Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: blacken700 on March 22, 2011, 03:36:25 PM
-
People close to Libya's embattled leader Moammar Gadhafi are reaching out to allies around the world exploring their "options," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told ABC News' Diane Sawyer today, and the U.S. government has gotten unconfirmed reports that at least one of Gadhafi's sons has been killed.
"Some of it is theater. Some of it is, you know, kind of, shall we say game playing, to try to do one message to one group, another message to somebody else," she added. "A lot of it is just the way he behaves. It's somewhat unpredictable. But some of it, we think, is exploring. You know, what are my options, where could I go, what could I do. And we would encourage that."
Clinton said she's also heard reports that one of Gadhafi's sons may have been killed in the air strikes. But she added that the "evidence is not sufficient" to confirm.
As coalition airstrikes attacked Gadhafi's military assets for the fourth day in a row, Clinton expressed optimism about an early handover, saying the United States would transfer leadership to another country within days. She downplayed concerns about a fracture in the coalition.
"It will be days. Whether it's by Saturday or not depends on the evaluation made by our military commanders along with our allies and partners," she said.
-
Yeah ok blackass. Hillary herself needs to be held to account for her bullshit.
-
held accountable for what
-
I don`t see a point to this Libyan invasion. The Bush Doctrine rears its head yet again.
-
I believe leaving Gadhafi and his family alone would have been the best thing to do as dictators tend not to tolerate religious tribalism or extremism. This is most likely what they will get if Gadhafi goes. Libya is still tribalistic and you can bet that the zealots amongst them are just itching for their own rise to power or worse, embroil the country in an endless civil war amongst different religious sects.
At least Gadhafi, like Saddam, had a firm handle on the religious terroristic lunatics.
-
he'll leave. obama at 55% gallup in 2 weeks. this shit is like clockwork.
-
I believe leaving Gadhafi and his family alone would have been the best thing to do as dictators tend not to tolerate religious tribalism or extremism. This is most likely what they will get if Gadhafi goes. Libya is still tribalistic and you can bet that the zealots amongst them are just itching for their own rise to power or worse, embroil the country in an endless civil war amongst different religious sects.
At least Gadhafi, like Saddam, had a firm handle on the religious terroristic lunatics.
and idiot liberals...they keep them in check as well ;)
-
he'll leave. obama at 55% gallup in 2 weeks. this shit is like clockwork.
I`m not so certain about Obama gaining any large approval for this strike on Libya. I think it will have the opposite effect, perhaps his political Waterloo. The American public is rather stupid in general, but I do think they realize that this type of military action (along with the other wars we are involved in at the moment) is nothing but a waste of money that the United States cannot afford and they will remember that Obama rubber stamped the whole thing.
-
if we don't lose a single US life... we spend a couple hundred million... we save 100,000 lives in Libya... and we kill/push out the dickhead responsible for downing a US airliner...
I'd say he'll be looking pretty.
And if not, he can always tell his 2012 counterpart "hey dick, you also said we should invade..."
-
Spin spin spin.
-
if we don't lose a single US life... we spend a couple hundred million... we save 100,000 lives in Libya... and we kill/push out the dickhead responsible for downing a US airliner...
I'd say he'll be looking pretty.
And if not, he can always tell his 2012 counterpart "hey dick, you also said we should invade..."
Yeah, man. He's looking pretty, what with his own party members calling for his impeachment.
Americans didn't want another war and in the end they won't give a flying fuck about how many lives were saved. I'll bet they care about the $1+ billion we end up dropping on it.
-
Yeah, man. He's looking pretty, what with his own party members calling for his impeachment.
Oh no, i'm sure Kuscinich will back Newt or Sarah Palin in 2012 now...
Americans didn't want another war and in the end they won't give a flying fuck about how many lives were saved. I'll bet they care about the $1+ billion we end up dropping on it.
Obama can point to this in 2012 as his ability to work with other nations, actually get rid of terrorists, and get shit done quickly. (mind you, i'm not kneepadding, i'm telling you the strategy he could use in the debates to win voters).
I mean, maybe a Palin or T-Paw will tell us 'what they would have done...' to get the same results... but if it's 300 million in bombs and no lives lost, and dickhead leaves Libya, that's a win.
-
Oh no, i'm sure Kuscinich will back Newt or Sarah Palin in 2012 now...
Obama can point to this in 2012 as his ability to work with other nations, actually get rid of terrorists, and get shit done quickly. (mind you, i'm not kneepadding, i'm telling you the strategy he could use in the debates to win voters).
I mean, maybe a Palin or T-Paw will tell us 'what they would have done...' to get the same results... but if it's 300 million in bombs and no lives lost, and dickhead leaves Libya, that's a win.
Way too early to be declaring victory there, sunshine. Palin or T-Paw can just as easily point out of the research highlighting the number of jihadists coming out of eastern Libya and make the claim that "Obama aided and abetted terrorists, jihadists and other enemies of the every day American."
Not only that, there is nothing to say that Libya will be alright after Qaddafi leaves. I'm more inclined to believe that it will turn into an even biggest cluster-fuck than it is right now. AND then we you factor in the rest of the Middle East, and the abysmal foreign policy experience he's displayed during these revolutions, well, you've got yourself a right ol' field day of information to go at him with. Enough material that your little fairy-tale belief of him removing Qaddafi being spun positively won't make a bit of difference.
But you keep polishing that knob.
-
you just tell me when an A-lister announces he/she is running for president ;)
-
if we don't lose a single US life... we spend a couple hundred million... we save 100,000 lives in Libya... and we kill/push out the dickhead responsible for downing a US airliner...
I'd say he'll be looking pretty.
And if not, he can always tell his 2012 counterpart "hey dick, you also said we should invade..."
First of all this shit is not going to be controlled from the air, you think Gaddafi is stupid? See how fast his people switch to civilian clothing and fuck the whole NFZ up. Then what? We are in for another long drawn out insurgency, boots will be one the ground. And if boots don't hit the ground we just wasted a bunch of time and $ to accomplish not a fucking thing.
-
First of all this shit is not going to be controlled from the air, you think Gaddafi is stupid? See how fast his people switch to civilian clothing and fuck the whole NFZ up. Then what? We are in for another long drawn out insurgency, boots will be one the ground. And if boots don't hit the ground we just wasted a bunch of time and $ to accomplish not a fucking thing.
you might be right.
but honestly, I think he flees. ABC reporting he's looking for a backdoor out that will keep him from the gallows. He was about to lose his country, needed merc's just to keep his skin. The $ will dry up shortly... he probably has rnough left just to skate outta town.
-
you might be right.
but honestly, I think he flees. ABC reporting he's looking for a backdoor out that will keep him from the gallows. He was about to lose his country, needed merc's just to keep his skin. The $ will dry up shortly... he probably has rnough left just to skate outta town.
Gaddafi leaving does not equal end of civil war. All that does is leave a power vacuum with every crazy trying gain control. This shit is going to be a mess before all is said and done. The POTUS made the wrong choice, and made pretty clear that we had picked sides before the UN resolution even passed. The US is not a neutral "peace keeping" force in this. And further more since when dose the POTUS get to decide who runs a foreign country?
-
He's the brilliant obama he gets to choose.
-
He's the brilliant obama he gets to choose.
I can't wait until the entire ME is run by Islamist ::)
-
Gaddafi leaving does not equal end of civil war.
And further more since when dose the POTUS get to decide who runs a foreign country?
Did ya not see the tools we installed in afghanistan and iraq? ;)
-
Coalition slready falling apart.
-
Gadhafi is ridiculously unpredictable so reports of him looking for a way out are pointless until he actually leaves.
That said, he has been pretty much the only stabilizing force keeping Libya from all-out civil war. Libya is a country made up a handful of gigantic tribes and none of them like each other. Gadhafi's lifeblood has been his ability to play them off of each other as a means of maintaining power. He goes and I bet it goes to complete shit.
Did ya not see the tools we installed in afghanistan and iraq? ;)
You mean the tool that's butt buddies with the Taliban and taking money from Iran? Yeah, our track record of installing guys we like is stellar. ::)
-
Did ya not see the tools we installed in afghanistan and iraq? ;)
And how long are they going to last after the US leaves? About 2 seconds
-
And how long are they going to last after the US leaves? About 2 seconds
I thought karzai (still in power in afghanistan?) was an oil exec? And he's surely kept the drug trade alive, which we loooooooooove.
-
I thought karzai (still in power in afghanistan?) was an oil exec? And he's surely kept the drug trade alive, which we loooooooooove.
That fuckhead got ran out before and he will again, as soon as there is no US military to prop his sorry ass up
-
I thought karzai (still in power in afghanistan?) was an oil exec? And he's surely kept the drug trade alive, which we loooooooooove.
You mean the Karzai that is trying to make nice with the Taliban and Pakistan in an effort to save his ass when we leave while also taking Iranian cash on the side? Yeah man, he's really a tool of the US. ::)
-
Before letting bama have his way on lybia why don't we wait and see how egypt turns out first?
-
Before letting bama have his way on lybia why don't we wait and see how egypt turns out first?
240 will hail a MB-controlled Egypt as an Obama regime success.
-
That fuckhead got ran out before and he will again, as soon as there is no US military to prop his sorry ass up
Um, our military will be there propping his ass up for decades to come. We're still in SKorea. We're still in Japan for pete's sake.
Same with Iraq - they'll never kick us out and we'll always keep their sham leader propped up. Same with the opposition leadership that hilary met with - i'm sure they promised her the world once they got in.
-
Um, our military will be there propping his ass up for decades to come. We're still in SKorea. We're still in Japan for pete's sake.
Same with Iraq - they'll never kick us out and we'll always keep their sham leader propped up. Same with the opposition leadership that hilary met with - i'm sure they promised her the world once they got in.
We will probably keep bases in Iraq, Afghanistan I doubt it, the place can never be secured. Nuke the shithole and be done with it
-
We will probably keep bases in Iraq, Afghanistan I doubt it, the place can never be secured. Nuke the shithole and be done with it
Afghanistan? Google says we have 700 bases there. More each year, not less.
"IF/WHEN" there is ever a pipeline, it'll coincidentally follow the path of those bases.
Leaders form both parties want MORE bases, not less.
And the bases are an awesome line against aggression from China tomorrow, or 300 years from now.
The bulk of those bases are permanent, dude.
-
Gaddafi's forces: Bombed but not broken
As dictator stands firm, Britain lowers its expectations of 'victory'
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington, John Lichfield in Paris, Oliver Wright in London and Kim Sengupta in Ajdabiya
Wednesday, 23 March 2011
REUTERS
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/gaddafis-forces-bombed-but-not-broken-2250163.html
A defiant Gaddafi supporter at a naval facility in Tripoli damaged by coalition air strikes
The Western allies yesterday struggled to find a coherent strategy in Libya as Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's forces renewed attacks on rebel strongholds despite a no-fly zone and a fourth day of allied strikes against government military targets. In Washington, top officials insisted the US intended to hand over command of the operation to its allies within days, but wrangling within Nato continued yesterday along with confusion over what the mission was increasingly clear that despite the scale of the damage inflicted on Colonel Gaddafi's forces, the rebels were highly unlikely to achieve a military victory.
In London, a Government minister acknowledged the crisis could end in stalemate, and partition of the country. "A stable outcome where they weren't killing each other would, in a sense, be one way of achieving the humanitarian objective," the armed forces minister Nick Harvey told the BBC.
At the same time, he went further than any British minister yet and refused to rule out the deployment of British forces on the ground, claiming there was a clear distinction between sending in a full-scale occupation force – explicitly barred by the UN Security Council's Resolution 1973 – and a more limited operation.
Related articles
•Gaddafi vows he will never surrender and rails against 'crusade on Islam'
•Villagers who greeted downed US airmen are 'strafed by friendly fire'
•Regime takes its revenge on rebels after night of destruction
•Cameron: What looked like a triumph is beginning to seem a curse
•The human cost: 'We cannot treat them here – but we have no ambulances'
•Sarkozy: A leader losing friends at home and abroad
•Arab League: Support back on board, but consensus remains far from firm
•Partition: Dividing Libya in two may be rebels' best hope
•Nato's bombing of Serbia presents lessons for the assault on Gaddafi
•Mark Steel: It's Blair I feel really sorry for
•Adrian Hamilton: The end of the world as we know it
•Letters: Military action in Libya
Search the news archive for more stories
Asked how long Britain would be involved in the military operation in north Africa he replied: "How long is a piece of string? We don't know how long this is going to go on for."
President Barack Obama, who last night cut short a trip to Latin America to return to Washington, called key leaders to try to agree a co-ordinating command role for the alliance and reduce the risk of the US becoming bogged down in another war in a Muslim country. According to US officials, the heavy "front-end" phase of the intervention will soon be over, with the main objectives achieved.
Officials in France and Britain have been working on a plan to pass political control of the campaign to a "committee" of states providing military support to the no-fly zone but with operational control being run under the Nato command structure. This would be backed up by a wider international "Contact Group on Libya" – similar to the one set up to deal with the aftermath of the Kosovo conflict.
This would be at foreign-minister level and would include countries not included in the "no-fly" coalition. It would be charged with examining the "whole shape and nature of the on-going crisis", a Government source said. It would also be expected to have a role in any post-Gaddafi political reconstruction in Libya. The three-pronged plan is intended to defuse a dispute over the medium-term political leadership of the anti-Gaddafi coalition. The US, Britain and others want the campaign to be run by Nato, but Turkey and Germany oppose this.
Last night, there was no sign the heavy Western bombardment had shifted the balance decisively in favour of the poorly armed anti-Gaddafi forces. Libyan government forces were fighting back last night on the eastern front line near the key city of Ajdabiya. The counter-attack followed the failure of rebel forces to take the city on Sunday despite air attacks having destroyed regime tanks and artillery. By yesterday evening, there were reports that the regime's troops were moving south once again to threaten the route to Tobruk and the Egyptian border.
US Admiral Samuel J Locklear, the on-scene commander of allied forces, confirmed last night that civilians were under attack by government forces in Misrata, Libya's third-largest city. The coalition was "considering all options", he said.
In Washington, complaints were growing yesterday from some Democrats as well as Republicans – with some saying the US was doing too little, others that the President was dragging the country into a costly conflict without properly consulting Congress. But Mr Obama himself has only added to the uncertainty by reiterating the US still wanted Col Gaddafi to leave power, although the formal goal of the intervention was merely to protect Libya's civilian population.
In one encouraging sign for Washington and London however, two Qatari fighter jets arrived at a Greek base on Crete yesterday. This brings nearer the direct Arab involvement in enforcing the no-fly zone that the US has been seeking to dispel the impression of another solely Western onslaught against a Muslim country,.
The French Foreign Minister, Alain Juppé, told the French parliament yesterday that a compromise deal would see a "political steering group" of coalition foreign ministers plus the Arab League take over political direction of the air campaign. Mr Juppé said the idea had been accepted by Britain and others and that the first meeting of foreign ministers would take place in Paris, London or Brussels in the "next few days". It was not immediately clear whether the US would participate in this group.
Avoiding a straightforward "Nato" political label is crucial, France argues, because the Arab world is hostile to the Atlantic alliance. It would also be politically cumbersome because of the opposition to the Libyan operations by Germany, Turkey and other Nato members. There is also an unspoken reason for French reluctance to hand over the campaign to Nato: Mr Sarkozy hopes to wring all the domestic political advantage he can from prolonging France's leading role in the Libyan operations.
The British Government too was last night involved in a round of frantic diplomatic activity to patch together a new coalition to take over policing the Libyan no-fly zone, as David Cameron spent much of the afternoon in talks with the Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister, in an attempt to persuade the Kingdom to provide symbolic financial support. Apart from Qatar, no Arab state has committed military forces to the no-fly zone but British government sources said they were hopeful that other Middle Eastern countries – in particular the United Arab Emirates – would be prepared to provide support to operations even in a minor way.
"What we are looking at essentially is a Nato-plus coalition rather like we have with Isaf in Afghanistan," one British official said.
-
Afghanistan? Google says we have 700 bases there. More each year, not less.
"IF/WHEN" there is ever a pipeline, it'll coincidentally follow the path of those bases.
Leaders form both parties want MORE bases, not less.
And the bases are an awesome line against aggression from China tomorrow, or 300 years from now.
The bulk of those bases are permanent, dude.
Well see but the info I get from the military types doesn't support your claim
-
Well see but the info I get from the military types doesn't support your claim
i'm sure it won't be that many bases for a hundred years.
But if we're keeping 50,000 in South Korea, I'm sure it'll be 50k in afghanistan.
-
i'm sure it won't be that many bases for a hundred years.
But if we're keeping 50,000 in South Korea, I'm sure it'll be 50k in afghanistan.
Yeah, we're going to keep 50k in Afghanistan. ::)
Why do you constantly pull numbers out of your ass to support whatever idiotic argument you're making?
-
Yeah, we're going to keep 50k in Afghanistan. ::)
Why do you constantly pull numbers out of your ass to support whatever idiotic argument you're making?
Whether it's 10k or 100k.... we're gonna have people there forever. if you have an example of a country where we put bases - then left them all and didn't leave thousands of men there, please share it.
And make it one that's a hotbed of terrorist activity as well.
-
Whether it's 10k or 100k.... we're gonna have people there forever. if you have an example of a country where we put bases - then left them all and didn't leave thousands of men there, please share it.
And make it one that's a hotbed of terrorist activity as well.
Vietnam.