Obama: Libyan mission is in the "national interest" of the USA

[Bluebear]

First aboard Air Force One on his way here from Santiago, Chile, Obama had to make phone calls to British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy to try to clear up confusion about whether the United States is going to be able to hand off responsibility for policing the no-fly zone to key allies.

Then at the news conference here later in the day, Obama faced questions from reporters about whether he adequately prepared the American people before jumping into the difficult mission and whether he could articulate how such an operation is in the national interests of the U.S.

"Where a brutal dictator is threatening his people and saying he will show no mercy and go door-to-door to hunt people down, and we have the capacity to do something about it, it is in our national interest to do so," said Obama.

Clearly aware of the growing disenchantment with the move from fellow Democrats, however, Obama quickly noted it "doesn't mean we can solve every problem in the world."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/22/obama.libya.policy.defense/

[Syrinx]

1. I think President Obama is confused and overwhelmed

And so am I.

[Kurmudgeon]

3. The President stated plainly his intentions, however, you do sound confused. People shouldn't be.

"Where a brutal dictator is threatening his people and saying he will show no mercy and go door-to-door to hunt people down, and we have the capacity to do something about it, it is in our national interest to do so," said Obama.

Doesn't get plainer than that and it doesn't matter if it was in the 1930s, 40s or Now.

[Pholus]

8. The problem seems to be, however, that we are very selective in the enforcement of this.

Some dictators (those with things we want) seem to be more immune from those values than others.

[still_one]

13. Funny how we selectively pick and choose which countries to do this to /nt

[Bluebear]

16. Fine, humanitarian interest, but why "national interest"?

Can you answer that without your sarcasm?

[Kurmudgeon]

17. The disrespect towards the President generated my sarcasm.

I believe it's in the national interest to get rid of dictators in general and Gadhafi in particular.
Moammar has been an enemy of the US for quite some time and a supporter of those who have attacked the US.

[Shining Jack]

18. "The disrespect towards the President generated my sarcasm."

What disrespect? :shrug:

[Kurmudgeon]

20. Where it was implied he was "confused and overwhelmed".

[Paka]

19. Amen, Kurmudgeon.

On many occasions under similar circumstances we failed to move in. We need to stand up for the right reasons. Faux excuses like hidden "WMDs" do not trump humanitarian support.
Go Rebels! :thumbsup:

[OKDem08]

2. Obama will face a lot of opposition on this and rightly so n/t

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Catherina]

5. The problems we can't solve are domestic ones. Am I getting this right?

We don't have a couple million to house and feed people but we have billions to go boom boom in wars that aren't really wars. We can build more billions into our budget for this he said in the video but we can't build in a dime for unions. What a crock.

And what's with this weasly move

"to try to clear up confusion about whether the United States is going to be able to hand off responsibility for policing the no-fly zone to key allies."

There's confusion? And what does this mean

Obama also said that "nobody has a bigger stake" in the outcome of the change happening through the Mideast and North Africa than the United States.

Please explain that bigger stake in more detail.

Thank you Raul Grijalva of Arizona, and Mike Honda, Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey of California for demanding that "The United States must immediately shift to end the bombing in Libya," and that you'll "fight in Congress to ensure the United States does not become embroiled in yet another destabilizing military quagmire in Libya with no clear exit plan or diplomatic strategy for peace."

[AnOhioan]

6. Then we can expect action against the rulers of...

Yemen, Syria, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia,and Iran as well? Nope...did not think so.

[pampango]

7. Supporting the UN's implementation of the responsibility to protect is indeed a worthy goal.

IMHO, Americans have a "national interest" in the welfare of people everywhere. As imperfect as the UN is, it is at times an idealistic organization (in areas like R2P, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, etc.). We should support it when it pursues worthy goals.

I'm glad the US did not intervene unilaterally. I'm glad the UN did intervene in recognition that if the R2P norm to have any significance, it must be used.

Why Libya first? Actually, Burma was first country where the attempt was made to get the UN use R2P to protect civilians, but vetoes by Russia and China prevented it. If the vetoes had not been made, many would ask "Why Burma? Why not (fill in the name of any country with a dictator)?" If R2P is to mean anything, it has to be used a first time (in spite of "Why here? Why not there?"); then a second time ("Why here? Why not there?") and a third ("Why here? Why not there?"), until such time as governments learn that the world believes that national sovereignty gives no on the right to pursue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect">"genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or ethnic cleansing".

[still_one]

15. Only if we agree with what the actions of UN body are, if not we veto. That is why we aren't doing

it in Yemen, because the Chinese would veto that.

We are not doing Libya for R2P, that is purely incidental, just as Iraq is. This is being done for oil, pure and simple.

Funny, when we supported elections, and the elected party wasn't to our liking, how suddenly we decided not to recognize the party that won?

This all seems very convenient how we apply R2P

[xchrom]

9. In short - 'national interest' can mean what ever any sitting

President wants it to mean.

Too bad it's not in out 'national interest' to raise taxes on the rich, cut DoD,
End corporate welfare, and deal with bad trade treaties.

[Countdown_3_2_1]

10. Iraq pullout? No. Gitmo closed? NO. New Unneccesary war? YES!

There is no US interest here. Arm the rebels so the odds are even and leave.

[dixiegrrrrl]

11. This seems to explain "US interests":

"White House: Helping install 'a democratic system' is goal in Libya:

The White House suggested on Tuesday the mission in Libya is one of regime change, despite emphatic statements from President Obama and military brass that the goal is not to remove Moammar Gadhafi from power.

According to a White House readout of a Monday night call between Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the two leaders "underscored their shared commitment to the goal of helping provide the Libyan people an opportunity to transform their country,
by installing a democratic system that respects the people’s will."

The term "installing" suggests the goal of regime change."
.....



found this on an earlier DU thread, here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x717304

[Brickbat]

12. It seems to me building infrastructure, supporting education, funding Head Start and making sure

people have a modicum of health care and retirement would be in our national interest and should be funded first.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fool Count]

21. There is no such thing as US "national interest" as there is no such thing

as a unified American nation. What Obama probably meant to say is that the Libyan mission is in the interest
of the main constituent of US government - the global capitalist class. It most certainly in no way serves
any real interest of ordinary Americans. Which, by the way, is in general true of all the actions of Obama
administration.

[ReggieVeggie]

22. There it is, as I said before...we don't war without it being in our interest

The US doesn't do squat for humanitarian reasons...never...ever...ever