[tomder55]

Why isn't President Obama calling for Muammar Gaddafi to step down ?
Mubarak was a boy scout compared to this monster. He has a long history of state sponsored terrorism . His murderous deeds include the Lockerbie Pan Am bombing, UTA flight 772, the Berlin disco bombing . He allowed terrorist groups of all types including Palestinian ,Irish ,Italian,and Spanish to train in bases in Libya.

He has so far been the most brutal dictator in cracking down on the protesters in the Ummah. There are reports of hundreds killed ,Tanks and RPG's being used on them... snipers perched in helicopters shooting at demonstrators and mourners at funerals. There are reports of massacres in Benghazi.
He has plundered his nations oil wealth .
The press has been barred from reporting from Libya . Most of the news coming out has been smuggled out of the country.

The President's lame statement of being “deeply concerned” about “reports of violence in Bahrain, Libya and Yemen” is a far cry from his calls for Mubarak to step down in Egypt.

There are now reports of military units opposed and loyal to Gaddafi battling each other in what appears to be decending into a civil war. There are also reports that Gaddafi is planning on bugging out and going into exile in Venezuela. Gaddafi and Chavez... perfect together.

His son has vowed to fight to the last bullet... which is not the language of someone winning .

But I do have to question the inconsistent policy of the Obama White House. They did not give support to the Iranian protesters last year as the Mahdi-hatter's goons gunned them down ,and he evidently is not taking a stand against Gaddafi. Was Mubarak the exception ? And if he is ;what did he do to piss off Obama ?

[smoothy]

I think there might have been some underhanded campaign contributions to pay back... but that's just speculation.


But I agree... Gaddafi makes Mubarak look like a rank amateur. I'd like to know why the silence as well.

[joypulv]

A US president can't just demand that every despot step down. We have to use our Ugly American card delicately and not too often. I guess Libyans have to fill the streets with tens of thousands of protesters, be seen worldwide, and be really close to a revolution.
Gaddaffi pays reparations for lots of bombings, it seems.
Assassination attempts on his life have failed.
One of his many sons will probably be his successor.
And who knows what kind of behind the scenes 'diplomacy' is going on over oil, other Arab states, Russia, maybe those wikileaks would give a clue.

[excon]

Why isn't President Obama calling for Muammar Gaddafi to step down ?

Hello tom:

I don't know. He'll come around...

But, we DO have interests in the area... You understand that... I suppose that's why you don't call for the King of Bahrain to step down, or when the revolution hits Saudi Arabia, I doubt you'll call for that king to step down.

Me? I'm for ALL of the people.

excon

[tomder55]

Neither the King of Bahrain or the Saudi royals.. or Mubarak have attacked and killed Americans .
Yeah there's lots of despots in the world . Some bad guys are worse than others.

[excon]

Neither the King of Bahrain or the Saudi royals ..or Mubarak have attacked and killed Americans .

Hello again, tom:

So, you support revolution in country's where the government kills Americans... But, in country's where the government kills its own people, not so much. Dude!

Me? I support ALL the people against dictators, even if they're our dictators.

excon

[tomder55]

No I support all freedom loving people . I'm just wondering why the President's priority was to publicly speak out against a strongman who by world standards was not very brutal ,who had been instrumental in ME peace for 30 years ;who only sent troops outside his borders when another despot was threatening to seize half the world's oil resources and had rapined the people of another nation But he stays silent when the dictator is inclined to take steps that harm our national security or interests.

If I'm an ally ,I just have to wonder when Obama will turn against me.

[speechlesstx]

I support ALL the people against dictators, even if they're our dictators.

Like the guy in Wisconsin?



I suspect Obama is too busy trying to stop that dictator to have much to say about the middle east

[smoothy]

Exactly... Obama cares more about NOT dealing with excessive spending under his watch (he has less than two years to go before he gets tossed out and times running out) than he does about anything else that's important too.

After all his voters are the ones the gravy train is going to stop carrying.

[paraclete]

But I do have to question the inconsistant policy of the Obama White House. They did not give support to the Iranian protesters last year as the Mahdi-hatter's goons gunned them down ,and he evidently is not taking a stand against Gaddafi. Was Mubarak the exception ? And if he is ;what did he do to piss off Obama ?

You got it Tom he is inconsistent or is it he is opportunist and wants to be on the winning side. In Libya the outcome isn't certain yet, the regime has a little more backbone than Mubarak. The Egyptian people didn't take up arms but the Libyans are a horse of a different colour. I doubt Obama wants to be seen backing an armed insurrection. Let the dominos fall where they may

[excon]

In Libya the outcome isn't certain yet, the regime has a little more backbone than Mubarak.

Hello clete:

The writing is on the wall. They're ALL going. Liberty is infectious.

excon

[paraclete]

Hello clete:

The writing is on the wall. They're ALL going. Liberty is infectious.

excon

I agree with you Ex the winds of change are blowing, however I expect the Libyian experience will be bloody. You need to remember that democracy is only an idea in the arab world and it is not the same as liberty. Already we have had the ugly side of religion raising its head and calling for assassination. What is happening in Libya serves no one well and without a constitution as a guide we can expect another military dictatorship. There are going to be millions of people who are essentially leaderless and prey for extremism. We hope that out of it they will have a democratic system but despotism is the more usual system

[smoothy]

Hello clete:

The writing is on the wall. They're ALL going. Liberty is infectious.

excon

There isn't ANY liberty or Democracy under Sharia Law OR under Islamic radicals... who are likely to be the ones that take over in most of those hellholes.

[paraclete]

Smoothy there is no use telling an idealist anything. Ex just has no understanding of conditions in other places, he obviously thinks they should all be like him and sing hail to the chief.

Can an islamic country throw off the shackles of religion? Highly unlikely. Egypt has a chance but it hasn't happened yet, Lybia; what else do they have? The gulf states, even less likely. Ex should ask himself why did the Lybians put up with Gadhafi for 40 years?It is because he gave them something they wanted and it included an anti-american stance. What we are really seeing here is leaders being deposed who have sided with america. Iran is the exception and it had problems long before this jasmine revolution started.

[tomder55]

One can only hope. I think that this ,much like the 1848 European revolutions will not displace the systems that have been in place since the breakup of the Ottomans ,and the nationalism movements post WWII .
It could plant the seeds for democracy ;and that is desirable. Even more desirable would be if the seeds of liberal democracy would grow. That is less likely ;but I have hope because the Iranian and Aghan experiences has shown that theocratic and Islamist control of revolution brings less liberty .

[excon]

Smoothy there is no use telling an idealist anything.

Hello again, clete:

You're right. I don't listen to idiots like you.

excon

[tomder55]

Also noted is that in 3 cases ,Egypt,Libya,and Bahrain ,it has mattered which side has the guns .

Egypt... the military had the guns;refused to fire on the demonstrators ,and deposed the Pharaoh to buy time.

Bahrain... unrest largely the product of Iranian agitation ;the military remained loyal to the crown ;fired on the crowd,and let them continue to demonstrate knowing there is a line they will not be allowed to cross.

Libya... both sides have guns as there is a division in the military .It is decending into tribal civil war.
Q~daffy is still the strong horse (for now) but his regime may be damaged beyond repair .

[paraclete]

It always matters which side has the guns

[smoothy]

it always matters which side has the guns

That's the root of every gun grab since the Nazi Gun Control act...

Take the guns away from the people and they are far easier to oppress.

That's why most liberals favor taking away peoples guns. That's their first step to taking away the Right to free speech and then the right to vote. THen declare the US Constitution, unconstitutional.

Ever notice how Obama got more indignant about everyone who opposes his sermons on the mound, like forcing his stupid healt care disaster on everyone... but make only half the population pay for the entire thing... yet is so gung ho about supporting opposition where Islamic Radicals are likely to take over...

[paraclete]

THats the root of every gun grab since the Nazi Gun Control act.....

.

Well that might be so but it also the root of the gun lobby, armed citizens, minutemen and all that crappola. It's eigthteen century thinking and has just been demonstrated so ably as wrong in the jasmine revolution, hardly a gun in sight.. What I like about my nation is we don't generally have nuts running around shooting people and those that do exported their ideas along with themselves from violent societies where the gun rules