Obama may have been lukewarm or opposed, but clearly not enough to do anything about it. If the US had been really opposed, it would have vetoed the UN resolution, which was entirely in its rights to do. It didn't; so clearly it wasn't so opposed to intervention as that.
Again, I don't understand the question. It seems to be, the US wasn't opposed enough to obstruct NATO getting involved, so, after NATO agreed to do something, shouldn't the US do it? Well obviously yes, if you believe that the left and the right hands should have consistent policies. But that's not the right question. The right question, should the US have tried to obstruct NATO's intervention in the first place? It could have done so if it chose, because NATO's intervention de facto implies American involvement. But the US didn't care enough to block NATO involvement, and that's the problem.
I don't understand the question. If the US had opposed intervention, then NATO wouldn't have approved it; the US' importance in the organization is such that it has an effective veto. Just because France and the UK want to intervene, does not mean that the US is obliged to agree with them, allies or not. (Did France have an obligation not to veto the Iraq resolution at the UN, in spite of being an ally of the US? Clearly not.) And if the only way that France and the UK can intervene is by going the NATO route, the US has no obligation to let them use NATO for their own ends.
"If the Arab People are to be supported by the world in their drive to gain freedom from tyrany, then they should ALL be supported."
A little realism and a little less moral grandstanding please?
Britain - Lockerbie
France - UTA 772
USA - 1986 Berlin
Has the national leaders of Yemen, Bahrain, Oman, or Saudi Arabia consciously committed the same acts of terrorism against the nationals of these 3 countries?
Obviously, even with this background, there would not have been the UN resolution had France not boxed itself in by recognizing the rebels so soon.
That's how the world works. If you don't realize it by now, you are in for an awfully disappointed life.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
Obama may have been lukewarm or opposed, but clearly not enough to do anything about it. If the US had been really opposed, it would have vetoed the UN resolution, which was entirely in its rights to do. It didn't; so clearly it wasn't so opposed to intervention as that.
Again, I don't understand the question. It seems to be, the US wasn't opposed enough to obstruct NATO getting involved, so, after NATO agreed to do something, shouldn't the US do it? Well obviously yes, if you believe that the left and the right hands should have consistent policies. But that's not the right question. The right question, should the US have tried to obstruct NATO's intervention in the first place? It could have done so if it chose, because NATO's intervention de facto implies American involvement. But the US didn't care enough to block NATO involvement, and that's the problem.
I don't understand the question. If the US had opposed intervention, then NATO wouldn't have approved it; the US' importance in the organization is such that it has an effective veto. Just because France and the UK want to intervene, does not mean that the US is obliged to agree with them, allies or not. (Did France have an obligation not to veto the Iraq resolution at the UN, in spite of being an ally of the US? Clearly not.) And if the only way that France and the UK can intervene is by going the NATO route, the US has no obligation to let them use NATO for their own ends.
"It’s just not true that one a hypocrite would be willing to start or support a war in which he is not willing to serve."
Agh, that should be "It’s just not true that only a hypocrite would be willing to start or support a war in which he is not willing to serve."
"If the Arab People are to be supported by the world in their drive to gain freedom from tyrany, then they should ALL be supported."
A little realism and a little less moral grandstanding please?
Britain - Lockerbie
France - UTA 772
USA - 1986 Berlin
Has the national leaders of Yemen, Bahrain, Oman, or Saudi Arabia consciously committed the same acts of terrorism against the nationals of these 3 countries?
Obviously, even with this background, there would not have been the UN resolution had France not boxed itself in by recognizing the rebels so soon.
That's how the world works. If you don't realize it by now, you are in for an awfully disappointed life.