Those not in favor of Libyan mission...

[500grains]

A sample list of people opposed to US action in Libya: Louis Farrakhan, Vladimir Putin, Hu Jintao, Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, ... and me. Oh, and Joe Biden and Barack Obama himself. In general I am an extreme right wing nut job, so I find myself in strange company on this one.

My reasons:

(a) IMO the Prez should use military action without getting Congressional approval if the US is attacked, or there is imminent danger of an attack, if US citizens are in danger, or if US interests are in danger. Otherwise the Prez should get a Congressional resolution or a declaration of war. None of these apply to the Libyan situation.

(b) The US should not get involved directly in civil wars. We cannot afford to be the world's policeman, and it often does not turn out well. I have no problem providing weapons, etc. to groups we want to help, but overtly intervening in a civil war is a dangerous policy.

(c) We are not there to kill Ghadaffi. If the mission were to kill Ghadaffi and leave, I would be all for it. Ghadaffi is a fair target because he targeted Americans in the past. But the way Robert Gates talks, it seems that if someone kills Ghadaffi they are going to be prosecuted.

Here is what some of the others have said:

___

'Minister Louis Farrakhan, said of Obama recently, “Who the hell do you think you are,” trying to remove Gadhafi from power?'

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/151663-who-the-hell-do-you-thin-you-are
___

'...leaders from Russia, China and India are condemning the U.S., French, and British coalition and urging President Obama to immediately cease the military mission in Libya.'

http://www.examiner.com/law-enforcement-in-national/farrakhan-putin-blast-obama-over-libyan-mission
___

Add Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) to the list of those who think President Barack Obama’s imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya is deserving of impeachment. Last weekend Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio, picture left) said that he believes Obama’s war is “an impeachable offense” because, as he wrote in a letter to colleagues, “the President committed the U.S. to military intervention without consulting Congress, in clear subversion of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives only Congress the power to declare war.”
___

Dennis Kucinich:



I want to point out that I’m in pretty good company raising this question. Because Joe Biden, when he was a candidate in December 2007, said that if President Bush had gone ahead to attack Iran without congressional authorization, that he would move to impeach him. President Obama said the president doesn’t have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation…My reading of the Constitution is consistent with the people who are now president and vice president.”

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/03/24/awesome-dennis-kucinich-cites-joe-biden-barack-obama-to-push-impeaching-obama/

___

"64% of Americans oppose this war" http://www.bayoubuzz.com/Latest-Buzz/us-fights-operation-enduring-idiocy-against-libyas-gaddafi.html
___

etc.

[LowSpeed_HighDrag]

It's a hard one for me, but I agree it's something we shouldve kept our noses out of. I only pray we don't get so involved that we can't easily step out. Maybe we've already crossed that line....

[Armati]

My problem with this mission is same as my problem with the two other wars we have been fighting for the last 10 years - no clear Mission End State.

WTF are we actually trying to do? How is this being articulated to the force.

The Obama regime is chalk full of morons. I don't think any of these turds (including the SECDEF) have any idea of what they are trying to accomplish.

Of course, if you will recall your Orwell, a Police State does require eternal war to impose their will on the people.

[Belmont31R]

I only like it because the jackass has been behind terrorist attacks on us before. He's literally gotten away with murder of many citizens.



As far as this 'current' thing goes we need to stay out of it.



We have our own war going on right to the south of us and all but ignore it.

[madisonsfinest]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

It will come out that the Admin has ties to someone in Libya that has ties to AQ.


This makes the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" look like simple logic. My enemy (not that we are trying to kill him- but it would be nice if someone shot him), who was a past acquaintance, who used to by my enemy, is enemies with my current enemy- actually enemies since there are Iranian backed Shia and AQ Sunnis.

Who are we bombing?

[usmcvet]

I've enjoyed the videos of President Reagan being shown. He had his shit together and made things Crystal Clear: mess with the bull, and you get the horns. I felt safe when he was president. This president needs to take a lesson from Reagan. I hate to admit it, but I found myself wishing Hillary was president and not him!

[SteyrAUG]

I would prefer the Arab league take direct action rather than having us function as their errand boy.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I've enjoyed the videos of President Regan being shown. He had his shit together and made things Chrystal Clear.

Chrystal Clear- What a great stripper name. Bow-chicky, Bow-wow.




Mess with the bull and you get the horns. I fekt safe when he was oresident. The president needs to take a lesson from Regan. I hate to admit it but I found myself wishing Hillary was president and not him!

I think the term "O-resident" fits O-bama perfectly. He's not really a citizen, he just lives here.

[LowSpeed_HighDrag]

Nato refuses to take the brunt of the Combat Ops in Libya, US left with responsibility. My brothers will be killed in Libya for nothing. Yet again we are faced with a war that no one understands and can do nothing about. God Bless America.

http://www.military.com/news/article/us-likely-to-keep-combat-role-in-libya-shift.html?ESRC=eb.nl

[chadbag]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

It is not as simple as that. If Obama and company had an ounce of leadership in his genes, then he could articulate it and you could at least see why he did what he did, whether you agree with it or not. But he doesn't, and no one knows why or what the hell we are doing there etc.

Message of the hour changes, know one knows what he really thinks and he looks weak and wishy washy.

---

He should have, IMNSHO, told Sarkozy and Cameron -- I have your back. This is your backyard, take care of it. I will run interference for you at the UN but our boys can't be involved with more than humanitarian missions. And we can resupply you into your country with stuff (that you need to take to theater).

And then stayed resolved and done it.

[30 cal slut]

From my clueless perspective, our involvement in Libya is as clear as mud.

1) The rebel leader in Libya was (still is?) a muj who fought against Americans in Afghanistan.

2) Kadaffy duck probably still has allies in Europe

3) This rebellion is likely yet another product of pot-stirring by Iran, which is seeking to heat up the age-old Sunni vs. Shia hatred. If the rebels win in Libya, does this mean the Persians get more influence in the region? Or is the other way around?

4) Our forces are stretched.

5) The President is getting flack from all sides politically.

I don't envy the President's position right now.

[stifled]

I wonder if the Nobel committee is thinking about asking for the Peace Prize back...

[Magic_Salad0892]

Didn't Quadaffi (however you spell it) say that if he was brought down that AQ would take over Lybia?

I find it ironic that the ONE thing he says that could be true, could be the last thing he says as Lybian president.

If U.S. doesn't intervene then we might have to be involved with yet another war later.

I don't support getting US troops on the ground, but goddamn we need to make some American jobs, make and sell some damn guns, and support non-AQ pro-US Lybian rebels.

I'm kind of afraid of the same thing happening in Egypt.

Where do our British brothers stand on this one?

[Cagemonkey]

"The Devil you know (Ghadaffi) vs the Devil you don't" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html . This just seems to get worst by the minute. Throw in Egypt going over the the Muslim Brotherhood. Yemen's President (US Ally) stepping down. Al Qaeda will take over in Yemen. Afghanistan is a lost cause. Pakistan (So called Ally) has to be paid off to get the release of a US diplomatic person. Meanwhile they support the Taliban, black mail us to allow supplies into Afghanistan and we sell them new F16's. Iraq is a big question mark. Very likely Iran will annex southern Iraq in the future (Its a Shia thing) and control the 2nd largest oil reserves. Jordan is questionable, especially as other dominos fall. Saudi Arabia is a time bomb. Etc, etc... I'm not very optimistic at the moment. Lets not even get into our National Debt and the Chinese. We are so f*cked. Somebody tell me a nice bed time story.

[Irish]

A waste of money, time and lives on our part, none of which we can afford. I see nothing positive coming out of this for America in the long run. We're supposed to be a country of non-intervention and free trade to promote the American ideals, not the world police.

Here's a quote from this article http://www.thedailybell.com/1851/Anthony-Wile-Mid-East-Conflict-Not-Exactly-About-Oil.html I recommend reading the whole thing.

Is it a coincidence that the nations states that are targeted for immediate democratic revolution are those primarily rich in oil? No. Those states, rich in oil, are the very threat to the global agenda of the Western elites, not because they will restrict shipment of oil, but because they are likely waking up to the fact that the US dollar is finished. The game is up so to speak. The ‘Net is where the real revolution is happening and it is one driven by a desire to know the truth about societal manipulation and control.

Did Western powers really invade Iraq because Saddam was a bad guy or because the West needed his oil? Or is it because shortly before the invasion he declared his intentions to sell oil for other currencies besides the US dollar, even in the only form of real money that truly threatens the fiat-money one-world-order kings – gold?

Do Western powers really want to invade Iran because of their nuclear ambitions (anti-democratic right?) or to secure its vast oil resources? Or is it because Iran's leaders have also determined that if China, for example, wishes to buy its oil why should they trade it in US dollars? Especially when it is on its last legs and on the verge of a complete collapse? Do Western powers really care about the people of Venezuela and the need to instill "democracy" in that country or to secure its vast oil reserves? Or are they focused instead on making sure that Chavez trades his oil in dollars as well?

The same goes for Libya, Tunisia and the rest of the oil-producing world. Oil is the one commodity that all countries need and it is imperative for the elite focused on the greater agenda of implementing one-world government that the fiat-money financing tool be utilized in international trade. The Ponzi scheme requires it. Without the ability to continually create endless amounts on money-out-of-nothing, which central banks do, there would be no ability to fund the globe spanning US industrial complex that enables the Anglosphere elite to utilize the US as its bad-boy enforcer.



I do not support Gaddafi's reign but I also do not support a war against him. The fact of the matter is people resent foreign conquerors even more than local despots, and this resentment is not a good foundation for a future of liberty.

[Irish]

I'd like to add what I believe are a few key points that haven't been touched on thus far.

The Charter of the U.N. in Article 2 calls for the "sovereign equality of all its Members." Its Members are States (not We the People). Libya is a member. The U.N. intervention is violating its own Charter by disregarding Libyan sovereignty, and by taking it upon itself to determine the nature of that sovereignty.

Article 2 refers repeatedly to international disputes, i.e., disputes that are between or among States, not within States. It ends up saying explicitly that "Nothing in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state..." The U.N. is violating this provision of its Charter when it intervenes in Libya.

A Chapter 7 Resolution has been enacted and is the U.N. equivalent to a formal declaration of war. The US ambassador to the UN is already pushing for a ground war in the country to further complicate things. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...e-US-says.html

On another note...

The King of Bahrain has called in troops from Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait to attack pro-democracy protestors in Bahrain. They're using American tanks, guns and mercenaries to crush the pro-democracy movement there and yet the world remains silent.

Thus it is that with Washington's tacit blessing, Saudi troops are helping Bahrain's U.S.-equipped security forces to massacre peaceful protesters. This was done, once again, to secure an Arab League resolution asking the Security Council to authorize a "no-fly zone" in Libya, which the public was told would be a "limited" engagement. Of course a "no-fly zone" is an act of war. When warplanes invade and occupy a country's air space, and the pilots are given orders to kill, foreplay has ended and intromission has occurred.

Things like this are happening in Bahrain and we do nothing.

www.youtube.com/embed/D9W_-0uGN1E

www.youtube.com/embed/8tkG7jkUYTg

I think this is really interesting, the history of US military intervention: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...e-US-says.html

[Rmplstlskn]

Add me to the list of those not in favor...

I think the CIA needs to start assasinating pricks like Mohammar, Muqtada al-Sadr, and the like, and save the blood of our young men for raising families, building USA back again, etc...

Rmpl

[kal]

www.youtube.com/embed/8tkG7jkUYTg

:eek:

It's all gone........the whole brain is gone.

[Mac5.56]

Dennis Kucinich:


If you would have asked me last night if I would have ever seen 500grains quote Dennis Kucinich, I would have said "No way in hell!" Guess we can all be wrong.

I think this intervention brings up a lot of pre-9/11 issues of U.S. interventionism that were never solved before the WOT, and I honestly don't know what my answer is about global involvement in Libya. It has been really difficult for me to decide if NATO should be involved. I think one of the biggest failures of the 90's was a lack of intervention in Rwanda, so I honestly can't make my mind up about Libya.

I do think however that the U.S. taking a leading roll (or any roll at all really) was a very poor choice. We should have taken a back seat on this one and played an advisory roll if anything at all.

I can't help but wonder though how many flag wavers would be all for it if the president was a member of the GOP.

[LowSpeed_HighDrag]

I can't help but wonder though how many flag wavers would be all for it if the president was a member of the GOP.

This is what I've been pondering lately as well.

[Mac5.56]

This is what I've been pondering lately as well.

This is the biggest most important question regarding all of it. U.S. interventionism has been a problem since way before Libya, way before Bush, and so on. Bush was elected on a promise to his party not to be the world's policemen. I remember reading several papers, articles, and reports that this was the biggest policy factor (excluding "lifestyle" politics) that got him elected for his first term. Our economy today shows what will happen if we continue to act as the world's police.

But the ****ing conundrum for me personally still goes back to Rwanda. Where do we draw the line in the sand ethically regarding intervention?

[SteyrAUG]

Things like this are happening in Bahrain and we do nothing.

www.youtube.com/embed/D9W_-0uGN1E

www.youtube.com/embed/8tkG7jkUYTg




I probably could have gone my whole life without seeing that and been just fine about it.

[Rmplstlskn]

I personally don't care who or what party is in Office or in control of Congress, from past experience and lessons learned, I do not support our military and resources being used to get these people put into power over an entire country... They are ON THEIR OWN...

Al Qaeda supports and joins Libyan rebels...
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/afp/20110326/capt.photo_1301132215497-1-0.jpg?x=400&y=266&q=85&sig=m3.dWzjwgJhKlu8FlMhSkA--

[chadbag]

I do think however that the U.S. taking a leading roll (or any roll at all really) was a very poor choice. We should have taken a back seat on this one and played an advisory roll if anything at all.


I agree we should have taken a support role and not a leading role on this one.

However




I can't help but wonder though how many flag wavers would be all for it if the president was a member of the GOP.

It is not that simple. One problem with what Obama has done is that he has shown ZERO leadership. If he is going to do something, he should look like he believes in it, do it when it is relevant and not weeks later, and lead, not kind of sort of stand up and try to push it off on "the international community", whatever that is.

I suspect that a GOP President, whatever he did in this matter, would have gone about it totally differently. No matter where you stand on intervention, etc, Obama has flunked this one by how he did (or did not) do it.

[Mac5.56]

It is not that simple. One problem with what Obama has done is that he has shown ZERO leadership. If he is going to do something, he should look like he believes in it, do it when it is relevant and not weeks later, and lead, not kind of sort of stand up and try to push it off on "the international community", whatever that is.

I suspect that a GOP President, whatever he did in this matter, would have gone about it totally differently. No matter where you stand on intervention, etc, Obama has flunked this one by how he did (or did not) do it.

I realize it is not as "simple" as my original statement, but I still stand by the statement, and will add a bit to it.

I don't think he failed to "show" leadership, I think his tactic of leadership regarding military use is different then that of the GOP. I say this with the knowledge that Clinton bombed more countries then any other president, but didn't bang his chest while he did it. I think it is a tactic to placate their base. If they don't grand stand about their interventions, no one holds them under a microscope.

Just a thought about one of my observations. I could be completely off base with this one.

[glocktogo]

If you would have asked me last night if I would have ever seen 500grains quote Dennis Kucinich, I would have said "No way in hell!" Guess we can all be wrong.

I think this intervention brings up a lot of pre-9/11 issues of U.S. interventionism that were never solved before the WOT, and I honestly don't know what my answer is about global involvement in Libya. It has been really difficult for me to decide if NATO should be involved. I think one of the biggest failures of the 90's was a lack of intervention in Rwanda, so I honestly can't make my mind up about Libya.

I do think however that the U.S. taking a leading roll (or any roll at all really) was a very poor choice. We should have taken a back seat on this one and played an advisory roll if anything at all.

I can't help but wonder though how many flag wavers would be all for it if the president was a member of the GOP.

I wouldn't be among them. I think Bush made some grievous tactical errors in the WOT and I don't think we have any legitimate reasons for intervening in Libya's internal struggles now. It would be entirely different if Lybia were attacking one of our allies. They're not so we should keep out of it.

[500grains]

Irony - bombing ghadaffi to protect al qaeda.

[Irish]

I probably could have gone my whole life without seeing that and been just fine about it.

My apologies. What's happening in Bahrain is conveniently ignored by our media and government. The Ivory Coast is in complete upheaval at this point in time too and yet we do nothing as well. Several other countries have civil wars and uprisings occuring and we do nothing. We need to focus out time, money and efforts inside of our own borders.

[Rmplstlskn]

My apologies. What's happening in Bahrain is conveniently ignored by our media and government. The Ivory Coast is in complete upheaval at this point in time too and yet we do nothing as well. Several other countries have civil wars and uprisings occuring and we do nothing. We need to focus out time, money and efforts inside of our own borders.

Yep, in violent times, people get shot and bullets do major damage, especially when they impact the head... But as you said, the whole middle-east and ivory coast is a powder keg with a lit fuse...

I truly hope we don't get sucked in...

Rmpl

[Redmanfms]

Yep, in violent times, people get shot and bullets do major damage, especially when they impact the head... But as you said, the whole middle-east and ivory coast is a powder keg with a lit fuse...

I truly hope we don't get sucked in...

Rmpl

The ME is definitely a powder keg. Actually it's almost a crate of sweating dynamite. One little bump and BOOM! Some of the backstory elements to Homefront (the recent Milius videogame) may actually be coming true, namely the "Great Arab War." $20/gallon gasoline might be a very real possibility.

I'm less concerned about West Africa.

1. It's been in turmoil off-and-on for the better part of 50 years.

2. It doesn't have anything anybody really needs (or even wants that much, except maybe diamonds).

A human tragedy for sure, but external forces won't fix deeply embedded cultural problems, except through colonization and the locals surely won't like that.

[chadbag]

I'm less concerned about West Africa.

1. It's been in turmoil off-and-on for the better part of 50 years.

2. It doesn't have anything anybody really needs (or even wants that much, except maybe diamonds).

A human tragedy for sure, but external forces won't fix deeply embedded cultural problems, except through colonization and the locals surely won't like that.

I don't know about IC but Nigeria has oil and is a member of OPEC and is in West Africa (and has been having problems with "insurgents")

[chadbag]

I realize it is not as "simple" as my original statement, but I still stand by the statement, and will add a bit to it.

I don't think he failed to "show" leadership, I think his tactic of leadership regarding military use is different then that of the GOP. I say this with the knowledge that Clinton bombed more countries then any other president, but didn't bang his chest while he did it. I think it is a tactic to placate their base. If they don't grand stand about their interventions, no one holds them under a microscope.

Just a thought about one of my observations. I could be completely off base with this one.


Well, I don't equate *banging your chest* with leadership. I don't remember the details of Clinton's time with regards to the Balkans and every where else he sent a missile, so cannot compare, but Obama has shown a distinct lack of leadership, with or without the chest thumping, in this and most issues lately. At least Clinton was not so equivocal about it and lead the Balkan players to the peace table in Ohio.

[Redmanfms]

I don't know about IC but Nigeria has oil and is a member of OPEC and is in West Africa (and has been having problems with "insurgents")

Forgot about them.

[Mac5.56]

I don't know about IC but Nigeria has oil and is a member of OPEC and is in West Africa (and has been having problems with "insurgents")

Not to mention that Angola was the largest investment by Exxonmobil in 2007-2010, and is now one of the largest oil producers in Africa.

But, yea, West Africa has nothing we want... :rolleyes:

[Mac5.56]

Well, I don't equate *banging your chest* with leadership. I don't remember the details of Clinton's time with regards to the Balkans and every where else he sent a missile, so cannot compare, but Obama has shown a distinct lack of leadership, with or without the chest thumping, in this and most issues lately. At least Clinton was not so equivocal about it and lead the Balkan players to the peace table in Ohio.

I remember there being fierce criticism of Clinton's "leadership". But all and all I'm not disagreeing with your observations.

[chadbag]

I remember there being fierce criticism of Clinton's "leadership".


Sure, but compared to Obama he was an Eagle Scout!

I don't think Clinton was a particularly great leader on an absolute scale. He was Mister Triangulator Poll Driven. At the time, we didn't have Obama to compare him with. :p


But all and all I'm not disagreeing with your observations.

[ForTehNguyen]

so how long until the first US life is lost there, would it be considered worth it? We are freaking lucky those F15 pilots were picked up by rebels and not pro govt forces, they would be paraded around like trophies.

Syria, Yemen, and some other countries have been killing a bunch of protestors, we got any spare tomahawks? What a complete joke this is.

[SteyrAUG]

My apologies. What's happening in Bahrain is conveniently ignored by our media and government. The Ivory Coast is in complete upheaval at this point in time too and yet we do nothing as well. Several other countries have civil wars and uprisings occuring and we do nothing. We need to focus out time, money and efforts inside of our own borders.


No biggie. I've seen it before, just at a place in my life where I prefer to see it less.

In any case, nothing new for our us. We condemned apartheid for years while ignoring the savagery of African tribalism which was the cause of most of the apartheid in the first place.

We sent money, arms and even men to support those "yearning to be free" in several places while issuing nothing more than critical words over Tienanmen Square.

This is also of course nothing new. Europe began a world war to honor their alliances with Poland and in the end, allowed it to change hands from a brutal German dictator to a brutal Russian dictator with the blessings of FDR.

[Redmanfms]

Not to mention that Angola was the largest investment by Exxonmobil in 2007-2010, and is now one of the largest oil producers in Africa.

But, yea, West Africa has nothing we want... :rolleyes:

Angola isn't in West Africa.

[500grains]

Looks like Al Q. is taking good advantage of its opportunity. I wonder how long until these are put into action.




AL-QAEDA'S offshoot in North Africa has snatched surface-to-air missiles from an arsenal in Libya during the civil strife there, Chad's President says.

Idriss Deby Itno did not say how many surface-to-air missiles were stolen, but told the African weekly Jeune Afrique that he was "100 per cent sure" of his assertion.

"The Islamists of al-Qaeda took advantage of the pillaging of arsenals in the rebel zone to acquire arms, including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries in Tenere," a desert region of the Sahara that stretches from northeast Niger to western Chad, Deby said in the interview.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/al-qaeda-snatched-missiles-in-libya/story-e6frfku0-1226028543204#ixzz1HlrMVpfb

[austinN4]

A waste of money, time and lives on our part, none of which we can afford. I see nothing positive coming out of this for America in the long run.
This pretty much sums it up for me also. The UK and France need to take the lead on this and clean up their own backyard. And we need to clean up ours.

[ForTehNguyen]

now the US Admin is saying we may be in there for months not weeks :rolleyes:

Boy I didnt see that one coming!

[Mac5.56]

Angola isn't in West Africa.

http://www.kingstone-high.hereford.sch.uk/_files/images/users/hbowler/map_africa.jpg

Didn't realize the West Coast of Africa isn't West Africa. You mind explaining that to me, I'm curious about the designation of what is west Africa.

[Mac5.56]

now the US Admin is saying we may be in there for months not weeks :rolleyes:

Boy I didnt see that one coming!

Yea right!!! Who would have guessed it. Months will turn into half a year in no time, then a year.

How long until Obama stands on an carrier and declares Mission Accomplished?

[Packman73]

I'd rather see this $$ protecting the USA border from Mexico...

[Palmguy]

http://www.kingstone-high.hereford.sch.uk/_files/images/users/hbowler/map_africa.jpg

Didn't realize the West Coast of Africa isn't West Africa. You mind explaining that to me, I'm curious about the designation of what is west Africa.

Perhaps I'm splitting hairs or this is not a good analogy but the rough geometry has similarities...

(almost) No one considers the region that is colored in the map below to be "West Florida". If you say "West Florida", that generally refers to the panhandle. The region that is colored is Southwest Florida. Splitting hairs? Maybe...but it is what it is.

http://www.socalofficerealestateblog.com/wp-content/newuploads/2009/03/southwest-florida-300x299.png

Now whether or not Angola is in what is commonly accepted as West Africa, I honestly have no idea. But it's not incomprehensible or ridiculous to me that it might not be...

[500grains]

I thought it was "days not weeks" and now it is "months not weeks"?

George Orwell, get in here!

John Kerry: "I actually voted FOR the 87 billion BEFORE I voted against it".

http://www.conservapedia.com/Obama_doublespeak

[LowSpeed_HighDrag]

I thought it was "days not weeks" and now it is "months not weeks"?

George Orwell, get in here!

John Kerry: "I actually voted FOR the 87 billion BEFORE I voted against it".

http://www.conservapedia.com/Obama_doublespeak

Because of this whole Libya situation, I put "1984" back on my kindle and began reading. Ministry of Plenty fixes past mistakes said by the government. Our gov. has a great Ministry of Plenty working for it.

[Rmplstlskn]

I really cannot decide if we are dealing with gross incompetence of Obama and his crew or the all out designed destruction of the country under the guise of "transformation" he promised... :shout:

Rmpl

[austinN4]

now the US Admin is saying we may be in there for months not weeks
This makes me wanna puke.

[LowSpeed_HighDrag]

Operation We Do What We Want
Operation Try Not To Think About It
Operation Prostate Exam
Operation HK (you, we hate you and dont care what you think)
Operation Reckless Abandon
Operation You See What I Did There

[montanadave]

Let's see.

WWII: U.S. Forces still deployed in Germany and Japan? Check.

Korean War: U.S. Forces still deployed in Korea? Check.

Vietnam War: U.S. Forces still deployed in Vietnam? Don't think so.

Lebanon: U.S. Forces still deployed in Lebanon? Nope.

Kuwait/Desert Storm: U.S. Forces still deployed in Persian Gulf. Check.

Somalia: U.S. Forces still deployed in Horn of Africa? Not positive, but I don't think so.

Balkans: U.S. Forces still deployed in Bosnia & Kosovo? Check.

Afghanistan: U.S. Forces still deployed in Afghanistan? Check.

Iraq/Iraqi Freedom: U.S. Forces still deployed in Iraq? Check.

Libya/Odyssey Dawn: Stay tuned

I realize this list is incomplete and I'm working from memory, but it seems the only conflicts from which the U.S. has been able to actually walk away from without having to garrison the country(ies) involved have been Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia.

I don't know about the rest of you, but something seems wrong with this picture. If the only way to win is to stay forever, maybe we ought not get involved quite so often.

[500grains]

UPDATE from SECDEF Gates:




...nobody has "any idea" how long the United States military could be involved in Libya,

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/27/gates-idea-long-military-involved-libya/#ixzz1HqFHZl29




Aaaaaaaargh!!! :suicide2:





REPORTER: "Do you think Libya posed an actual or imminent threat to the United States?”"

“No, no,” Gates said in a joint appearance with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “It was not -- it was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest and it was an interest for all of the reasons Secretary Clinton talked about. The engagement of the Arabs, the engagement of the Europeans, the general humanitarian question that was at stake,” he said.

... Barack Obama told The Boston Globe that “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/03/defense-secretary-libya-did-not-pose-threat-to-us-was-not-vital-national-interest-to-intervene.html


So...., We went to war because of peer pressure. Without a plan. Without an objective. Without a budget. Without an end game. And without Congress. :(

And it has been the President's position for years that military action in such a situation would be unconstitutional.

Now I am going to look out the window to see if birds are flying backwards.

[J-Dub]

Let's see.

WWII: U.S. Forces still deployed in Germany and Japan? Check.

Korean War: U.S. Forces still deployed in Korea? Check.

Vietnam War: U.S. Forces still deployed in Vietnam? Don't think so.

Lebanon: U.S. Forces still deployed in Lebanon? Nope.

Kuwait/Desert Storm: U.S. Forces still deployed in Persian Gulf. Check.

Somalia: U.S. Forces still deployed in Horn of Africa? Not positive, but I don't think so.

Balkans: U.S. Forces still deployed in Bosnia & Kosovo? Check.

Afghanistan: U.S. Forces still deployed in Afghanistan? Check.

Iraq/Iraqi Freedom: U.S. Forces still deployed in Iraq? Check.

Libya/Odyssey Dawn: Stay tuned

I realize this list is incomplete and I'm working from memory, but it seems the only conflicts from which the U.S. has been able to actually walk away from without having to garrison the country(ies) involved have been Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia.

I don't know about the rest of you, but something seems wrong with this picture. If the only way to win is to stay forever, maybe we ought not get involved quite so often.

I concur..

[Skyyr]

Wouldn't it be awesome if this ended up with impeachment, some way, some how?

[Belmont31R]

Not every situation is the same. After WW2 we fought the ruskies. We had to. No other way to go about it. Occupying west Germany after WW2 was 100% completely necessary to keep the ivans from taking over all of Europe just like Hitler did/tried to do.



Not even close to the being comparable to Libya.

[montanadave]

Not every situation is the same. After WW2 we fought the ruskies. We had to. No other way to go about it. Occupying west Germany after WW2 was 100% completely necessary to keep the ivans from taking over all of Europe just like Hitler did/tried to do.



Not even close to the being comparable to Libya.

I agree. The disparate circumstances surrounding each of these military deployments is undeniable. And, yet, we still have U.S. forces garrisoned around the globe, not to mention multiple naval task forces sailing every ocean, years after the cessation of hostilities.

Did we need U.S. troops in Germany after WWII? Sure, but WWII ended over 65 years ago and the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union dissolved 20 years ago. Maybe it's time some folks started carrying their own water and American taxpayers stopped subsidizing the security of every Klaus, Young-soo, and Hakeem on the planet.

[500grains]

Wouldn't it be awesome if this ended up with impeachment, some way, some how?

I am afraid that would "prove" we are racist, and our cities would burn with riots. Although the damage to our country is severe, it seems to me the best route is to let the Prez continue to implode.

[chadbag]

Did we need U.S. troops in Germany after WWII? Sure, but WWII ended over 65 years ago and the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union dissolved 20 years ago. Maybe it's time some folks started carrying their own water and American taxpayers stopped subsidizing the security of every Klaus, Young-soo, and Hakeem on the planet.

I don't disagree, but WRT Germany, we are not there to protect Klaus. We are there because it is close to the ME. After the dissolution of the WP and the SU, there was a huge draw-down in Europe and there is a lot less US military presence there. But we had lots of fine facilities and an interest in the ME and Europe is an interesting place for that reason since it is reasonably close to the ME...

[variablebinary]

Our military needs something to do.

You really want a bunch of vets coming home to no jobs, crap economy and a nation overrun with illegals?

What would our defense contractors do? Lay off thousands.

Those are good reasons to go to war...right?

[RogerinTPA]

My problem with this mission is same as my problem with the two other wars we have been fighting for the last 10 years - no clear Mission End State.

WTF are we actually trying to do? How is this being articulated to the force.

The Obama regime is chalk full of morons. I don't think any of these turds (including the SECDEF) have any idea of what they are trying to accomplish.

Of course, if you will recall your Orwell, a Police State does require eternal war to impose their will on the people.


I would prefer the Arab league take direct action rather than having us function as their errand boy.


Agree with both statements. Having said that, now that we are sorta committed, lets finish off Kadaffi's offensive capability, come home and let African/Arab nations do the light work.

[Rmplstlskn]

Our military needs something to do.

You really want a bunch of vets coming home to no jobs, crap economy and a nation overrun with illegals?

What would our defense contractors do? Lay off thousands.

Those are good reasons to go to war...right?

Well, now that you put it that way... You have a point. :D

Rmpl

[ZRH]

Let's see.

WWII: U.S. Forces still deployed in Germany and Japan? Check.

Korean War: U.S. Forces still deployed in Korea? Check.

Vietnam War: U.S. Forces still deployed in Vietnam? Don't think so.

Lebanon: U.S. Forces still deployed in Lebanon? Nope.

Kuwait/Desert Storm: U.S. Forces still deployed in Persian Gulf. Check.

Somalia: U.S. Forces still deployed in Horn of Africa? Not positive, but I don't think so.

Balkans: U.S. Forces still deployed in Bosnia & Kosovo? Check.

Afghanistan: U.S. Forces still deployed in Afghanistan? Check.

Iraq/Iraqi Freedom: U.S. Forces still deployed in Iraq? Check.

Libya/Odyssey Dawn: Stay tuned

I realize this list is incomplete and I'm working from memory, but it seems the only conflicts from which the U.S. has been able to actually walk away from without having to garrison the country(ies) involved have been Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia.

I don't know about the rest of you, but something seems wrong with this picture. If the only way to win is to stay forever, maybe we ought not get involved quite so often.
Occupation of the Dominican Republic (1916-1924)
Occupation of Haiti (1915)
Occupation of Nicaragua (1912-1933)
China Relief Expedition (1901?)
Bombed Libya in 1981, 1986 and 1989
Operation Urgent Fury (Grenada) 1983
Operation Just Cause (Panama) 1989
Haiti (Again - 1994)

Just to be complete -.-

[ForTehNguyen]

Am I reading this correctly?


Asked on NBC whether the mission in Libya was vital to U.S. interests, Gates said: “No, I don’t think it’s a vital interest for the United States, but we clearly have interests there and it’s a part of the region, which is a vital interest for the United States.”

:confused:

from:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-27/u-s-won-t-intervene-in-syria-unrest-clinton-says-on-cbs.html

[500grains]

That is what Mr. Gates said.

- not a vital interest of the US
- not a threat to the US

[J-Dub]

my main thought is that we cant afford the shit we're involved in currently, so how in the hell could we pay for another conflict?

[Irish]

my main thought is that we cant afford the shit we're involved in currently, so how in the hell could we pay for another conflict?

Just print more money. :suicide2:

[Mac5.56]

Just print more money. :suicide2:

Yea that seems to be the solution doesn't it.

[montanadave]

Well, I mailed in my quarterly tax estimates this AM and, at a $1,000,000 a unit, I just paid for 1.65% of a Tomahawk cruise missile.

Talk about money well spent! :bad:

[Irish]

Since I already brought up Bahrain in this thread I thought I'd add a little bit more...

Drive by shootings by Bahrain police: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swScM_glSB0&feature=player_embedded#at=15

Another video where they shoot at a guy driving by videoing within the first 30 seconds. At about 2:20 cops shootings at protestors: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IcqYASb_Q&feature=related

[kal]

Must I have to do this again? 3rd world hell holes don't have governments, they have mafias/gangs. So let's rephrase this quote....


Since I already brought up Bahrain in this thread I thought I'd add a little bit more...

Drive by shootings by Bahrain gang members: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swScM_glSB0&feature=player_embedded#at=15

Another video where thugs shoot at a guy driving by videoing within the first 30 seconds. At about 2:20 thugs shootings at protestors: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IcqYASb_Q&feature=related


driving by videoing

:lol:

[usmcvet]

Well, I mailed in my quarterly tax estimates this AM and, at a $1,000,000 a unit, I just paid for 1.65% of a Tomahawk cruise missile.

Talk about money well spent! :bad:

I was thinking about that yesterday at least our military will have new cruise missiles in their inventory. Those things are freaking awesome. In '91 it was like watching a fireworks display.

[R/Tdrvr]

So...., We went to war because of peer pressure. Without a plan. Without an objective. Without a budget. Without an end game. And without Congress. :(

And it has been the President's position for years that military action in such a situation would be unconstitutional.


Yep, but its ok because Obama is the Pres. If this had been a Republican president the Dems would be screaming for impeachment.

[Belmont31R]

Obama Libya Speech: http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2011/03/28/president-obama-s-speech-libya

[variablebinary]

The main problem with our recent military endeavors is our inability politically and nationally to commit to what needs to be.

Open the draft, get a million boots on the ground, crush AQ, the taliban, and turn one middle eastern nation around in the same way we did Japan. Establish a real middle eastern ally for trade, and base of operations for that theater. Give the Arabs a viable alternative to zealotry.

A war can't be half assed. Play to win, or don't play at all.

These tit for tats with Muslims will always be losing propositions. Anything other than victory is defeat, even if politicians will have you believe otherwise.

[Belmont31R]

If we did anything close to that Mexico would be a lot better proposition than the arabs. The only thing the arabs have to offer is oil, and we don't even use that much ME oil. It should be a European matter since its in their backyard not ours.



Besides the military's objective is defense of the US not defense of arabs.

[variablebinary]

If we did anything close to that Mexico would be a lot better proposition than the arabs. The only thing the arabs have to offer is oil, and we don't even use that much ME oil. It should be a European matter since its in their backyard not ours.



Besides the military's objective is defense of the US not defense of arabs.

I'd rather Mexico was completely cordoned off and treated as a hostile nation.

The middle east needs a renaissance of sorts to bring them out of the dark ages. All out, full blown war and rebuilding of a moderate, secular, free, economic superpower is the only way to do it.

If not that, than we should be doing nothing, because this current hands tied COIN garbage is going nowhere fast.

[Belmont31R]

I'd rather Mexico was completely cordoned off and treated as a hostile nation.

The middle east needs a renaissance of sorts to bring them out of the dark ages. All out, full blown war and rebuilding of a moderate, secular, free, economic superpower is the only way to do it.

If not that, than we should be doing nothing, because this current hands tied COIN garbage is going nowhere fast.



Mexico is a lot more vital to our interests than any ME country. Behind Canada Mexico is our #2 importer of oil and petroleum products.

[variablebinary]

Mexico is a lot more vital to our interests than any ME country. Behind Canada Mexico is our #2 importer of oil and petroleum products.

The difference being if radical change is not brought to the Islamic world the entire planet will be plunged into global war to deal with the radicals as they commit acts of terror on western nations.

It's only a matter of time before they start nuking us or each other unless we give them a reason not to. A huge injection into their quality of life will turn more people around than anything else.

Mexico is just a shit hole. Low on significance, high on dragging America down into the gutter unless we shut them down and keep them out. Anything Mexico might have is not worth it enough to deal with them.

[austinN4]

A war can't be half assed. Play to win, or don't play at all.
Seems obvious to most of us, so why doesn't the US do it?

[WillBrink]

(c) We are not there to kill Ghadaffi.

And I'm still trying to figure out why not. Ghadaffi is the problem, he's no longer seen as the legit ruler of the country by most countries worth giving a damn about, and he's directly responsible for the death of Americans and others and funded terrorism, etc for decades until he decided he wanted to play nice.

What moral code are we breaking by simply taking him out? We put our people in harms way, and his poor idiot "soldiers" are getting converted to red mist by our air power doing what their told by the POS, while he's putting out radio/TV bits on how he and his POS sons wont leave, while no doubt negotiating with some country where he will go if he's forced out.

We'd save the lives of FAR more civilians, troops on all sides, damage to infrastructure, etc by directly targeting him vs the current approach.

What am I missing here?

[montanadave]

And I'm still trying to figure out why not. Ghadaffi is the problem, he's no longer seen as the legit ruler of the country by most countries worth giving a damn about, and he's directly responsible for the death of Americans and others and funded terrorism, etc for decades until he decided he wanted to play nice.

What moral code are we breaking by simply taking him out? We put our people in harms way, and his poor idiot "soldiers" are getting converted to red mist by our air power doing what their told by the POS, while he's putting out radio/TV bits on how he and his POS sons wont leave, while no doubt negotiating with some country where he will go if he's forced out.

We'd save the lives of FAR more civilians, troops on all sides, damage to infrastructure, etc by directly targeting him vs the current approach.

What am I missing here?

It's just semantics. We know Ghaddafi is the target, the Libyans know Ghaddafi is the target, and the Arab world knows Ghaddafi is the target. But the perception of a western country initiating another "regime change" in an Arab country is anathema to the Arab world, particularly if it's the U.S. So we couch our words and all pretend that, if and when Ghaddafi gets the ax, it's at the hands of his own countrymen rising up in revolt as opposed to foreign intervention.

Ghaddafi getting hung or shot be his own people plays a lot better on the Arab street then a picture of smoking rubble containing what used to be Ghaddafi and some blood-soaked kid holding a chunk of "Made in U.S.A." munitions.

As the popular expression goes, it's all just kabuki theater but, given how public sentiment can be so easily and quickly swayed by just a photo or piece of video, it's not inconsequential.

[austinN4]

Pentagon: Libya mission has cost US $550M so far

By PAULINE JELINEK , The Associated Press
Updated: 10:17 a.m. Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Published: 8:46 a.m. Tuesday, March 29, 2011

http://www.statesman.com/news/nation/pentagon-libya-mission-has-cost-us-550m-so-1357930.html

[WillBrink]

It's just semantics. We know Ghaddafi is the target, the Libyans know Ghaddafi is the target, and the Arab world knows Ghaddafi is the target. But the perception of a western country initiating another "regime change" in an Arab country is anathema to the Arab world, particularly if it's the U.S. So we couch our words and all pretend that, if and when Ghaddafi gets the ax, it's at the hands of his own countrymen rising up in revolt as opposed to foreign intervention.

Ghaddafi getting hung or shot be his own people plays a lot better on the Arab street then a picture of smoking rubble containing what used to be Ghaddafi and some blood-soaked kid holding a chunk of "Made in U.S.A." munitions.

As the popular expression goes, it's all just kabuki theater but, given how public sentiment can be so easily and quickly swayed by just a photo or piece of video, it's not inconsequential.

I guess I'm ignoring the regional context, but crap, If we, or anyone else could have pin pointed Hitler's exact location and taken him out, we would have. When did we decide taking out, directly, psychopathic dictators was a bad thing?

I know, PC stuff of our modern age. :shout:

Did I miss the memo? :D

[500grains]

I am still confused about whether I am supposed to be rooting for Al Quaeda or Al Qadaffi, as that seems to be the choice here.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQoT5dD40d6HLJjwg8FavNTyJmpcQQ_R1KTkKdGqh684aTTzHbkQ&t=1

[chadbag]

Libyan Rebels no Bargain for U.S - FoxNews.com


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/30/libyan-rebels-bargain/


--

[crusader377]

I think we need to stop the insanity with Libya now. Our policy makers are now considering arming and by default training the rebel forces which I believe is completely idiotic. There is growing amounts of evidence now that the Libyan rebels have links to Al-Qaeda. So are we going to arming and by default training groups that have links to an organization that murdered 3000 americans.:confused:

I think we need to step back from Libya and figure out who the rebels are before proceeding with another aircraft sortie or anything else.

Here are some links.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/connections-between-al-qaeda-and-libyan-rebels-run-deep/

[ForTehNguyen]

secret Obama order to arm Libyan rebels? To be honest, I wouldnt be surprised if this happened, we've done it in the past to our detriment.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330

But Sec State Clinton says no?
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/clinton-says-no-decision-arming-libyan-rebels-20110330-132400-322.html;_ylt=AuVOeYeXGPSZfskrK62FckiYn8h_;_ylu=X3oDMTNidXM0YjZvBHBrZwMyMDg2ODcwZi02M2ZkLTNlODItYmUzMi1kMDM5MjkwMDE4ODAEcG9zAzE1BHNlYwNNZWRpYVN0b3J5TGlzdAR2ZXIDZjc5OGE5YTgtNWIwYi0xMWUwLTliZmYtMTkwYmJmOWEzMTZh;_ylg=X3oDMTFjNjVhOWUzBGludGwDY2EEbGFuZwNlbi1jYQRwc3RhaWQDBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25zBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3

[500grains]

Please name one example when Hildabeets Klinton was not clueless.

[Magic_Salad0892]

This is retarded.

I thought Ghadaffi was affiliated with AQ?

[chadbag]

This is retarded.

I thought Ghadaffi was affiliated with AQ?

No. In fact he has been cooperating heavily in the fight against AQ and other Islamists, ever since he ditched his nuclear program.

[chadbag]

Our Allies, the Libyan Rebels - NYTimes.com


http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/a-civil-war-not-a-genocide/



-----


BBC News - Are Libyan rebels an al-Qaeda stalking horse?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12923579


---

[BrianS]

Pentagon: Libya mission has cost US $550M so far...

Or as Obama would call it, "chump change."

[ForTehNguyen]

This is retarded.

I thought Ghadaffi was affiliated with AQ?

Ghadaffi has actually been fighting Islam extremists for years. He wants a dictatorial govt not a theocracy.

[500grains]

And now I find out Ghadaffi is actually Jewish. So Obama has started a war with a Jewish head of state. wtf

http://mickeyboston.com/2011/02/22/muammar-ghadaffi-jewish-roots-fashion-and-vanity/

[variablebinary]

Supporting the rebels is bad juju.

Why?

The mainstream network media are way too gung-ho for the rebels. That alone is proof something stinks to high hell.

I'm not pro regime, or pro rebel. Let them kill each other. Taking sides before we even know what the deal is...not smart at all.

[500grains]

The mainstream network media are way too gung-ho for the rebels. That alone is proof something stinks to high hell.
.

There is some wisdom in this. When was the liberal media on the right side of any conflict? When I was a kid they were pro-VC and even that turd Walter Cronkite declared the war lost after our forces had all but destroyed NV's military during the Tet offensive. LBJ was making the same mistakes then as our Usurper-in-Chief now, promising "limited war" and promising that he would not invade N. Vietnam.

[stifled]

There is some wisdom in this. When was the liberal media on the right side of any conflict? When I was a kid they were pro-VC and even that turd Walter Cronkite declared the war lost after our forces had all but destroyed NV's military during the Tet offensive. LBJ was making the same mistakes then as our Usurper-in-Chief now, promising "limited war" and promising that he would not invade N. Vietnam.

Entering wars we can't win the way we are fighting has been the US's hobby for the past decade. We could at least get out of them eventually if we stopped letting the media decide what is necessary to win a war instead of generals.

[500grains]

So I guess the war is over now?



WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon is about to pull its attack planes out of the international air campaign in Libya, hoping NATO partners can take up the slack.

The announcement Thursday drew incredulous reactions from some in Congress who wondered aloud why the Obama administration would bow out of a key element of the strategy for protecting Libyan civilians and crippling Muammar Qaddafi's army.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/01/end-air-combat-role-libya-qaddafi-makes-gains/#ixzz1IWi8tUaI

[ForTehNguyen]

Entering wars we can't win the way we are fighting has been the US's hobby for the past decade. We could at least get out of them eventually if we stopped letting the media decide what is necessary to win a war instead of generals.

Actually last half century, started various wars we haven't won especially domestic wars like war of poverty and drugs. Drugs and poverty are winning

Real good Reason TV article on "Obama's War of Choice"
http://reason.com/archives/2011/04/04/obamas-war-of-choice

[chadbag]

General: US may consider sending troops into Libya

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42468330/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa/