sure why. I've always been under the impression that after supplying much man power and tech to the initial attack on Libya, we'd then play a minor role helping enforce the no fly zone with the rest of NATO performed the bulk of the operations. As far as I know, this hasn't changed. I even said earlier in this thread "Since the majority of the aircraft working over Libya are now French and British...", recognizing that there were a small amount of US planes involved.

Unless I missed something and Obama did indeed say we'd completely bow out of the operation after the initial attack, which could very well be.

[advabHixavoip]

I've heard people saying they were "duped", but I'm not sure why. I've always been under the impression that after supplying much man power and tech to the initial attack on Libya, we'd then play a minor role helping enforce the no fly zone with the rest of NATO performed the bulk of the operations. As far as I know, this hasn't changed. I even said earlier in this thread "Since the majority of the aircraft working over Libya are now French and British...", recognizing that there were a small amount of US planes involved.

Unless I missed something and Obama did indeed say we'd completely bow out of the operation after the initial attack, which could very well be.

Here's what he said vis-a-vis the hand-off of the Libya operation:

...

Moreover, we’ve accomplished these objectives consistent with the pledge that I made to the American people at the outset of our military operations. I said that America’s role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge.

Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and the no-fly zone. Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting Libyan civilians. This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday. Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Qaddafi’s remaining forces.

In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role -- including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications. Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation -- to our military and to American taxpayers -- will be reduced significantly.

...

Source: Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on Libya | The White House He said that America was handing off its responsibility to allies and moving into a supporting role. He then provided a list of things that supporting role would include. Absent from that list was conducting offensive operations/airstrikes ... even patrolling the "no fly zone." Naturally ... it does not seem that a "supporting role" would include doing the main work of the operation, i.e. missions. (An attorney's secretary provides support to her boss by taking dictation, not by arguing motions in court, for example.) This led me into believing that we would not be doing those things. I was duped.

[nushentelve]

Here's what he said vis-a-vis the hand-off of the Libya operation:



He said that America was handing off its responsibility to allies and moving into a supporting role. He then provided a list of things that supporting role would include. Absent from that list was conducting offensive operations/airstrikes.

And most of that is pretty much dead on. We're no longer running the show, but we are aiding in enforcing the no fly zone under a NATO banner (they're using 11 US jets, but under the designation of NATO). Taking out surface to air missiles is in line with the enforcement of a no fly zone (can't enforce a no fly zone if your planes are being shot out of the sky). He laid out what some of the things our role would include, but that doesn't exclude the things he didn't mention.

Though, there is this:

We came in, up front, fairly readily, fairly substantially, and at considerable risk to our military personnel. And when this transition takes place, it is not going to be our planes that are maintaining the no-fly zone.

So, nevermind. I can't see any way of him bungling his words there.

[Imiweevierm]

@ Speak: Snuck in an edit while you were responding so I'll include here:

And most of that is pretty much dead on. We're no longer running the show, but we are aiding in enforcing the no fly zone under a NATO banner (they're using 11 US jets, but under the designation of NATO). Taking out surface to air missiles is in line with the enforcement of a no fly zone (can't enforce a no fly zone if your planes are being shot out of the sky). He laid out what some of the things our role would include, but that doesn't exclude the things he didn't mention.

He didn't even mention patrolling the "no fly zone." Naturally ... it does not seem that a "supporting role" would include doing the main work of the operation, i.e. missions. (An attorney's secretary provides support to her boss by taking dictation, not by arguing motions in court, for example.) This led me into believing that we would not be doing those things.

Of course, he could have said something like "including but not limited to" but even that would have been somewhat deceptive as he characterized U.S. involvement as a "supporting role." Logically, this would not include flying the missions/conducting airstrikes but rather supporting those that are ... especially when the President leaves those items out of his list! Again, I do not believe these were mistakenly omitted. His words were carefully chosen to downplay U.S. involvement and conceal the fact that the U.S. would still be carrying out attacks.

So, nevermind. I can't see any way of him bungling his words there. Yeah, he got me good. I'll give you credit though -- you were not deceived.

[XqrkN4a0]

@ Speak: Snuck in an edit while you were responding so I'll include here:



He didn't even mention patrolling the "no fly zone." Naturally ... it does not seem that a "supporting role" would include doing the main work of the operation, i.e. missions. (An attorney's secretary provides support to her boss by taking dictation, not by arguing motions in court, for example.) This led me into believing that we would not be doing those things.

Of course, he could have said something like "including but not limited to" but even that would have been somewhat deceptive as he characterized U.S. involvement as a "supporting role." Logically, this would not include flying the missions/conducting airstrikes but rather supporting those that are ... especially when the President leaves those items out of his list! Again, I do not believe these were mistakenly omitted. His words were carefully chosen to downplay U.S. involvement and conceal the fact that the U.S. would still be carrying out attacks.

Alright, I understand where you're coming form now, thanks. He was clear as mud about what exactly would be going on there. Whether this was bad communication, intentional deception, or changing the plans due to the situation changing, I'm not sure. But none of that changes the fact that what he says isn't reflecting what's going on.
Yeah, he got me good. I'll give you credit though -- you were not deceived. Sure, but it's hard to be deceived if I never really listened to Obama in the first place. I'm guessing it just stems from the fact that long ago I figured that Presidential speeches are usually just flowery language, good intentions, and hot air and you'll have to look elsewhere (such as heads of the military) to get any actual info. Heck, you could probably even take this post I made about Bush in 2005 and retool it a bit to fit Obama on Libya today:

Bush says stuff about things.... - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum Archives

(On a side note, scroll through that thread and see how left leaning this board was under Bush. Made me chuckle a bit)

[Rithlilky]

Alright, I understand where you're coming form now, thanks. He was clear as mud about what exactly would be going on there. Whether this was bad communication, intentional deception, or changing the plans due to the situation changing, I'm not sure. But none of that changes the fact that what he says isn't reflecting what's going on.

Yeah, well, he was reading prepared remarks from a TelePrompTer. The intent is pretty clear to me.

Heck, you could probably even take this post I made about Bush in 2005 and retool it a bit to fit Obama on Libya today:

Bush says stuff about things.... - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum Archives Absolutely. Message control is extremely important to these guys. When delivering these speeches, each word/phrase is scrutinized to deliver the intended message. He and his speechwriter knew what they were doing.

(On a side note, scroll through that thread and see how left leaning this board was under Bush. Made me chuckle a bit) Ah, the good old days. You don't hear "neocon" too much any more.